A4 LAYOUT ANTHROPOLOGIA

ΔΗΜΟΓΡΑΦΙΚΗ
ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΛΟΓΙΑ

DEMOGRAPHIC
ANTHROPOLOGY



An evolutionary and cross-cultural view on Akninevoinluvtieonsatmryeanndt cbroiasss-ecusltourfagl vriaewndonpkairneinnvtess,tmaeunnt btisasaens odf gurnancdlpeasrents,
in Greece, Germany, the USAauanntsdaondthunecrlecsoinuGnrtereicees, Germany, the USA and other countries

An evolutionary and cross-cultural view on kin investment biases
of grandparents, aunts and uncles in Greece, Germany, the USA

and other countries

Alexander Pashos

Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology

Abstract

Research on kin investment of relatives found asymmetric caregiving patterns of grandparents and
aunts and uncles. In most societies, maternal relatives provide more care than paternal for
grandchildren, nieces and nephews, and female relatives provide more care than male.
Accordingly, maternal grandmothers and maternal aunts are the most important caregivers.
Evolutionary researchers interpreted the kin caregiving biases mainly due to evolutionary
paternity uncertainty. A mother can always be certain that her child is genetic related to her. In the
paternal lineage, there is genetic uncertainty and therefore more reluctance in childcare.

The results of recent studies, however, argue against the paternity certainty theory as explanation
for the kin investment biases. There is more cultural variety than often expected, which is not in
accordance with the theory. In traditional rural Greece, paternal grandparents invested more than
maternal grandparents in grandchildren. Other more patrilateral kin investment biases were found
among Kiptchak Turk populations, Chinese and rural farmers in Iowa, USA. In addition, orthodox
Jews, who are expected to have higher paternity certainty, are not more matrilateral than other
Americans.

In my own research, I found not only cross-cultural variety, but also that the parent-to-kin-
caregiver relationships strongly influence the relatives’ child-care. The evidently stronger female
family ties are an important proximate cause for higher female and matrilateral kin caregiving.
Therefore matrilineal kin investment is a universal trend, especially in modern societies. In
societies with traditional social rules, cultural kinship relationships are also influenced by
opposing evolutionary strategies such as son-biased investment.

Keywords: Kin investment; Caregiving biases; Grandparents; Aunts and uncles; Greek traditional society

Introduction
The human social behavior of child rearing is characterized not only by parental child-care, but
also by the caregiving of other close relatives. Homo sapiens’ prolonged childhood means that
there is the need intensive child-care. Parents require help from other relatives of the child, such
as grandparents or aunts and uncles. From an evolutionary point of view, a crucial question is
whether close kin caregiving could be explained along with the theories of nepotistic altruism and
kin selection. The more closely an individual is genetically related to offspring, the more this
individual should be likely to care for the related child. Thus, from an evolutionary point of view
it is interesting to observe which relatives have a special role as caregivers and which differences
in kin caregiving exist.

Asymmetric Kin Investment and Paternity Certainty Hypothesis

Although the degree of kinship to grandparents, aunts and uncles is always 25 % on average, -203-
empirical research on the caregiving of relatives has found asymmetric patterns of caregiving
intensity, which appear to be cross-cultural universal (Hoffman 1979/80, Hartshorne and
Manaster 1982, Littlefield and Rushton 1986, Euler and Weitzel 1996, Gaulin et al. 1997,
Steinbach and Henke 1998, Uhlenberg and Hammill 1998, Pashos 2000, Hoier et al. 2001,

187

Alexander Pashos

Alexander Pashos

McBurney et al. 2002, Laham et al. 2005, Pollet et al. 2006, Pashos and McBurney 2008, Pollet et
al. 2009, Danielsbacka et al. 2011, Danielsbacka and Tanskanen 2012). In most societies,
maternal relatives invest more on average than paternal relatives in grandchildren or nieces and
nephews, and female relatives invest more than male. Hence, maternal grandmothers or maternal
aunts care the most, and paternal grandfathers or paternal uncles care the least for related children.
This pattern of grandparental caregiving appears to be a strong effect that cannot be explained by
different grandparental age or residential distance (see for an overview Euler and Michalski 2007,
Euler 2011)

Evolutionary researchers (Russell and Wells 1987, Smith 1988) have interpreted the kin
caregiving biases as being mainly due to evolutionary paternity certainty. A mother can always be
certain that her child is genetically related to her. In the paternal lineage, however, there is genetic
uncertainty and therefore more reluctance to be involved in childcare. As a result, grandmothers
should care more than grandfathers for grandchildren, maternal grandparents should care more
than paternal, and finally, as a combination of the first two postulates, grandparental caregiving
should follow the order, maternal grandmother cares the most, with the maternal grandfather and
paternal grandmother being in the middle, and the paternal grandfather caring the least for
grandchildren, because he has the highest grandparental uncertainty (fig.1). The paternity
certainty hypothesis has also been applied to the asymmetric caregiving of aunts and uncles
(Gaulin et al. 1997, Hoier et al. 2001). Genetic relatedness to a sister's child is more certain than
to a brother's child (fig. 2).

Degree of Relationship to Grandparents

MMaateternrnaal l MMaateternrnaal l PPaateternrnaal l PPaateterrnnaal l Fig 1. Paternity certainty hypothesis
GGrarannddmmooththeerr GGrarannddfafaththeerr GGrarannddmmooththeerr GGrraannddfafaththeerr and degree of kinship to grandparents.
(+) means certainty of relatedness, (-)
+ - + - uncertainty of relatedness. p stands for
paternity certainty (e.g., p = .9 means
1/2 MMooththeerr 1/2 p 1/2 FFaaththeerr 1/2 p 10% paternity uncertainty in a
society).
+ -
+ -

1/4 1/4 p 1/4 p 1/4 p²

GGrraannddcchhiilldd

Degree of Relationship to Aunts and Uncles

MMaateterrnnaal l MMaateterrnnaal l PPaateterrnnaal l PPaateterrnnaal l Fig. 2. Paternity certainty
AAuunntt UUnncclele AAuunntt UUnncclele hypothesis and degree of kinship to
aunts and uncles of the first
± ± ± ± degree. (+) means certainty of
relatedness, (-) uncertainty of
1/4 + 1/4 p² SSisisteterr// 1/4 + 1/4 p² 1/4 + 1/4 p² BBrrooththeerr// 1/4 + 1/4 p² relatedness, (±) half-certain
MMooththeerr FFaaththeerr [through mother], half-uncertain
[through father]. p stands for
++ - - paternity certainty.

1/8 + 1/8 p² 1/8 + 1/8 p² 1/8 + 1/8 p³ 1/8 + 1/8 p³

NNeepphheeww oorr NNiieeccee

-204-

188

An evolutionary and cross-cultural view on kAinnevionluvteiosntamryeanntdbcrioasss-ecsulotufraglrvaienwdopnakrineinntvse,stamuennt tbsiaasensdofugrnacnldepsarents,
in Greece, Germany, the USAaauntds aontdhuenrclcesoiunnGtrreieecse, Germany, the USA and other countries

What Does not Fit to the Theory? The Cases of Greeks and Orthodox Jews

However, there are also studies that contradict the paternity certainty hypothesis as an explanation
for the differential kin caregiving of grandparents and of aunts and uncles. Pashos (1998, 2000)
investigated grandparental caregiving in an empirical cross-cultural questionnaire study in Greece
and in Germany. Old traditional Greek mainland culture is characterized by certain traits that
designate the paternal grandparents as the intensive caregivers. There is some continuity of
patrilineally inherited lands, there is patrilocal residence, and paternal grandparents also tend to
have the social duty of caring for grandchildren, especially for sons and heirs. However, the
paternity certainty theory expects the maternal grandparents, especially the maternal grandmother,
to be the most intensive caregivers for the grandchildren. The results of the questionnaire study
revealed a differential picture. Whereas in Germany and urban Greece the grandparental
caregiving was in the predicted order as postulated by the paternity certainty hypothesis, in rural
Greece, paternal grandparents cared more than maternal grandparents for grandchildren (see
figure 3). The higher level of caregiving by the paternal grandparents could not be explained by
the paternity certainty theory.

A further result that unintentionally contradicts the paternity certainty hypothesis was a
comparison study of aunt and uncle investment by McBurney et al. (2002). The authors compared
the kin investment biases of orthodox Jews, who are expected to have high paternity certainty,
with that of other Americans from Pittsburgh. Among the orthodox Jews, the caregiving
asymmetries of aunts and uncles were as pronounced as in the Pittsburgh sample; i.e., the
assumed higher paternity certainty of the orthodox Jews had no diminishing effect on the kin
investment asymmetries. This is not in accordance with the paternity certainty hypothesis, so
paternity certainty cannot completely explain asymmetric pattern in kin caregiving as a proximate
cause.

Germans and Greeks as well as Urban and Rural Greeks Fig. 3. Caregiving of
grandparents in Greece and
Paternal vs. Maternal Grandparents Germany. 7-point rating scale
from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very
5,5 much): "Wie sehr haben sich
Deine Großeltern um Dich
GM GM GM GM GM Mean values: gekümmert, als Du ein Kind
5,0 GF GF GM (unter 7 Jahre) warst ?", "Πόσο
GM Paternal GM πολύ σε φρόντιζαν η γιαγιά και ο
4,5 Greeks GF GF Paternal GF παπούς σου, όταν ήσουν παιδί
4,0 GM GF Maternal GM (κάτω των 7 ετών);" [From
3,5 GF GF Maternal GF Pashos and Christiansen 2000:]

3,0 GF Urban Greeks Rural Greeks
2,5

Germans

Because of the discrepancies of the paternity certainty hypothesis with recent empirical results,
some researchers have proposed combination models as theoretical explanation for the
asymmetric kin investment. These evolutionary theories explain the asymmetric kin caregiving
through both the paternity certainty theory and other evolutionary explanations such as sex-
specific reproductive strategies (Euler and Weitzel 1996, Gaulin et al.1997). Some authors have
also differentiated between the two main effects of asymmetric kin investment, assuming that they
have to be explained separately (Pashos 2000, McBurney et al. 2002): the matrilateral bias, i.e.
higher level of caregiving by maternal relatives compared to paternal relatives, and the sex effect,
i.e. higher level of caregiving by female kinship compared to male kinship.

Alternative Explanation – Matrilineal Family Ties -205-
However, also other theories have been proposed to explain biased kin investment, such as the
hypothesis of matrilineal family ties (Pashos 2000). Empirical research shows that women have

189

Alexander Pashos

Alexander Pashos

closer family ties than men (Rossi and Rossi 1990, Salmon 1999). Thus, the maternal lineage is
strengthened over the paternal lineage. These stronger matrilineal family bonds could also result
in different levels of child-care, and hence explain the asymmetric kin investment of grandparents
and aunts and uncles.

The matrilineal family ties hypothesis, however, is a proximate explanation for the immediate
cause of a behavior, whereas the paternity certainty hypothesis is an ultimate explanation for the
distal cause of the evolutionary development of a behavior. Thus the ultimate causes question
would be: why are the matrilineal family relationships stronger in most modern societies? In
mammals, kinship can easily be detected through the mother-child bond. However, what is the
role of parental certainty for this evolutionary development? Advocates of the paternity certainty
hypothesis as a cause for asymmetric kin investment, often implicitly assume that humans might
recognise kin mainly by olfactory perception or physical resemblance. Alternatively, there is the
assumption that there is a complex psychological module for kin detection, such as by means of
perinatal association of an individual with its mother and duration of co-residence with parental
caregivers (Lieberman et al. 2007). However, none of these theories match with the actual
empirical data of kin investment which show both universality and certain cultural variety.

In a recent survey from Pittsburgh, USA, Pashos and McBurney (2008, Pashos 2007) investigated
the kin investment of grandparents, aunts and uncles in a two-generation questionnaire study in
order to test the different evolutionary theories on a proximate level. In an anonymous
questionnaire, 188 subjects estimated their relationships to parents, grandparents, aunt and uncles
regarding the received investment in childhood, emotional closeness and resemblance. Investment
was defined as including donations, money, time, and help/protection, as compared with the
overall resources the caregiver was able to give.

The ratings were made on a 7-point scale. In a second, separate questionnaire, the parents of the
participants rated their emotional closeness to their own parents, i.e. the grandparents of the
participants, and to their sisters and brothers, i.e. the aunts and uncles of the participants. The
main question of the study was whether the relationship between parents and grandparents or
aunts and uncles has an influence on the investment and emotional closeness of these relatives to
grandchildren or nieces and nephews.

The results of a regression analysis show that the emotional closeness of the subjects’ parents to
the grandparents highly influenced the investment of the grandparents in their grandchildren,
especially among the maternal grandmothers (beta from .30 to .43). The influence of residential
distance on grandparental investment, however, was comparatively much smaller (beta from -.08
to -.28). The same was true for the investment made by aunts and uncles. Parent-sibling closeness
greatly influenced the caregiving of aunts and uncles for their nieces and nephews (beta from .29
to .44). The emotional closeness between parent and sibling played a particular major role in the
kin investment of aunts (beta = .42 and .44). The influence of residential distance, however, was
much smaller and predominantly not significant (beta from -.07 to .20).

These results show that the parent-grandparent relationship greatly affects the different
grandchild-care of the four grandparents, and the parent-sibling relationship greatly affects the
different care of aunts and uncles for nieces and nephews. The parent-to-kin-caregiver
relationship appears to be crucial as proximate cause. However, the parent-kin relationship cannot
completely explain the caregiving asymmetries measured by questionnaire studies, because the
difference in emotional closeness to parents between men and women was only slight. Women
seem to be generally perceived as better caregivers than men. The questions of why, in most
cultures, women have closer family ties than men, and why there are exceptions, such as in
traditional rural Greece, where patrilateral family ties prevail, have not yet been completely
answered. Paternity certainty might play a role but it is clear that, as a proximate cause, paternity
certainty cannot sufficiently explain kin caregiving asymmetries.

An additional interesting new result of the Pittsburgh two-generation study was found among the
kin caregiving of maternal aunts. The maternal aunts cared much more than all other aunts and
uncles for their nieces and nephews. Although there is normally a correlation between the parent-

-206-

190

An evolutionary and cross-cultural view on kAinnevionluvteiosntamryeanntdbcrioasss-ecsulotufraglrvaienwdopnakrineinntvse,stamuennt tbsiaasensdofugrnacnldepsarents,
in Greece, Germany, the USAaauntds aontdhuenrclcesoiunnGtrreieecse, Germany, the USA and other countries

sibling closeness and the investment of aunts and uncles in nieces and nephews, there was one
particular exception: the younger sisters of the mother.

The analysis results revealed that younger maternal aunts, i.e. the younger sisters of the mother,
cared much more than other maternal aunts for nieces and nephews and were much closer to
them. From an evolutionary point of view, this result could be explained by young girls' learning
of mothering behavior. When younger sisters, who often do not already have their own children,
care for the children of their older sisters, they are learning the nurturing and caregiving behavior
that is necessary for child-care. The training of mothering behavior of young girls is biologically
advantageous and can often be observed in modern as well as in traditional societies.

Patrilateral Bias for Aunts and Uncles in Greece?

An interesting question in this connection is whether there is also a patrilateral bias in aunt and
uncle caregiving in traditional Greece. In traditional Greek culture, kinship is recognized
bilaterally (e.g. Campbell 1963). Kinship terms of patrilineal and matrilineal relatives are not
distinguished (so-called Eskimo type system). However, since grandchildren are particular close
to their paternal grandparents, the question arises of whether they are also closer to their other
paternal kin compared to their maternal kin.

To answer the question of asymmetric kin investment by aunts and uncles in traditional rural
Greece, new data had to be collected. However, in modern Greece, the traditional rural living
conditions have meanwhile changed more and more in the course of time. Nowadays, traditional
rural societies are hard to find in Greece. However, in a recent cooperative field research by the
author together with Nikolaos Xirotiris and Konstantinos Zafeiris, we were able to survey 143
subjects in the village of Livadi, Municipality Elassona, together with a comparative sample of
predominantly 55 elderly subjects, mainly from the village of Lefkopigi, Kozani, and other rural
sites in Greece. Livadi is a Vlach village close to the Mt. Olympus, with a population that varies
from 2.000-3.000 inhabitants. Due to its remoteness, traditional behaviors may have survived
longer than in other regions of Greece.

The results show that in both Greek subsamples, no patrilateral bias–such as for grandparents–
could be found for aunt and uncle investment in nieces and nephews or the emotional closeness to
them. This result illustrates that in traditional Greece aunt and uncle caregiving is bilateral such as
the perception of both matrilateral and patrilateral aunts and uncles as kinsmen.

Cross-cultural Comparisons -207-

One might argue that the patrilateral bias of grandparental caregiving in traditional mainland
Greece’s culture might be rather a special case (e.g. Michalski and Shackelford 2005).
Matrilateral kin caregiving appears to be universal, at least in Western cultures (e.g. Steinbach and
Henke 1998, Danielsbacka and Tanskanen 2012), and in seemingly patrilineal societies, not
patrilateral but matrilateral kin investment was found to be advantageous for child survival (see
Sear et al. 2000 for rural Gambia). Many authors have therefore stressed the universality of
matrilateral kin caregiving biases, while often ignoring or even questioning cultural differences
(e.g. Sear et al. 2002, Gibson and Mace 2005). Evolutionary research should hence investigate
whether there are other examples of non-matrilateral biases in kin investment among Western and
non-Western traditional societies. The sociologist King (King et al. 2003) found that adolescents
from rural farms in Iowa had more frequent contact with their paternal grandparents and received
more help from them than youth from urban Southern California. Furthermore, very recently,
Kaptijn et al. (2013) found that in China, grandparents provided more childcare for sons’ children
than for daughters’ children. The grandchild-care was hence patrilateral.

However from an evolutionary point of view, the measurements ‘frequency of contact’ and
‘taking regular care for grandchildren’ are not necessary a reflection of an actual preference to
invest in patrilateral grandchildren. This is because farm children in Iowa also lived closer to their

191

Alexander Pashos

Alexander Pashos

paternal grandparents (King and Elder 1995), and grandparents and grandchildren in China mostly
lived patrilocally (Kaptijn et al. 2013). A great advantage of the data from rural Greece is that
rural Greeks traditionally married endogamous. In elderly people therefore all grandparents often
lived in the same village, such as in Livadi (or, if villages were smaller, in a neighboring village).
In Livadi, endogamy was a rule in the past. Thus, both maternal and paternal grandparents were
usually accessible during the childhood of the older inhabitants we interviewed. Detailed results
from earlier studies already showed that in such a subsample, where only respondents were
included with both maternal and paternal grandparents who lived nearby, still paternal
grandparents provided more care for grandchildren than maternal (Pashos 2000).

In a very recent study by the author, an additional example of non-matrilateral kin caregiving
could be found. Pilot data from Kirghizstan with a small sample size (65 respondents, subsample
of 25 for aunts and uncles) showed that rural Kyrgyz (Kyrgyz are a Kiptchak Turk population)
received more help and by their paternal grandparents and were also closer to them (Pashos et al.
2012a). Moreover, the paternal grandfather, who has a dominating role in this society, was not
less close than the paternal grandmother (such as the case in rural Greece). Furthermore, paternal
uncles helped nieces and nephews more and were closer than any other aunt or uncle (Pashos et
al. 2012b). This is, however, probably due to the exogamous patrilocality, and maybe also due to
the Omaha kinship system in rural Kirgizstan. Paternal uncles are the only parents’ siblings who
live spatially close to nieces and nephews during their entire adulthood. In Kyrgyz kinship
terminology they are called by the same term as father.

In a greater study of overall 370 respondents, we surveyed also a cultural related ethnic group, the
Bashkirs (also a Kiptchak Turk population), who live in southeast Bashkortostan within the
Russian Federation (Pashos et al. 2012a, 2012b). Bashkirs were settled a few hundred years ago,
but are still patrilocal (the youngest son inherits the parental house) and exogamous. Interestingly,
we found only a slight tendency towards paternal grandparents in the Baymak region of
Bashkortostan, where we collected the data. If we consider that in Baymak the terms for maternal
and paternal grandparents were not different and modernization pressure during the communist
times was prevalent, we can conclude that the data probably reflect a process of modernization
from a traditional to a modern society.

Conclusions

Worldwide research on kin caregiving biases shows that both a universal trend of matrilateral
caregiving as well as cultural variety in kin caregiving exists. If family life is not determined by
traditional cultural rules, such as in Modern societies, the stronger relationships of women to their
families win the upper hand and the nuclear family tends to be more matrilateral in terms of
relationship quality and investment in children.

However in traditional societies, family duties and emotional closeness to relatives appear to be
strongly influenced by social rules which are culturally inherited from generation to generation.
These socio-cultural rules might follow different social or evolutionary mechanisms, such as for
example son-biased investment. The cultural and evolutionary framework may lead to patrilateral
investment in grandchildren or possibly also in nieces and nephews. Patrilateral or patrilineal
investment then superimposes the universal matrilineal trend.

Still the evolutionary mechanisms behind the various human family systems and the human
kinship relationships are only little known. However, important attempts have been already made
in the 1970s (e.g. Alexander 1979, Van den Berghe 1979). Also the cross-cultural investigation of
kin investment biases is making an important contribution towards understanding nepotistic
altruism among humans. The question of the causes of kin caregiving biases in grandparents and
other close family members is closely connected with the understanding of the evolutionary origin
and formation of grandparenthood and the evolutionary significance of grandmotherhood for the
second half of the female life cycle (Hawkes et al. 1998, Hrdy 1999, Voland et al. 2005).

-208-

192

An evolutionary and cross-cultural view on Akninevoinluvtieonsatmryeanndt cbroiasss-ecusltourfagl vriaewndonpkairneinnvtess,tmaeunnt btisasaens odf gurnancdlpeasrents,
in Greece, Germany, the USAauanntsdaondthunecrlecsoinuGnrtereicees, Germany, the USA and other countries

Research on biased kin investment hence helps to explore universal patterns of human family-care
for children and thus to provide insights into the social structures of our paleolithic ancestors

References

Alexander, R. D. (1979). Darwinism and human affairs. Seattle: University of Washington Press..
Euler, H. A. (2011). Grandparents and extended kin. In: Salmon, C. A. and Shackelford, T. K. (eds.). The

Oxford handbook of evolutionary family psychology. New York: Oxford University Press: 181-210.
Euler, H. A. and Michalski, R. L. (2007). Grandparental and Extended Kin Relationships. In: Salmon, C.

and Shackelford, T. K. (eds.) Family relationships: An evolutionary perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press: 185-204.
Euler, H. A. and Weitzel, B. (1996). Discriminative grandparental solicitude as reproductive strategy.
Human Nature 7: 39-59.
Campbell, J. K. (1963). The kindred in a Greek mountain community. In: Pitt-Rivers J. (ed.).
Mediterranean countrymen: essays in the social anthropology of the Mediterranean. Paris: Mouton &
Co: 73-96.
Danielsbacka, M, Tanskanen, A. O., Jokela, M. and Rotkirch, A. (2011). Grandparental child care in
Europe: Evidence for preferential investment in more certain kin. Evolutionary Psychology 9: 3-24.
Danielsbacka, M., and Tanskanen, A. O. (2012). Adolescent grandchildren’s perceptions of grandparents’
involvement in UK: An interpretation from life course and evolutionary theory perspective. European
Journal of Ageing 9: 329–341.
Gaulin. S. J. C., McBurney, D. H. and Brakeman-Wartell, S. L. (1997). Matrilateral biases in the investment
of aunts and uncles: a consequence and measure of paternity uncertainty. Human Nature 8: 139-151.
Gibson, M. A. and Mace, R. (2005). Helpful grandmothers in rural Ethiopia: a study of the effect of kin on
child survival and growth. Evolution and Human Behavior 26: 469-482.
Hartshorne, T. S., and Manaster, G. J. (1982). The relationship with grandparents: contact, importance,
role conception. International Journal of Aging and Human Development 15: 233-245.
Hawkes, K., O'Connell, J. F., Blurton Jones, N. G., Alvarez, H. and Charnov, E. L. (1998).
Grandmothering, menopause, and the evolution of human life histories. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 95(3): 1336-1339.
Hrdy, S. B. (1999). Mother nature: A history of mothers, infants, and natural selection. NY: Pantheon
Books.
Hoffman, E. (1979-80). Young adults’ relations with their grandparents: an exploratory study. International
Journal of Aging and Human Development 10: 299-310.
Hoier, S., Euler, H. A. and Hänze, M. (2001). Diskriminative Fürsorglichkeit von Tanten und Onkeln.
Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie 22: 206-215.
King, V. and Elder, G. H. Jr. (1995). American children view their grandparents: Linked lives across three
rural generations. Journal of Marriage and the Family 57: 165-178.
King, V., Silverstein, M., Elder, G. H. Jr, Bengtson, V. L. and Conger, R. D. (2003). Relations with
grandparents: rural midwest versus urban Southern California. Journal of Family Issues 24: 1044-1069.
Laham, S. M., Gonsalkorale, K. and von Hippel, W. (2005). Darwinian grandparenting: preferential
investment in more certain kin. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31: 63–72.
Lieberman, D., Tooby, J. and Cosmides, L. (2007). The architecture of human kin detection. Nature 445:
727-31.
Littlefield, C. H. and Rushton, J. P. (1986). When a child dies: the sociobiology of bereavement. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 51: 797-802.
McBurney, D. H., Simon, J., Gaulin, S. J. C. and Geliebter, A. (2002). Matrilateral biases in the investment
of aunts and uncles: Replication in a population presumed to have high paternity certainty. Human
Nature 13: 391-402.
Pashos, A. (2000). Does paternal uncertainty explain discriminative grandparental solicitude? A cross-
cultural study in Greece and Germany. Evolution and Human Behavior 21: 97-109.
Pashos, A. (2007). Asymmetric kin investment of grandparents, aunts and uncles: a two-generation-study
from Pittsburgh. In: Bodzsár, È. B. and Zsákai, A. (eds.). New perspectives and problems in
anthropology. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing: 57-66.
Pashos, A. (2010). The evolutionary versus socio-economic view on grandparenthood: What are the
grandparents’ underlying motivations? Invited and reviewed commentary on Coall, D. and Hertwig
R.,“Grandparental investment: past, present, and future”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33: 33f.
Pashos, A. and Christiansen, K. (1998). Diskriminative großelterliche Fürsorge - ein biologisches
Phänomen? Eine Universalitätsstudie Deutschland-Griechenland. Homo 49 (Suppl.): 73.

-209-

193

Alexander Pashos

Alexander Pashos

Pashos, A. and Christiansen, K. (2000). Diskriminative großelterliche Fürsorge - ein biologisches Problem?
In: Schultz M et al. (eds.). Schnittstelle Mensch - Umwelt in Vergangenheit, Gegenwart und Zukunft.
Göttingen: Cuvillier: 99-102.

Pashos. A, and McBurney, D. H. (2008). Kin relationships and the caregiving biases of grandparents, aunts
and uncles: A two generational questionnaire study. Human Nature 19: 311-330.

Pashos. A., Schwarz, S., Kinjabaeva, G., Ismailbekova, A., Koesbardiati, T., Zafeiris, K. N. and Xirotiris,
N. I. (2012a). Biased kin-caregiving by grandparents, aunts and uncles: A cross-cultural comparative
study. Paper presented at the 24th Annual Meeting of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society,
Albuquerque (NM), 13-17 June 2012.

Pashos, A., Schwarz, S., Kinjabaeva, G., Ismailbekova, A., Koesbardiati, T., Zafeiris, K. N. and Xirotiris,
N. I. (2012b). Preferential child caregiving in Germany, Greece, Indonesia, Bashkortostan and
Kyrgyzstan from an evolutionary cross-cultural perspective. Paper presented at the 21th Biennial
Conference of the International Society for Human Ethology, Vienna, 13-17 August 2012.

Pollet, T. V., Nelissen, M. and Nettle, D. (2009). Lineage based differences in grandparental investment:
evidence from a large British cohort study. Journal of Biosocial Science 41: 355-379.

Pollet, T. V., Nettle, D. and Nelissen, M. (2006). Contact frequencies between grandparents and
grandchildren in a modern society: estimates of the impact of paternity uncertainty. Journal of Cultural
and Evolutionary Psychology 4: 203-214.

Rossi, P. H. and Rossi, A. S. (1990). Of Human Bonding: Parent-child relations across the life course.
Hawthorne NY: De Gruyter.

Russell, R. J. H. and Wells, P. A. (1987). Estimating paternity confidence. Ethology and Sociobiology 8:
215-220.

Salmon, C. A. (1999). On the impact of sex and birth order on contact with kin. Human Nature 10: 183-
197.

Sear, R., Mace, R. and McGregor, I. A. (2000). Maternal grandmothers improve the nutritional status and
survival of children in rural Gambia. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 267: 461-
467.

Sear, R., Steele, F., McGregor, I. A. and Mace, R. (2002). The effects of kin on child mortality in rural
Gambia. Demography 39(1): 43-63.

Smith, M. S. (1988). Research in developmental sociobiology: parenting and family behavior. In:
MacDonald, K. B. (ed.). Sociobiological perspectives on human development. New York: Springer:
271-292.

Steinbach, I., and Henke, W. (1998). Großelterninvestment – eine empirische interkulturelle
Vergleichsstudie. Anthropologie 26: 293-301.

Uhlenberg, P. and Hammill, B. G. (1998). Frequency of grandparent contact with grandchild sets: six
factors that make a difference. The Gerontologist 38: 276-285.

Van den Berghe, P. L. (1979). Human family systems: An evolutionary view. New York: Elsevier.
Voland, E., Chasiotis, A, and Schiefenhövel, W. (eds.). (2005). Grandmotherhood: The evolutionary

significance of the second half of female life. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

-210-

194

Historical demography of the population of Lassan (Germany, Western Pomerania), 1725-1870.

Historical demography of the population of Lassan (Germany, Western Pomerania), 1725-1870.

Historical demography of the population of Lassan
(Germany, Western Pomerania), 1725-1870.

Wolfgang Scheffrahn

formerly University of Zürich, Switzerland

Abstract

Each individual is connected by an extensive genetic network with all its ancestors and
descendants within the population. This biological fact is verifiable partially by genetic studies
(Hammer 1999), but above all also documented by family-historical genealogies (Boose 2013).
We present demographic data which are available from the church records of the Pomeranian
town Lassan and its surroundings (district Vorpommern-Greifswald, Germany) and which have
been excerpted from so-called "local heritage books" of this area (http://www.online-ofb.de /
lassan).

They cover a period of about 280 years or of 10-11 generations between 1709 to 1889. Such
German family books also exist for many places abroad which belonged to Germany before 1945.
Therefore, they represent valuable documents for the collection of demographic events in the past.

Key words: demographic data records Lassan demographic events

Introduction and Material

The town Lassan is situated in the northeast of Germany and had a checkered political history as a
result of power interests of the neighbouring countries in the last centuries.The first documentary
mention of the town took place in 1264, but their settlement precursors go probably back to the
Germanic and Slavic periods of this area (Viohl K 1862). Western Pomerania belonged to Sweden
from 1648 to 1815, then to Prussia, resp. to Germany (Berghaus H 1868). All these events had
striking effects on the population structure and gene pools of the groups involved.

Lassan is surrounded in the east by the wide Peenestrom river, in the south by the Peene river this
particular topographic location of the place has surely delivered a good protection against foreign
groups in earlier centuries, but has led also to a partial isolation of the population on the other
hand.This situation has drastically changed in the years from 1648 to 1815, due to the political
affiliation of Pomerania to Sweden, when the Peene river was defined as the border line between
Sweden and Germany (Bueckling A 2007).

Generally speaking, the immigration of Swedish settlers into Pomerania after 1648 increased
steadily over decades and came close to be a „demic migration“, as documented by Swedish
family names in the church records of Lassan. In contrast, the gene flow between German
populations south and north of the Peene river in form of a „local migration“ was almost
completely interrupted. These events constitute a good example of the extent to which political
events have an impact on the gene pool of future generations.

The evolutionary factors migration (immigration / emigration), isolation and gene flow worked in
addition to mutation and delition constantlyand shaped the genetic profile of the population.
Beyond that, cultural factors had a decisive influence as well. The recent history of the population
of Lassan is an impressive example of all these processes which determine the gene pool of the
successors generation. It is in this sense, that the present paper is intended to be a case study in
broad terms and hopes to stimulate similar studies.

-211-

195

Wolfgang Scheffrahn

Wolfgang Scheffrahn

Fig. 1. Topographical situation of Lassan and its surroundings

Results and Summary
The digitalized „Ortsfamilienbuch“ of Lassan and its neighbouring villages depicts the personal
data (place of birth, denomination, migration, marriage, children, death etc.) of about 30 000
persons who lived in Lassen according to the church records from 1709 to 1889 (Boose C 2013).
The present study has used data of about 8 000 people up to now and is ongoing to elaborate them
all.
Marriages occured in the 18th century preferably between town inhabitants (high rate of
endogamy). Leaving the parental environment by moving away was associated with a high
economic risk at this time. The strong dependence by the cultural factor "serfdom" in this
situation was another determining factor for the high rate of endogamy. On the other hand, the
town had to offer some economic advantages (craft of all kinds) and was therefore attractive to
immigrants from neighbouring villages and towns.
Figure 2 shows that 16% percent of the immigrants came as free citizens during the period of
1750 to 1850 mainly from the nearby villages in order to take a job in the town.
On the other hand, it is not surprising that the majority of all immigrants, almost 24%, were of
Swedish origin, due to the new political circumstances after 1648 (Wieden B 1999). Lassan was
attractive enough to Swedish people to live here, find work and raise a family.
As for emigration , the Lassaner emigrants tried to find their life partner especially in the nearby
villages. Only a small number of emigrants migrated to remote villages or even in remote areas,
due to occupational circumstances or to the origin of the marital partner.
The overall picture of migration shows:

• The city Lassan had an economic attractiveness to the free citizens of the near and distant
surroundings in the 18th and 19th century

• Lassaner were reluctant to leave their town and to seek partners in near or distant places.

-212-

196

Historical demography of the population of Lassan (Germany, Western Pomerania), 1725-1870.

Historical demography of the population of Lassan (Germany, Western Pomerania), 1725-1870.

Fig. 2. Immigration into
Lassan and its
neighbourhoud

Fig. 3. Emigration out
of Lassan and its
neighbouring villages

These political and economic circumstances influenced essentially the average age of marriage in
the 18th and 19th century ( tab. 1).

Table 1. Age of marriage

Years Women (age) Men (age)
1700 - 1799 25.1 30.0
1800 -1899 24.6 27.6

Men married late at this period, much later than women. In 1806, serfdom was abolished in
Prussia, by which they were tied stronger to the landlord than women. After this date, men were
free to determine their age of marriage. The average marriage age of women was about 25 years,
roughly counting, they had about 15 years for birth and rearing of their 4-5 children (Tab. 2).

Table 2. Average number of children per couple; deaths of children (under 15 years of age)

period N children couples Av. / couple Deaths under 15 years of
age, (%)
1799-1800 1434 340 4.22 106 7.4
1800-1899 1592 287 4.55 213 13.4

1799-1899 3026 627 4.38 319 10.5

The high death rate among children under 15 years in the period between 1800 to 1899 is very -213-
remarkable.

197

Wolfgang Scheffrahn

Wolfgang Scheffrahn Table 3. Average life expectancy
Males
Days of life 18th century 19th century
Females N individuals 4 608 755: 365 3 778 466: 365

Days of life 305 765
N individuals = 41.4 years = 13.5 years
3 807 921: 365
5 535 561: 365
678 = 15.4 years
322 = 47.1 years

The very low values of the average life expectancy for both men and women in the 19th century
desserve a special attention. Future research will show whether they have been reduced in this
rural area because of poor living conditions or certain infectious diseases. After all it should be
mentioned that a few people had reached an advanced age.

References

Berghaus H 1868. Landbuch des Herzogthums Pommern und des Fürstenthums Rügen. Theil 4. Bd.2. Der
Greifswalder Kreis. Verlag Dietze. Anklam.

Boose C 2013. Ortsfamilienbuch Lassan (Landkreis Vorpommern-Greifswald). Verein für
Computergenealogie.

Bueckling A 2007. Die Schweden in Vorpommern nördlich der Peene. 3rd ed. Wolgaster Museumsschriften
6. Nordlicht-Verlag. Karlshagen.

Hammer M 1999. Family Tree DNA. The genographic project.
Viohl K 1862. Geschichte der Stadt Lassan von den ältesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart. Selbstverlag des

Verfassers. Berlin.
Wieden B 1999. Die Entwicklung der pommerschen Bevölkerung 1701 bis 1918. Böhlau. Köln.

-214-

198

On the Bridges between Demography anOdn tBheioblroidggiecsabletAwenetnhdreompooglroapghyy:and biological anthropology:
What a census can tell us about theWcohamt apocesnistuios cnanoftetllhues maboudtethrencGomrpeoeskitioPnoopf uthleamtioodnern Greek Population

On the Bridges between Demography and Biological Anthropology:
What a census can tell us about the composition of the modern Greek

Population

Konstantinos N. Zafeiris

Laboratory of Anthropology. Department of History and Ethnology, Democritus University of Thrace. Greece.

Abstract

The 1928 census data were used in order to evaluate the patterns of immigration which
occurred in the population of Greece as a result of previous historical developments, namely
of the Balkan Wars, World War I, the Greek-Turkish War and the Asia Minor disaster.
External immigration, short, moderate and long range internal immigration were studied.
Results indicate a highly variable dispersion pattern of the immigrants throughout the country
and a significant diversification of its local populations concerning their composition. This
composition was estimated as the analogy of non-migrants and of the migrants per type of
migration and place of origin. Finally, several linguistic and religious groups enumerated in
the census were studied.

Keywords: Demography, Biological Anthropology, Migration, Gene Flow.

Introduction -215-

Biological anthropology and Demography have long established very close relationships, as
the demographic and genetic histories of human populations are closely interrelated. Long
ago, Ward and Weiss (1976: 2) theorized these relationships as: “From the standpoint of the
population geneticist it is a virtual truism that evolutionary processes can only be fully
understood if the mechanisms for genetic change are viewed in the context of the
demographic structure of the evolving populations. In the Darwinian sense, evolution occurs
as the consequence of the differential survival of populations constrained by environmental
limitations and their interaction with other populations. The origin of new adaptive gene
complexes due to natural selection arises through the processes of differential fertility and
mortality. These factors need to be described in demographic terms before their impact can
properly be appreciated in the evolutionary sense. Similarly, the outcome of selection is
reflected in demographic parameters; e.g. population size, population density, intrinsic rates
of increase, etc.”

As then, Lasker and Kaplan (1995) state, the “theories of human evolution are the
explanations of the fertility and mortality differentials that determine patterns of variation at
the subspecific level. Migrations also influence the patterns”. In the last case, migration can
be understood as an important factor in the change of the genetic and demographic structure
of human populations (for a synthetic work see Mascie-Taylor and Lasker 2009). In
biological anthropology human migration can act either as a mechanism that injects DNA
from one gene pool to another or as a mechanism that inserts similar kinds of individuals into
diverse environments. In a third approach the interaction of the genetic and environmental
results of migration can be studied (Lasker and Mascie-Taylor 2009: 2-3; Mascie-Taylor and
Little 2004).

However, human migration is a multivariate phenomenon and apart from its biological
aspects it can be studied in a variety of contexts and perspectives. Castles et al. (2013) for
example offer a global perspective on the nature of migration flows, dealing with factors
which cause migration movements and their impact on the origin and destination societies.
Rosenblum and Thichenor (2012) reconcile approaches from political science,
anthropological, sociological and economic perspectives. Brettell and Hollifield (2008: 4),

199

Konstantinos N. Zafeiris

Konstantinos N. Zafeiris

emphasize the role of culture and summarize several different research questions imposed by
scholars from different scientific disciplines including socio-cultural Anthropology,
Demography, Economics, Geography, History, Law, Political Science and Sociology. A more
Ethnographic approach is given by Reed-Danahay and Brettell (2008).

In this paper, using the published results of the 1928 census, two major aspects of migration
occurred in Greece will examined. The first deals with the dispersion of the different
immigrant groups throughout the country during or after the turbulent periods which preceded
the census, and correspond historically to the Balkan wars, World War I and the Greek-
Turkish war. This will be a measure of the spatial distribution of the different immigrant
groups throughout the country. In anthropological terms it will be a measure of dispersion of
genes in the local gene pools of the population of the country; genes that originated from
spatially differentiated and probably isolated pools. The second measure is that of the
concentration of immigrants in each of the local gene pools. It will then be a measure of the
relative impact or effect of immigration in these pools or, in another wording, of the impact or
effect of immigration on the local populations. Then, the population composition of each of
the areas studied will be estimated as the analogy of the non-migrant population and the
analogy of immigrants according to their places of geographic origin. In that way the
convergences and divergences in their population composition among the areas studied will
be examined. Finally, the dispersion and concentration patterns of several linguistic and
religious groups will be analyzed. However, because of the uncertainty of the data - an issue
that will be discussed later in this paper - these populations will not be taken into
consideration concerning the population composition analysis.

The historical setting

The modern population2 profile of Greece was shaped under the agency of two major factors:
the gradual territorial expansion of the country and the inflow and outflow of vast numbers of
migrants as a result of the historical economic and social momentum of each epoch.

After the Greek revolution of 1821, the newly formed independent country was rather a small
one (47.516 Km2, Map 1), including only Peloponnese, Cyclades, Sporades, and a part of
Roumeli (see Chouliarakis 1973: 17-19, Divani 2000: 133-139, Clogg 1995: 45-48). The next
territorial expansion took place in the 17/23 March of 1864, when the Ionian Islands were
granted to the country as a dowry to the newly appointed King George A’ of Greece (Clogg
1995: 64-65). The impact of this annexation was counted to be 229.519 persons in 1870 or
18,7% of the total population of the country3 (Ministère de l’Intérieur 1872: ιγ). Later on, in
1881, Thessaly and a small area around the city of Arta (Epirus) were annexed to Greece
(Divani 2000: 261-263) and 299.677 persons (of which 5.684 were abroad on the census day)
were added to the total population of the country (SEPS 1884: γ’). In 1889 (SEPS 1890)
344.067 persons were accounted for in Thessaly and Arta (15.7% of the total population of
Greece).

2 Between 1828 and 2001 the de facto population of the country increased by 14,6 times (Table 1), due to the
gradual territorial integration of Greece, to the undertaken demographic transition (see Livi-Bacci 2001, chp. 4: 1-
32) and to migration.

3 It has to be noted that the older censuses were subjected to several methodological and precision problems (see
OFNG 1961: IX-X), however the precision of the published data progressively becomes of better quality.
Additionally, it must be noticed that the census results and statistics of the Greek State used here - which
nowadays are at the responsibility of the Hellenic Statistical Authority (ELSTAT) - will be cited with the name of
the authority which was responsible for their original publication.
-216-

200

On the Bridges between Demography anOdn tBheioblroidggiecsabletAwenetnhdreompooglroapghyy:and biological anthropology:
What a census can tell us about theWcohamt apocesnistuios cnanoftetllhues maboudtethrencGomrpeoeskitioPnoopf uthleamtioodnern Greek Population

Table 1: The de facto population of Greece. Data source: ELSTAT (2011:. 43).

Censu Population Changes Area
s year Absolute % (Km2)
753.400 47.516
1828 752.077 –185.365 -19,8
1838 823.773 –1.323 -0,2 50.211
1839 850.246 71.696 9,5 63.606
1840 861.019 26.473 3,2 63.211
1841 853.005 10.773 1,3 127.000
1842 915.059 –8.014 -0.9 129.281
1843 930.295 62.054 7,3 131.957
1844 960.236 15.236 1,7
1845 986.731 29.941 3,2 …
1848 1.035.527 26.495 2,8
1853 1.062.627 48.796 5,0
1856 1.096.810 27.100 2,6
1861 1.457.894 34.183 3,2
1870 1.679.470 32,9
1879 2.187.208 361.084 15,2
1889 2.433.806 221.576 30,2
1896 2.631.952 507.738 11,3
1907 5.016.889 246.598 8,1
1920 6.204.684 198.146 90,6
1928 7.344.860 2.384.937 23,7
1940 7.632.801 1.187.795 18,4
1951 10.964.020 1.140.176 3,9
2001 287.941 …
…

Map 1: the territorial expansion of Greece 1832-1947. Maps based on the original adapted from Chouliariakis -217-
(1973 Vol. I: XV).

After the Greek Turkish war of 1897 a small part of Thessaly (395 Km2) was lost, annexed to
the Ottoman Empire and its population is not included in the 1907 census (Service du
Recensement 1909: ιε’). In that census the population of the country was found to be

201

Konstantinos N. Zafeiris

Konstantinos N. Zafeiris

2.631.952 persons (Table 1). In the following years (1912-1923) the population profile of
Greece as well as the country as a whole would change dramatically. A description of the
historical events can be found in Clogg (1995: 85-113), concerning Balkan Wars I & II,
World War I and the Greek-Turkish War which followed. Very briefly, during that time
Greece had expanded to Macedonia, Epirus, Thrace and a large part of Asia Minor along with
the Aegean Islands and Crete (Map 1). But finally, with the exception of the Dodecanese
Islands, the country was limited to its modern borders (Map 1). According to the special
census of 1913 (Direction de la Statistique 1915: 5), conducted for the territories newly
annexed to Greece, Macedonia, Epirus and Aegean Islands added 2.101.014 persons to the
total population of the country.

In 1920, Greece had 5.021.790 inhabitants (SGG 1928: λδ’), but because it was somewhat
bigger than after the final territorial arrangements, after reduction to its final borders its
population was 5.016.889 persons. That gives an almost 90% increase of the total population
of the country between 1907 and 1920 (Table 1). The next 8 years the population would once
again increase by another 23% (6.204.684 persons). In total, the population of the country
increased by 2,4 times between 1907 and 1928 and the total landmass of Greek territory was
doubled.

Between these censuses severe changes in the population composition of the country were
observed. First of all, the interstate conflicts in that era caused massive population movements
between the Balkan States. This was due to the spontaneous exodus of civilians from hostile
areas, to the migration of ethnic minorities to their “motherland”, or to their violent
expatriation from their homelands4 (see Mourelos 1990 and also Table 1).

In that context, several measures of population exchanges between the countries were
officially launched. For example, Turkey and Bulgaria firstly formalized the exchange of
populations among them (Mourelos 1990). At the end of World War I Greece and Bulgaria
agreed to a mutual voluntary exchange of the Greek and Bulgarian populations remaining in
their States (Divani 1995: 307). Later on, in 1923 after the defeat of the Greeks in the 1919-
1922 Greek Turkish War, known in Greece as the “Asia Minor disaster”, a mass exodus wave
of Asian populations to the Greek State’s territory was observed (Table 2). This exodus was
finalized later, when the two states signed the Treaty of Lausanne and an agreement for the
compulsory exchange of populations among them. With the exception of two Aegean islands
and Constantinople, the Greeks who used to live in the Turkish territory were forced to
migrate to Greece. The Muslims of Greece migrated to Turkey5, except those from the then
called Western Thrace (for the whole historical period see Clogg 1995: 87-112).

Data and Methods

The results of the census of 15th-16th May 1928 are the main data source for this paper. In
those days Greece was administratively divided into 10 Regions (Map A, 2). Five of them -
Sterea Hellas-Evia, Peloponnese, Thessaly, Cyclades and Ionian Islands - were largely
included within the Greek borders of 1881. The remaining five - Epirus, Macedonia, Thrace,
Crete and the Aegean Islands - were the newly annexed territories within the borders of 1923.
These Regions were subdivided into 35 Departments (except Mount Athos; Map 2), 141
smaller Provinces, 53 municipalities and big communities and 4.990 smaller communities
comprised by 10.925 settlements (SGG 1931:30; SGG 1933: κ).

4 Because of these circumstances in the April of 1923 (before the sign of the Treaty of Lausanne) 351.313 refugees
were enumerated in Greece (Department of Statistics 1923: θ).

5 The total number of Bulgarian and Turkish people left the country between 1920 and 1928 estimated to be
415.949 persons (SGG 1935: πστ’)
-218-

202

On the Bridges between Demography anOdn tBheioblroidggiecsabletAwenetnhdreompooglroapghyy:and biological anthropology:
What a census can tell us about theWcohamt apocesnistuios cnanoftetllhues maboudtethrencGomrpeoeskitioPnoopf uthleamtioodnern Greek Population

Departments Regions

Sterea Hellas-Evia: (1) Etolia & Akarnania Main places of geographic origin
(2) Attica & Viotia (3) Attica Province (4) of immigrants and refugees
Evia (5) Fthiotida & Fokida

Thessaly: (6) Larissa (7) Trikala

Ionian Islands: (8) Zakynthos (9) Kerkyra

(10) Kefalinia (11)

Cyclades

Peloponnese: (12) Argolida & Corinth (13)

Arkadia (14) Achaia & Ilia (15) Lakonia

(16) Messinia

Macedonia: (17) Drama (18) Thessaloniki

(19) Thessaloniki Province (20) Kavala (21)

Kozani (22) Pella (23) Serres (24) Florina

(25) Chalkidiki

Epirus: (27) Arta (28) Ioannina (29)

Preveza

Aegean Islands: (30) Lesvos (31) Samos

(32) Chios

Crete: (33) Herakleion (34) Lassithi

(35) Rethymno (36) Chania

Thrace: (37) Evros (38) Rhodopi

Map 2: The major administrative divisions of Greece in 1928 and places of geographic origin of its external -219-
immigrant and refugee population groups.

In this census, the Mayor or the Chairman of the local municipality or community was
responsible for appointing the census committee, in which the city council and other persons
(high school teachers, judges, civil engineers and others) participated. This committee was
responsible for the division of the municipality or community into census divisions and the
employment of census enumerators; mainly elementary and high school teachers, priests and
other literate persons. Data were collected with the aid of personal questionnaires which were
distributed to every family living in a census division on the 15th of May. The heads of the
family had to fill in the questionnaires for every person staying overnight in their houses. On
the morning of the 16th of May, the census enumerators had to visit family dwellings once
again in order to collect the questionnaires and check for their proper completion. In special
cases, like for illiterate persons, the enumerators had themselves to fill in the questionnaires.
Also, when people refused to participate in the census, even if that was against the law, the
enumerators had to gain information from their roommates or neighbors. Afterwards the
personal questionnaires were packed and sent to the Head of each Department of the country
and afterwards to the Ministry of National Economy for their final processing. In fact the

203

Konstantinos N. Zafeiris

Konstantinos N. Zafeiris

Head of each Department was appointed to have the general supervision of the census in his
Department and to ensure its proper conduct and the uniform application of ministerial
directives (see SGG 1933: ξ-ξη’).

However, for those who are familiar with the Greek bureaucracy it is rather obvious that the
direct implication of the local authorities those days, especially those of small villages, in
census conducting, despite the fact that detailed instructions were given to them may have
caused several malfunctions, and raises reasonable enough questions about the actual
conditions in which the census took place and the uniformity and efficiency of the methods
used in reality.

The personal questionnaire used in the census (SGG 1933: ξζ-ξη’), includes a series of
questions of great importance for the study of immigration patterns in each of the
administrative regions, the Departments, the Provinces and the big cities and communities of
that era. These questions are: 3. in which municipality of community were you born? 7. What
is your religion? 8. What is your mother tongue and what language is in use by you at home?
9. Did you come to Greece as a Refugee or as an exchangeable person? If yes when did you
come to live permanently in Greece: before or after the Asia Minor disaster and where do you
come from?

However, it seems that even if one might quite easily answer the questions 3 and 9, as only
the place of origin is asked, in questions 7 and 8 some problems may arise. That is to say that
what people declare to be their religion and mother tongue is sometimes related to a variety of
endogenous and exogenous factors, including political social and economic ones. Because of
that many Roma people avoided being recorded as Roma speaking and their population in
Southern Greece is mistakenly reported as zero, regardless of their great dispersion and
mobility in the country (Zafeiris and Xirotiris 2002). There, their total population was
estimated to be only 4.998 persons in 1928 (SGG 1935: κστ’) and 7.429 in 1951 (ONSG
1961: cx); figures that clearly underestimate their true population sizes.

Similarly, it seems that the majority of the Vlachs of the country, in the majority bilingual,
preferred to be recorded as Greek speaking, as they considered themselves an internal part of
Greece and they were fully assimilated into Greek social and economic life. This is why only
19.703 Vlachic speaking persons were recorded in the 1928 census (SGG 1935: κστ’).
Characteristically enough, in the Metsovo Province, 3.122 persons were recorded as Greek
speaking and only 1.564 as Vlachic speaking, despite the fact the town of Metsovo is one of
the Metropolis of Vlachs (SGG 1935: 339). By 1940 the number of Vlachic speaking people
of Greece had almost tripled (53.997) and by 1951 it had decreased by 14.412 persons
(ONSG 1961: cx).

Concerning the other major linguistic and religious groups found in the country one may
speculate that the published data are more sufficient (SGG 1935: 246). It seems that this is the
case for the Turkish speaking people, given that more than half of them were recorded as
exchangeable Christian Refugee Populations and the other half of them were non-
exchangeable Muslims according to the Lausanne Treaty and because of that they must, or at
least they should, have been recorded by the Greek State more accurately. This must also be
the case for the Albanian speaking Muslims of Epirus. The Armenian speaking group because
of its character as a Refugee and non-Greek speaking one must also have been more
accurately recorded, while the figures for the group of people recorded in the census as
“Slavic speaking” and also those for the Jewish group seem high enough. In any case
published data concerns the mother tongue of the populations, as stated in page κε’ of the
publication for the statistical results of the 1928 census (SGG 1935).

The census results refer to the de facto population living in the country, as there was no
question of the permanent residence of the people. The results of question 3 are given in the
form (SGG 1935: 3-396):

-220-

204

On the Bridges between Demography anOdn tBheioblroidggiecsabletAwenetnhdreompooglroapghyy:and biological anthropology:
What a census can tell us about theWcohamt apocesnistuios cnanoftetllhues maboudtethrencGomrpeoeskitioPnoopf uthleamtioodnern Greek Population

a. Born in Greece: segregating in five categories; namely 1. In the municipality or
community where these persons were enumerated 2. In another municipality or
community of the same Province 3. In another Province of the Same Department 4. In
another Department of the Same Region 5. In other the Regions of Greece.

b. Born abroad: data for 76 countries and geographic areas; among these those born in
Thrace (Eastern Thrace), Constantinople, Bulgaria, Dodecanese, Caucasus, Asia Minor
and Pontus are included (see Map 2) and correspond to the major places of geographic
origin of the immigrants.

These results refer to the de facto population of the country and its Regions, Departments,
Provinces (within the Departments) and big cities and communities. A reasonable enough
level of analysis serving the goals of this work is that of the Department. However, within the
population of a Department two smaller subpopulations were recognized, in order to explore
any urban/rural differences existing within its limits. The first one refers to the population of
the capitals of the Departments and the other municipalities (i.e. of the major cities and
towns) and also includes the communities that had a population of more than 10.000 people
(later on becoming major cities themselves and recognized as municipalities), which is the
lower spatial level where detailed published data are available. As such this population is
clearly distinguishable from the population of the smaller communities (smaller and larger
villages) spread throughout the rural areas of the Departments. Because of that, for simplicity
the first population will be called “urban” and it will be distinguished from the population of
the villages which will be referred to as “rural”6. The latter will be then the result of the
subtraction of the urban from the total population. Also, because of their great importance, as
the cities of Athens and Thessaloniki are located there, Attica and the Thessaloniki Province
will be studied separately from the Departments in which they belong. Obviously, the
populations of the Departments of Attica-Viotia and Thessaloniki will not include the
population of the aforementioned Provinces.

Based on these data, two major measurements will be estimated for the total, urban and rural
populations of different areas of the country, namely of the Departments and the two
Provinces. The first one is for the dispersion of the people of a specific geographic origin
throughout these populations. This variable will express the proportion of the total number of
the immigrants of a geographic origin found in the total, urban and rural population of each of

the areas studied. It is then a measurement of the pattern according to which the people born
in different places were spread throughout the country. If D is the dispersion, Is is the total
number of immigrants of a specific origin found in Greece and It, Iu, Ir the number of the
relevant immigrants found in the total, urban and rural Population of an area, then Dt=It/Is
holds for their dispersion in the entire area and Du=Iu/Is and Dr=Ir/Is hold for their dispersion in
its urban and rural populations. Obviously Dt=Du+Dr.

The second measurement is for the concentration of these people in each of the areas studied
and it will be expressed as their relative frequency in their total, urban and rural population
respectively. If C is the concentration, P is the population and I is the number of immigrants
of a specific geographic origin, while t holds for the entire population of an area, u for the
urban and r for the rural one, then the concentration of an immigrant group in an area is
calculated respectively as:

= , = , =


which are measures of the relative impact or effect of these immigrants on the respective
populations.

6 It has to be noted that the term “urban” does not totally coincide with that used in the published results of the -221-
1928 census, where as such, the population of the settlements (and not of the municipalities or the communities)
with more than 5.000 people was recognized (NSGG 1933: λα’).

205

Konstantinos N. Zafeiris

Konstantinos N. Zafeiris

The dispersion and concentration of an immigrant group in an area will be examined in the
categories included in the published results of question 3 described previously, namely for
those born in Greece: short range immigration (category 2), moderate range immigration
(category 3) and long range immigration7 (category 4 & 5). Also, the concentration of the
non-migrants (1) will be studied separately. For the external immigration analysis the groups
that will be examined are constituted by those born in Thrace (Eastern Thrace), in
Constantinople, in Bulgaria, in Caucasus, in Asia Minor and in Pontus (Map 2), i.e. the most
populous ones, and all the others will be grouped in the general category “Rest”.

It must be clarified that the vast majority of the external immigrants had refugee status, which
was also attributed to their offspring born in Greece (see footnote 1, SGG 1933: μστ’) and the
published results refer to both of them. Because of that, the available data for the refugee and
the immigrant population of the country are different and not comparable to each other. This
is obvious in Tables 2 and 3, where, for example, the immigrants born in Constantinople were
counted as 49.625 while the relevant refugee number was found to be 38.458; a difference of
11.167 persons is found among these figures. Obviously, a significant but unknown number
of external immigrants were not enumerated as refugees, i.e. the published results for the
external immigrants are the sum of those with and those without refugee status. Similarly
there were only 8 refugees from Egypt while those born there and enumerated in Greece were
found to be 5.192. Analogous observations can be made for the other immigrant groups found
in the country, including the large ones like those of Asia Minor, Pontus etc. However, the
problem is not as obvious in the bigger groups as it is in the smaller ones. For the Asia Minor
group, for example, there is an excess of 66.398 persons in the refugee population, which
could be attributed to the offspring of these refugees, but from the discussion above it is
obvious that this is not the case.

As a matter of fact, any information about the external immigrants’ offspring born in Greece
is omitted in the published data and it cannot be calculated indirectly because the number of
immigrants with refugee status is unknown, as is the case with the non-refugee ones. If the
number of these children was known, an additional effect of the external immigrants - that of
their children born in Greece- could be added to that estimated by the immigration patterns.
But even in this case, and despite the fact that the published data for the refugees is in the
same detailed form as that of the immigrants (SGG 1933: 411- 468), nothing is known about
the number of offspring of the internal immigrants. In that way an overall effect of the
external and internal immigrants, which at the same time would take into consideration the
number of the immigrants and the number of their offspring born in Greece in each of the
areas studied, cannot be calculated. The only possible analysis, then, is to study the
immigration patterns, i.e. in anthropological terms the gene flow into the different areas of the
country.

Then the Shannon’s or Theil’s entropy index was calculated for the total population of the
Departments and the two Provinces (see Tsimpos 2009: 86 where the relevant references).
The entropy index (E) in each of the Departments and Provinces is given by the formula:

1

= � ∗



where xi is the relative frequency of immigrants belonging to the population group i relatively
to the total number of immigrants and k the total number of the immigrant groups (Tsimpos
2008: 102-106). However, because of the differences observed in the distribution of

7 Because of the limitations of the published data, the long range migration was calculated as the proportion of the

de facto population of a Department of a Region born in the other Regions of the country. Within a Region this
proportion refers to the immigrants of a Department born in the other Departments of that Region. The dispersion
of the long range migrants of a Region was calculated as the analogy of the number of immigrants in a Department
born in a Region to the total number of long range migrants of that Region.
-222-

206

On the Bridges between Demography anOdn tBheioblroidggiecsabletAwenetnhdreompooglroapghyy:and biological anthropology:
What a census can tell us about theWcohamt apocesnistuios cnanoftetllhues maboudtethrencGomrpeoeskitioPnoopf uthleamtioodnern Greek Population

immigrants of different population groups across the country, this entropy index will be
“standardized” as [E/ln(k)] in order for the coefficient of heterogeneity in each of the
Departments and Provinces to be estimated. Obviously, the larger the value of the coefficient
the greater the heterogeneity observed in a Department or Province.

A hierarchical cluster analysis will take place separately for the total, urban and rural areas of
the Departments and Provinces in order to identify among them homogeneous groups of
dispersion patterns of long range and external immigration per place of origin. Before the
analysis, the dispersion rate of the immigrants of each of the migrant groups was recalculated
as the proportion of the immigrants found in an area of an administrative unit belonging in
that group in relationship to the total number of external and internal long range immigrants
found in the country. The procedure used here for the cluster analysis, begins with a number
of sub-clusters consisting of one point each, then these are combined to form larger sub-
clusters, these sub-clusters are combined to form even larger ones and so on until the desired
number of clusters has been achieved. At each step the more similar sub-clusters are
combined. Of the various clustering methods tested, the best results were given by the
“average linkage within groups” method. This is a modification of the average linkage
clustering method (Sokal and Michener 1958), in which the merging of two clusters is based
on their distance which is calculated as the average distance of all pairs of “objects” in the
two different clusters. The “average linkage within groups” method is identical except that in
the computations the size of the respective clusters (i.e. the number of objects contained in
them) is used a weight (Francetič et al. 2005). The clusters are combined in a way that the
average distance between all cases in the resulting cluster is as small as possible (Colman
2008), and therefore the method is appropriate when the research purpose is the homogeneity
within the clusters. As a distance measure the Euclidean one also gave the best results (Hand
1981: 153-185). The three separate analyses performed (for the total, urban and rural
populations of the administrative units) result in the construction of the relevant dendrograms
which would constitute the graphical summary of the cluster solutions and will be discussed
here.

A similar approach was adopted concerning the population composition of an area. This
composition was described by the relative frequencies of non-migrants and of the short,
moderate, long range and external immigrants per place of origin, where obviously the grand
total for each of the different areas was 100%. In that way the affinities found for two clusters
will not only represent the total differential effect of immigration among them but also would
be a measure of their relative differentiation or homogenization due to the influx of the
distinct immigration groups participating in their populations and the differential population
effects they imposed. In order for the cluster analysis to be carried out the same method of
“average linkage within groups” was used. However, squared Euclidean distances were used
in this case, because they gave the best results.

Results -223-

A. The Immigrant and the Refugee population of Greece

In the 1928 census 1.221.849 persons born outside its borders were found in the country
(Table 2). Half of the immigrants were of Asia Minor origin (Table 2). The second most
populous group was that of the Thracians (Eastern Thrace) followed by those from Pontus,
Bulgaria, Constantinople, Caucasus and others. The proportion of each of the different
refugee groups relative to the country’s population varies significantly. However, the total
“immigrant effect” in the Greek population accounts for 17,8%, i.e. in those days almost 1 in
every 5 inhabitants was born outside Greece, almost the same as the total “Refugee effect»
(19,7%). As stated before, the difference in these proportions is due to the fact that not all of
the immigrants were recognized in their statement as refugees and also because the children
of the refugees born in Greece were recognized as refugees too (see SGG 1933: μστ’, footnote
1).

207

Konstantinos N. Zafeiris

Konstantinos N. Zafeiris

Table 2: Immigrants and Refugees in Greece according to the 1928 census and their distribution in the
country. De Facto population.

Place of origin Immigrants Place of origin Immigrants
(Refugees) (Refugees)

N % (1) % (2) N % (1) % (2)

Asia Minor 560.556 9,0 48,4 Russia 12.643 0,2 1,1
(626.954) (10,1) (51,3) (11.435) (0,2) (0,9)

Thrace 216.753 3,5 18,7 Dodecanese 11.377 0,2 1,0
(256.635) (4,1) (21,0) (0,1)
(738) (0,01)

Pontus 159.945 2,6 13,8 Egypt 5.192 0,1 0,4
(182.169) (2,9) (14,9) (8) (0,00) (0,00)

Bulgaria 52.840 0,9 4,6 Rumania 3.902 0,1 0,1
(49.027) (0,8) (4,0) (0,1)
(722) (0,01)

Constantinople 49.625 0,8 4,3 Cyprus 1.931 0,03 0,03
(38.458) (0,6) (3,1) (57) (0,00) (0,00)

Caucasus 33.690 0,5 2,9 Else 21.082 0,3 1,8
(47.091) (0,8) (3,9)

Yugoslavia 15.004 0,2 1,3 Total 1.159.311 17,8 100,0
(6057) (0,1) (0,00) (1.221.849) (19,7)

Albania 14.771 0,2 1,3 De facto population of Greece: 6.204.684
(2498) (0,04) (0,2)

(1) of the total population of the country (2) of the total number of immigrants or refugees.

Data Source: SGG 1935: 3-4, SGG 1933: 411 and own calculations.

When these immigrants came to Greece they were directed to the different regions of the
country in an uneven way. Almost half of them were established in Macedonia where they
accounted for 40,0% of the population. One third of them were directed to Sterea Hellas and
Evia, contributing 17,7% of the total population. About 9% headed to Thrace, but their
contribution there was greater: 33,8%. The rest of them were dispersed over the regions of the
country and their proportions to the total population varied between 2,9% in the Ionian
Islands and 16,8% in the newly annexed Aegean Islands. Similar trends are observed
concerning the part of the population that has been recognized as refugee.

External Immigrants in Greece

a. Total population

The turning point of the modern population history of Greece was the historical momentum of
the second decade of the 20th century, which resulted - along with the Asia Minor disaster - in
the huge geopolitical changes observed during that time in southeastern Europe. The
immigrants, either refugees or not, were dispersed all over the country in an uneven way
(Map 3; Total: dispersion), mostly heading to northern Greece, the eastern coast of the rest of
continental Greece, including Attica Province, to the northern Aegean islands, to the
Department of Achaia-Ilia in Peloponnese and to Herakleion in Crete.
Apart from Epirus, regions recently annexed to Greece were enriched with immigrant
populations more than the others (Map 3, Total: concentration; Table 3). Even more, within
these regions the observed variability between the Departments is high. In Macedonia, where
a very important effect is observed (40%), the immigrant concentration tends to increase from
the western to the eastern parts of the Region8. In the two Departments of Thrace, immigrants
account a little more in Rhodopi (35,5%) than in Evros (29,7%). In the Aegean Islands their
contribution varies between 11 and 19%. In Crete the most significant effects are found in the
Department of Herakleion and into a lesser degree in the other two Departments westwards.

8 Departments: Florina 15,2%, Kozani 25,5%, Pella 47%, Thessaloniki 39,1%, Chalkidiki 26%, Serres 39,2%,
Kavala 55,6%, Drama 59,2%
-224-

208

On the Bridges between Demography anOdn tBheioblroidggiecsabletAwenetnhdreompooglroapghyy:and biological anthropology:
What a census can tell us about theWcohamt apocesnistuios cnanoftetllhues maboudtethrencGomrpeoeskitioPnoopf uthleamtioodnern Greek Population

As an exception, Epirus had the smallest concentration of immigrants for the newly annexed
territories, somewhere between 3 and 5% for Ioannina and Preveza and less than 1% for Arta,
part of which was in fact within the Greek borders of 1881.

Table 3: The contribution of the main immigrant and refugee groups to the total population of the
Regions of Greece and their dispersion among these regions. De Facto population.

Refugee groups: figures in parentheses.

Place of origin Asia Thrace Pontus Bulgaria Caucasus Constan- Total
Minor tinople (including all

Region % proportion to the total population of the Region the other
groups)1
Sterea Hellas & 13,3 0,9 1,4 0,2 0,1 1,8
19,9
Evia (14,7) (1,0) (1,4) (0,2) (0,2) (1,4) (19,2)

Thessaly 4,3 0,5 0,6 1,1 0,1 0,2 7,4
(4,6) (0,6) (0,6) (1,0) (0,1) (0,1) (7,0)

Ionian Islands 1,1 0,2 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,2 2,9
(1,0) (0,2) (0,2) (0,0) (0,0) (0,1) (1,5)

Cyclades 2,9 0,1 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,5 5,2
(2,8) (0,1) (0,5) (0,0) (0,0) (0,2) (3,7)

Peloponnese 2,0 0,1 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,2 3,1
(2,1) (0,1) (0,2) (0,0) (0,0) (0,1) (2,7)
40,0
Macedonia 14,2 10,0 8,7 2,1 2,1 1,0 (45,2)
(16,4) (11,7) (10,2) (2,3) (2,8) (0,8)
3,3
Epirus 1,2 0,1 0,7 0,0 0,1 0,1 (2,6)
(1,3) (0,1) (1,0) (0,1) (0,1) (0,0) 16,8
(18,4)
Aegean Islands 15,1 0,4 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,3
(17,3) (0,6) (0,2) (0,0) (0,0) (0,2) 8,4
(8,8)
Crete 7,4 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 33,1
(8,4) (0,3) (0,0) (0,0) (0,0) (0,1) (35,5)

Thrace 6,3 18,3 2,0 4,8 0,7 0,4 27,4
(6,7) (22,2) (1,9) (3,0) (1,2) (0,2) (25,1)

% dispersion in the Regions of the country 3,1
(2,8)
Sterea Hellas & 37,9 6,3 14,2 6,4 3,8 58,7
0,5
Evia (37,3) (6,2) (11,8) (5,6) (6,4) (59,1) (0,3)

Thessaly 3,8 1,2 1,7 9,9 1,3 1,9 0,6
(3,6) (1,2) (1,5) (10,3) (1,0) (1,3) (0,4)

Ionian Islands 0,4 0,2 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,7 2,8
(0,3) (0,2) (0,2) (0,0) (0,1) (0,5) (2,3)
48,7
Cyclades 0,7 0,1 0,4 0,0 0,1 1,2 (52,2)
(0,6) (0,1) (0,4) (0,0) (0,1) (0,5)
0,9
Peloponnese 3,8 0,7 1,5 0,4 0,5 3,2 (0,7)
(3,6) (0,6) (1,4) (0,3) (0,4) (3,8)
4,4
Macedonia 35,9 65,0 76,4 55,7 87,0 28,5 (4,6)
(37,1) (64,5) (79,2) (64,9) (83,6) (30,5)
2,8
Epirus 0,7 0,1 1,4 0,0 0,6 0,6 (2,8)
(0,6) (0,1) (1,7) (0,0) (0,6) (0,4)
8,7
Aegean Islands 8,3 0,6 0,3 0,2 0,1 2,0 (8,8)
(8,5) (0,7) (0,4) (0,1) (0,2) (1,6)

Crete 5,1 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,8
(5,2) (0,4) (0,1) (0,0) (0,1) (0,6)

Thrace 3,4 25,7 3,7 27,3 6,5 2,5
(3,2) (26,2) (3,2) (18,7) (7,6) (1,7)

1. Except of the refugee groups where total accounts for those included in Table 2.

Data source: SGG 1935: 3-245; SGG 1933: 411- 468 and own calculations

In the other Departments within these borders the immigrant effects were variable but rather
smaller than those observed in Northern Greece. Among them, the most important one is
found in Larissa (11,8%), and then in the eastern Sterea Hellas-Evia and in The Cyclades. In

-225-

209

Konstantinos N. Zafeiris

Konstantinos N. Zafeiris

Peloponnese only the Departments in the north have a concentration of immigrants of 3-5%.
The smaller effects in the country are found in the Ionian Islands.

The most important dispersion of immigrants is found in the two Provinces included in this
study, those of Attica and Thessaloniki, where the biggest urban centers of the country are
located; 37,2% of all the external immigrants were enumerated in these Provinces (24,4% for
Attica and 12,8% for Thessaloniki), accounting for 32,6% of the population of Attica and
46,3% of the population of the Thessaloniki Province. In that way the influx of immigrants
acted as a positive agent for the population enlargement of the two metropolitan urban centers
of the country and determined their subsequent demographic and population history.

In fact 33,5% of the immigrants originating from Asia Minor were dispersed in Attica and
12% in the Thessaloniki Province, and as a result 1 in 5 members of their de facto population
is of that population group. The remaining members of the Asia Minor group were unevenly
distributed across the country in a fairly similar way with that of the total immigrant
population and with rates 0-5%.

Because of its size (Table 1) the Asia Minor population group had the greater impact in
comparison to all the others concerning the population composition of the different Regions
(Table 3) and Departments (Map 3; Asia Minor: concentration). This impact was quite
diverse. In six Departments (2 of Peloponnese, 2 of Ionian Islands, 1 of Thessaly and 1 of
Epirus) the concentration of Asia Minor immigrants was less than 1% while in the rest of
western mainland Greece and Kerkyra it ranged between 1 and 3%. The northern
Peloponnese was colonized to a greater degree (3-5% of the local population). In the rest of
the eastern and northern mainland country great variability is observed. With one exception
(Fthiotida-Fokida), the immigrant concentration was at least 5% and exceeded 15% in the
departments of Chalkidiki, Pella, Drama and Kavala (where it became maximum; 23%).
Thrace, where the highest effect is found in the Department of Rhodopi, had a more moderate
impact than Macedonia (6,3% compared with 14,2% respectively; Table 3). A more
significant impact is found in the Aegean Islands (15,1%) especially the two island
Departments in the north. In Crete the highest concentration of this immigrant group is found
in the Department of Herakleion and to a lesser degree westwards. Finally in the Cyclades the
immigrant concentration was 2,9%.

The second most populous immigrant group (Table 2), that of the people of Thracian origin,
was mainly dispersed eastwards of Pella and Thessaloniki (Map 3; Thrace: Dispersion; see
also Table 3). Compared with the Asia Minor group their dispersion in the two studied
Provinces was smaller and they mainly headed to that of Thessaloniki (16,2%; Attica: 5,2%).
Their geographic counterparts, i.e. those from Constantinople (Map 3; Constantinople:
Dispersion), on the contrary, were mainly directed to Attica (55,9%) and into a lesser degree
to the Thessaloniki Province (19,8%), leaving the remaining 24,3% to be dispersed among the
different Departments of the country.

Following their dispersion patterns, the Thracian population impact is mainly localized to
Macedonia and especially to Kavala and Greek Thrace (Map 3; Thrace: Concentration; see
also Table 3). It is worth noting that 20% of the population of Evros is made up of eastern
Thracian immigrants. Field work carried out in the Department suggested that many of them
were living in the nearby Turkish territory and they were transferred a few kilometres away
from their original dwellings into the Greek territory. Orestias for example was founded by
refugees originating from the surrounding area of Andrianoupolis (Edirne, Turkey nowadays)
from a distance of less than 30 Km. The people from Constantinople, in any case a small
population group (Table 2), have minor contributions to the local populations of Greece,
which only in Attica and Thessaloniki Province exceeded 3% Thrace (Map 3; Constantinople:
Dispersion; see also Table 3).

-226-

210

On the Bridges between Demography anOdn tBheioblroidggiecsabletAwenetnhdreompooglroapghyy:and biological anthropology:
What a census can tell us about theWcohamt apocesnistuios cnanoftetllhues maboudtethrencGomrpeoeskitioPnoopf uthleamtioodnern Greek Population

Asia Minor Thrace

Pontus Bulgaria

Constantinople Caucasus

Rest Total

Map 3: the dispersion and concentration of external immigrants in Greece. Data source: SGG 1935: 3-245 and -227-
own calculations

The immigrants from Pontus, the third most populous immigrant group (Table 2), came in
accordance with the Thracian pattern of immigrant diversion mainly to northern Greece
(Table 3) and Attica (Map 3; Pontus: dispersion). However because many of them colonized
the Department of Drama and western Macedonia (Florina and Kozani) (Map 3; Pontus:
concentration), their contribution to the local populations is higher than the other groups
which have migrated there. In the other Departments of Macedonia (except for Thessaloniki)
their contribution is significant but consistently lower than that of the Asia Minor and Eastern
Thrace populations. In the Thessaloniki Province their concentration was 4,4% and in the

211

Konstantinos N. Zafeiris Konstantinos N. Zafeiris

homonymous Department 10,2%. As for Attica, their impact was rather small, accounting for
2,4% of the population.

The Caucasus group was mainly dispersed to the Department of Thessaloniki (37,2% of their
total population). 39,5% dispersed quite unequally to the other Departments of Macedonia,
10,4% to the Thessaloniki Province and 3,2% to Attica and only 9,8% to the other
Departments of the country (Map 3; Caucasus: dispersion). Their effects are located in
Macedonia and especially the Department of Thessaloniki (Map 3; Caucasus: concentration).

The dispersion of the immigrants from Bulgaria is mainly in eastern continental Greece, from
Attica to Thessaloniki and then eastwards to the department of Evros. However, this
dispersion is variable - reaching its maximum values in the Departments of Thessaloniki
(15,7%) and Rhodopi ( 19,4%) (Map 3; Bulgaria: Dispersion, also see Table 3). Another
13,4% was dispersed to Thessaloniki Province and 4,5% to Attica.

The impact of immigrants from Bulgaria into the population of the different Regions is small
and only in Thrace do they account for 4.8% of the total population (Table 3). This impact per
Department is shown in Map 3 (Bulgaria: concentration), where only in Rhodopi does it
account for 5,7% of the population. In 2 other Departments it is between 1 and 3% and in 4
between 3 and 5%. In the Thessaloniki Province there is an immigrant effect of 2,2% and in
Attica only 0,3%.

All the other populations of immigrants shown in Table 2 have contributed to 1,4% of the
total population of the country (Table 2). Half of them dispersed to Attica and Thessaloniki
Provinces (36,7 and 13,6% respectively; Map 3; Rest: Dispersion) where they contributed
equally as 3,6% of the local populations. The rest are distributed around the country as in
Map 3 and their contribution to the total population of each Department varies (Map 3; Rest:
concentration) in the range of 0-5%.

b. Urban and rural population

Within the Departments and the Provinces all the populations have unequal dispersion and
concentration patterns (Figures 1 & 2). The Asia Minor group dispersed mainly to urban
Attica (33,5%) and the city of Thessaloniki (12%) (Figure 1; Asia Minor: dispersion). The
rest of them were distributed almost equally to the urban and rural areas of the different
Departments of the country (urban/rural difference per Department ±1%) and only in Kozani
and Chalkidiki does the rural population prevail significantly. In that way the Asia Minor
effect is higher in the urban populations, though a great variability is observed among the
Departments (Figure 1; Asia Minor: concentration).

The immigrants from eastern Thrace dispersed mainly to the rural areas of the country
(60,2%), but in a quite uneven way as shown in Figure 1 (Thrace: dispersion), where the
Departments of Macedonia and Thrace along with the Attica and Thessaloniki Provinces are
clearly distinguishable. Concerning the concentration patterns, the most diverse Departments
are those of Thrace and Kavala, Serres, Drama, Pella and the city of Thessaloniki, where the
maximum effects in both the urban and rural populations are observed. However, the effects
on the urban population of Thrace, Drama and Serres are higher than those on the rural one
(Figure 1; Thrace: concentration). Thessaloniki, Chalkidiki and Kozani have progressively
smaller impacts on their urban population but more significant effects on their rural one. In
the rest of the Departments the urban population tends to prevail but its concentrations are in
any case low. The immigrants from Constantinople have mainly colonized the urban centers
of Attica and Thessaloniki Provinces and to a lesser degree the city Kavala (Figure 2;
Constantinople: dispersion). All the other Departments are clustered together with smaller
values in the urban and rural dispersion. The same clustering is observed concerning the
urban/rural concentration of the population, where a tendency for the urban population to
prevail is observed (Figure 2; Constantinople: dispersion).

In common with the Thracians, the Pontus immigrants distributed to the rural areas (67%)
and into a lesser degree to the urban centers, of which 12,1% in Attica and 6,8% in the city of

-228-

212

On the Bridges between Demography anOdn tBheioblroidggiecsabletAwenetnhdreompooglroapghyy:and biological anthropology:
What a census can tell us about theWcohamt apocesnistuios cnanoftetllhues maboudtethrencGomrpeoeskitioPnoopf uthleamtioodnern Greek Population

Thessaloniki, accounting for 2,6 and 4,5% of the population respectively. In the other places
of their major dispersion (Macedonia and Thrace; see Map 3) they were mainly but variably
distributed and contributed to the rural areas (Figure 1; Pontus: dispersion & concentration).
In all the other Departments their concentration in the urban centers is rather less prevalent.

Similarly, the immigrants from Caucasus have mainly established themselves in the rural
areas (81,5%) especially of Thessaloniki (34,5%), Macedonia (except Chalkidiki and Kavala)
and Thrace (Figure 2; Caucasus: dispersion). In Attica they mainly headed to the big cities
and in the rest of the areas studied their urban/rural dispersion is almost equal (+1%
differences). Similarly small are the differences in their urban/rural concentration and only in
Thessaloniki and Pella does their rural effect prevail significantly (by 4,1 and 1,8%
respectively) (Figure 2; Caucasus: concentration).

Dispersion Concentration

Asia Minor

Thrace

Pontus

Figure 1: the dispersion and
concentration of external immigrant
groups in the Departments of the
country. Data source: SGG 1935: 3-
245 and own calculations

-229-

213

Konstantinos N. Zafeiris Konstantinos N. Zafeiris

Dispersion Concentration

Caucasus

Constantinople

Bulgaria

Rest

Figure 2: the dispersion and
concentration of external immigrant
groups in the Departments of the
country. Logarithmic scales for
both axes. Data source: SGG 1935:
3-245 and own calculations

The immigrants from Bulgaria also mainly dispersed to the rural areas (66,3%, Figure 2;
Bulgaria: dispersion). The prevalence of rural dispersion is obvious in the Departments whose

-230-

214

On the Bridges between Demography anOdn tBheioblroidggiecsabletAwenetnhdreompooglroapghyy:and biological anthropology:
What a census can tell us about theWcohamt apocesnistuios cnanoftetllhues mabooudtethrencGomrpeoeskitioPnoopf uthleamtioodnern Greek Population

names are marked in Figure 2, except Rhodopi, Kavala, and the Thessaloniki Province where
they were almost equally distributed among the rural and urban areas. In Attica Province the
urban population prevails and the rest of the Departments are clustered together at very low
dispersion rates. A more variable pattern emerges concerning the urban/rural concentration of
this population (Figure 2; Bulgaria: concentration). Urban concentration is higher in Kavala,
Pella and Drama. In contrast, rural concentration is higher in the Thessaloniki Province and
the homonymous Department, in Serres and Evros. In Larissa and Kavala their urban/rural
concentrations are almost equal. In the other Departments the differences found are
insignificant.

The rest of the immigrant population is mainly an urban one (67,6%) dispersed mostly to
urban Attica (33%) and the city of Thessaloniki (13%). The urban dispersion among the
Departments is 0-3% and the rural one is 0-4% (Figure 2; Rest: dispersion). Its urban
concentration varies between 0,4 and 5,1% and its rural one between 0,1 and 2,7%. However,
in Florina these immigrants made up 10,4% of the urban population and 2% of the rural one
(Figure 2; Rest: concentration).

B. Internal Migration

Map 4: Non immigrant population per Department. Data source: SGG 1935: 3-396 and own calculations -231-

The analogy of the non-migrant to the total population per Department varies a great deal
(Map 4). This results from the different degree of spatial isolation of the peripheral Greek
populations and it is inversely related to the magnitude of immigration, either external or
internal, in these areas. As expected the Attica and Thessaloniki Province, most of the
Departments of Macedonia (especially Drama and Kavala) and Rhodopi in Thrace have the
lowest proportions of non-migrant population. In the rest of Greece great variability is
observed and the relevant concentrations are in the range of 60 to 90%. Apart from
Chalkidiki, the non-migrant proportions are consistently higher in the rural areas than in the
urban ones, evidence of the differential effects of immigration among them.

At the same time there is evidence of a limited accumulation of the local rural populations in
the urban areas of the Departments, as seen for the short range migration (Map 5; dispersion),
where, besides the Provinces, a significant trend for the urban dispersion of the immigrants
was found, even if this was lower than the rural one in the majority of Departments. It seems
then that a general pattern of short range migration emerges in the Greek periphery.
According to this, while a significant number of migrants leaving their villages would head to
the nearby urban centers, the majority of them reestablished themselves in other nearby
villages, in the form of marital migration, as field work suggests (Zafeiris 2006: 462-470;
Zafeiris and Xirotiris 2007: 99 for the years before 1960).

215

Konstantinos N. Zafeiris Konstantinos N. Zafeiris

In the Provinces of Attica and Thessaloniki and Chios urban dispersion prevailed
significantly, and in Kerkyra urban/rural dispersion was equal, representing the elevated
degree of accumulation of the neighboring population in the big cities located there. The same
pattern of immigration holds for the moderate range migration, although compared with short
range migration, moderate range immigrants (Map 5: immigrants from other Provinces within
the same Department) headed to the urban areas in a more variable way – in some cases the
urban migrants prevailing significantly: apart from Attica and Thessaloniki Provinces this is
also observed in 8 of the Departments of the country and also in 1 (Achaia-Ilia) urban\rural
dispersion was equal. In total, the effect of short range migration accounts for 7,8% of the
Greek population and it is more significant than the relevant proportion of the moderate
migration (2,9%). The contribution of short range immigrants tended to be higher in the rural
population in 14 of the Departments and the Provinces of Attica and Thessaloniki (Map 5; b
& c). The relative effect of the moderate range immigrants was higher in the urban areas in
the majority of Departments (Map 5; e & f) and only in 6 Departments and the two provinces
were the differences in the urban/rural concentration at the range of ±1%.

Map 5: Immigration within the Departments. Data source: SGG 1935: 3-245 and own calculations

Even though quite variable, the general dispersion pattern that prevails for long range
migration, is that people disperse to the Departments of their Region, to the adjoining
Departments of their neighboring Regions, to Attica or Thessaloniki Province and to a lesser
degree to the other Departments of the country (Map 6: dispersion). In fact, Attica Province is
the main destination for all the people born south of Macedonia. Those born in Macedonia
and Thrace prefer the Thessaloniki Province, but in any case significant numbers of them
headed to Attica too. Similarly, the Thessaloniki Province attracts a significant number of
internal immigrants from the other Regions but to lesser degree than that of Attica.

Within their dispersion places all these immigrants have small contributions to the local
population in the majority of cases (Map 6: concentration). The contribution of those born in
Sterea Hellas-Evia only in the Attica Province exceeds 3%. Those born in Peloponnese have a
significant impact on three of the 5 Departments of Peloponnese (3-5%) and an even greater
one on the Attica Province. A significant effect of People born in Trikala is found in Larissa
(Thessaly) and for those born in Epirus in Preveza (Epirus). The admixture of the population
in Macedonia resulted in 3-5% effect in 4 of its Departments and in the Province of

-232-

216

On the Bridges between Demography anOdn tBheioblroidggiecsabletAwenetnhdreompooglroapghyy:and biological anthropology:
What a census can tell us about theWcohamt apocesnistuios cnanoftetllhues maboudtethrencGomrpeoeskitioPnoopf uthleamtioodnern Greek Population

Thessaloniki. The contribution of the immigrants born in Thrace is low in the populations of
their destination and it is mainly located in Rhodopi and Kavala. The Cretan immigrants have
contributed significantly to the Department of Herakleion. Those born in the Ionian Islands
have mainly enriched the population of Kerkyra and Attica, but at low rates. A greater effect
is found for the Attica Province because of the immigrants from the Aegean islands
(including Cyclades).

Map 6: The dispersion and concentration per Department of immigrants originating from the different regions of -233-
Greece. Data source: SGG 1935: 3-245 and own calculations

217

Konstantinos N. Zafeiris Konstantinos N. Zafeiris

In total, it is obvious that through internal long range migration there is a significant
admixture of the population. The most important concentration of internal immigrants is
observed in the Attica Province. To a somewhat lesser degree immigrants have enriched the
Province of Thessaloniki and Achaia-Ilia (Map 6: Total).

Long range immigrants have dispersed to the urban and rural parts of the country as in Figure
3, where a general tendency for colonization of the city of Thessaloniki and the cities of
Attica is observed. Following that general pattern of migration, 34,9% of people born in
Sterea Hellas headed to the big cities of Attica and 4,1% to the rest of it. Another 4,3% settled
in the city of Thessaloniki (0,3% in the other areas of the Province). Their average dispersion
in the rest of the country was 0,7% for the big cities and 0,8% for the rural areas. However,
only in 5 Departments was the urban dispersion greater than 1% - the maximum one being
found in Achaia-Ilia and Larissa, where 4 big cities are located. Rural Dispersion exceeded
1% in 8 Departments. Their concentration in the urban areas of the country prevails
significantly: on average it was 2,3% (range: 0,6-7,6%) comparing with 0,7% found for the
rural areas (range: 0,1-3,2%).

People born in Peloponnese headed to urban (56,2%) and rural Attica (3,9%). In the rest of
the country, on average, they were equally distributed among the urban and rural areas. Urban
dispersion exceeded 1% only in Peloponnese, where they mainly settled in the urban centers
of Achaia-Ilia (5,5%) and Messinia (3,1%). About 10,5% of them were almost equally
dispersed in the rural areas of Achaia-Ilia, Argolida-Corinth and Messinia. To a lesser
degree, they headed also the rural areas of Laconia, Arkadia and Attica-Viotia. In all the other
areas of the country their rural dispersion was less than 0,5%. Their impact in the urban and
rural population of the different areas of the country is clearly distinguishable in the
Peloponnese and Attica Province. In the rest of the country smaller effects are found, mainly
on the urban population (range of urban concentration: 0,4-3,4%).

The dispersion of people born in Thessaly to urban Attica (22,1%) was more moderate
compared with the previous populations, but at the same time their dispersion to the city of
Thessaloniki was more intense (11,2%). A significant proportion also headed to the well-
developed city of Volos and to Larissa (9%) and the city of Trikala (1,8%). The rest were
variably distributed among the urban areas of the country as in Figure 3 in a range of 0-3%.
The rural dispersion of them is mainly within Thessaly, especially in Larissa) and the
surrounding Departments of Sterea Hellas-Evia and Macedonia. In the rest of the country they
were dispersed to the rural areas in the range of 0-1,8%. Their urban concentration is more
significant in the Departments of Trikala, Kozani, Thessaloniki, Fthiotida and Larissa while
their rural one is less than 1% in all of the areas studied.

People born in Epirus headed to urban Attica (24,2%) and to the city of Thessaloniki (4,1%).
The variability observed in their urban/rural dispersion was in general greater if their scatter
diagram is compared with the relevant previous ones. Excluding Attica and the Thessaloniki
Province the average dispersion of the people per Department is 0,8% for the urban areas and
1,1 for the rural ones. This is because rural migration prevails, even though in some cases
slightly, in 25 of the 35 Departments of the country. In that way the rural areas of Epirus and
of the adjoining Departments of the other Regions received 80% of the relevant migrants,
among which Preveza and Etolia-Akarnania (8,1% and 10,1% of the total Epirus migrants)
were their major dispersion places. Data from the field work carried out in the area suggests
that in those days many mountainous Populations of Vlachic origin had migrated to lowland
areas. However, despite the urban/rural characteristics of the migration of the population of
Epirus, their concentration was more or less equal among the urban and rural areas of the
Departments of the country they had dispersed to or they prevailed considerably in the urban
areas as happened in Arta and Preveza and other areas (see relevant scatter, Figure 3).

-234-

218

On the Bridges between Demography anOdn tBheioblroidggiecsabletAwenetnhdreompooglroapghyy:and biological anthropology:
What a census can tell us about theWcohamt apocesnistuios cnanoftetllhues maboudtethrencGomrpeoeskitioPnoopf uthleamtioodnern Greek Population

Dispersion Concentration Dispersion Concentration
Peloponnese
Sterea Hellas

Thessaly Epirus

Macedonia Thrace
Crete Ionian Islands

Aegean Islands

Figure 3: the dispersion and concentration of long range immigrant groups in the Departments of the country. -235-
Logarithmic scales for both axes. Data source: SGG 1935: 3-245 and own calculations.

219

Konstantinos N. Zafeiris Konstantinos N. Zafeiris

The Macedonians mainly dispersed within Macedonia, Thrace and Thessaly. Unlike the
previous population groups the majority of them headed to the city of Thessaloniki (17%) and
to a lesser degree to urban Attica (7,6%). The differences in their dispersion among the
rural/urban populations of the Departments were variable. While for the entire country there
was a 3,8% prevalence in their urban dispersion, in 27 of the Departments they were almost
equally distributed among the rural and urban areas (differences of ±1%). In 5 Departments
the rural dispersion prevailed (1,3-5,5%) and only in 2 (Rhodopi and Kavala) were the urban
migrants outnumbered (1,3 and 2,3% respectively). However, their contribution to the
population of the urban areas was in the range of 0,1-4,9%.

The Thracian migrants preferred the city of Thessaloniki as their destination (15,7%), the city
of Kavala (12,3%) and urban Attica (11,5%). Except the two Provinces, their average
dispersion in the urban and rural areas was equal (1%) in the rest of the country. However,
significant differences are found among the Departments as seen in Figure 3. Their
contribution to the urban population exceeds 1% only in 3 Departments, while their
contribution to the rural one is always less than 1%.

Cretans mainly dispersed to urban Attica (42,8%), to the city of Herakleion (11%) and to the
city of Thessaloniki (5,6%). Another 24% of them dispersed to the Departments of Crete,
where rural migration prevails slightly (1%) and to the rest of the country of very low
proportions. In that way their contribution to the local populations is important mainly in
Crete and in the Attica Province, especially their urban centers.

Half of the people born in the Ionian Islands settled in urban Attica, and only 2,3% in the city
of Thessaloniki. Also, 2,2% of them were found in the city of Preveza, 1,6% in the city of
Kerkyra and 1,5 in Etolia-Akarnania. However, 15,8% of them moved to urban and 6,5 to
rural Achaia-Ilia. The rest dispersed around the country at very low frequencies. Their
population effect is focused mainly on the urban populations of the areas to which they
moved, especially in Achaia-Ilia (5,7%), in Attica (2,6%) and to a lesser degree in Etolia-
Akarnania, Preveza and the Departments of the Region of the Ionian Islands. Lesser effects
are found in the rural population of Achaia-Ilia and the Attica Province.

Finally, the migrants from the Aegean Islands (including Cyclades) headed to urban Attica
(72%) and to a lesser degree to the rural one (6%). Only 3% of them migrated to the city of
Thessaloniki. All the others dispersed around the country in very low proportions. Their
contribution to the urban population of the country is 3,9%. In Attica however, they constitute
8,8% of the urban population and in the city of Thessaloniki 1,1%. In the remaining urban
centers of the country they contributed in the range of 0,1-2,9%. Their contribution to the
rural population is below 1% and only in Attica do they constitute 4,6% of the population of
the smaller towns and villages.

C. The effect of long range immigration

Map 7: The coefficient of heterogeneity per Department.
-236-

220

On the Bridges between Demography anOdn tBheioblroidggiecsabletAwenetnhdreompooglroapghyy:and biological anthropology:
What a census can tell us about theWcohamt apocesnistuios cnanoftetllhues mabooudtethrencGomrpeoeskitioPnoopf uthleamtioodnern Greek Population

Urban

Rural

Total

Sterea Hellas-Evia: (1) Etolia & Akarnania (2) Attica & Viotia (3) Attica Province (4) Evia (5) Fthiotida &
Fokida

Thessaly: (6) Larissa (7) Trikala

Ionian Islands: (8) Zakynthos (9) Kerkyra (10) (11) Cyclades
Kefalinia

Peloponnese: (12) Argolida & Corinth (13) Arkadia (14) Achaia & Ilia (15) Lakonia (16) Messinia

Macedonia: (17) Drama (18) Thessaloniki (19) Thessaloniki Province (20) Kavala (21) Kozani (22) Pella

(23) Serres (24) Florina (25) Chalkidiki Epirus: (27) Arta (28) Ioannina (29) Preveza

Aegean Islands: (30) Lesvos (31) Samos Crete: (33) Herakleion (34) Lassithi
(32) Chios (35) Rethymno (36) Chania

Thrace: (37) Evros (38) Rhodopi

Figure 4: Dispersion of the immigrants per Department. External immigration and internal long range migration
are taken into consideration.

It seems then that an extremely complex pattern of immigration occurs in every Department -237-
of the country. This pattern is connected with the influx of variant numbers of immigrants
originating either from the Greek periphery or from other countries (in their vast majority
they are refugees) and as a result the population composition of each Department according to
the geographic origin of its inhabitants varies significantly. This heterogeneity is described by
the relevant coefficient and does not reveal any geographical pattern (Map 7). Rather, it is

221

Konstantinos N. Zafeiris

Konstantinos N. Zafeiris

connected with the differential migratory movements among the numerous immigration
groups throughout the country.

Cluster analysis of the dispersion of immigrants confirms this complicated pattern, which
existed among the different areas of the country (Figure 4; total). In that pattern Attica
constituted the most diverse area, obviously because even from the early 20th century its
major urban centers (Attica and Piraeus) and their surrounding areas - which later on will
grow into big cities - retained or gained a special character as reception places for the external
immigrants and refugees and they were enriched still further with internal immigrants flowing
there from every part of the country. The second most diversified area includes all the
Departments east of Kozani up to Evros in the Greek-Turkish borders. In this area the
Thessaloniki Province is included, for the same reasons related to Attica, and also the Island
Department of Lesvos. Among them a significant variability is observed, though within this
area eastern Macedonia and the Department of Thessaloniki constitute a rather distinct group.
In the rest of the country the diversification of the areas becomes progressively lower. There,
Pella and Larissa are placed at the most distant position followed by a more closely related
group which includes geographically distant Departments like Attica-Viotia and Chalkidiki.
Within this group Chania and Herakleion are included, as the most differentiated areas of
Crete. The remaining areas belong to the so called “old” Greece, this within the borders of
1881, to Epirus, to the neighboring Florina and Trikala and to two of the Departments of
Crete. These areas, in which the variability is lesser in comparison to the other ones, have
been affected to a lesser degree by the influx of immigrants.

The dispersion of immigrants in the urban areas of the Departments reveals some differences
(Figure 4; urban). Even if urban Attica retains its highly diversified position described above
for the total population, it seems that the population growth of specific urban centers of the
country began or was intensified through the influx of external and internal immigrants. With
the exception of the city of Thessaloniki, the most diversified cities of the country are in
order, those of Rhodopi (Xanthi and Komotini), of Herakleion and Lesvos (Mytilini, which
exhibit significant similarities), of Kavala and of Achaia-Ilia (Patra and Pyrgos) followed by
the cities of Larissa (Larissa and Volos) and Drama. In the rest of the urban centers of the
country the distances between clusters are progressively reduced, but in any case all of them,
as has been discussed previously, were enriched by significant numbers of immigrants.

If rural dispersion is taken into consideration, then the pattern of the high diversification of
Macedonia and Thrace prevails (Figure 4; rural). To the other extreme - that of the more
homogenous areas - Epirus, the nearby Departments of Florina and Trikala, the Ionian
Islands, Cyclades, Peloponnese, and Crete (except Herakleion) are included. Among them,
the least diversified areas are the Ionian Islands, Arta, three of the Departments of Crete,
Cyclades and Ioannina and diversification progressively increases to the Departments of
northern Peloponnese. In this pattern, as observed in general also for the total and urban
populations, sometimes neighboring areas are more closely related than distant ones, though
this is not always the rule and more distant areas may cluster closely together, as happens for
example in the Fthiotida-Fokida and Arkadia, Lakonia cluster. This group is joined with
another spatially diverse one including Samos, Chios, eastern Sterea Hellas-Evia and
Herakleion and finally with Chalkidiki. The remaining Departments progressively exhibit
greater variability.

It seems then that long range migration has diverged effects in the rural, urban and total
populations of the country, as a result of the highly complicated pattern of internal and
external immigration movements in each of the areas studied.

-238-

222

On the Bridges between Demography anOdn tBheioblroidggiecsabletAwenetnhdreompooglroapghyy:and biological anthropology:
What a census can tell us about theWcohamt apocesnistuios cnanoftetllhues maboudtethrencGomrpeoeskitioPnoopf uthleamtioodnern Greek Population

D. The population composition of the Departments and Provinces of Attica and
Thessaloniki.

Urban

Rural

Total

Sterea Hellas-Evia: (1) Etolia & Akarnania (2) Attica & Viotia (3) Attica Province (4) Evia (5) Fthiotida &

Fokida

Thessaly: (6) Larissa (7) Trikala

Ionian Islands: (8) Zakynthos (9) Kerkyra (10) (11) Cyclades
Kefalinia

Peloponnese: (12) Argolida & Corinth (13) Arkadia (14) Achaia & Ilia (15) Lakonia (16) Messinia

Macedonia: (17) Drama (18) Thessaloniki (19) Thessaloniki Province (20) Kavala (21) Kozani (22) Pella

(23) Serres (24) Florina (25) Chalkidiki Epirus: (27) Arta (28) Ioannina (29) Preveza

Aegean Islands: (30) Lesvos (31) Samos Crete: (33) Herakleion (34) Lassithi

(32) Chios (35) Rethymno (36) Chania

Thrace: (37) Evros (38) Rhodopi

Figure 5: Clustering of the Departments according to their population composition.

The long rage immigration described above, along with the short and moderate immigration
have a significant impact in the population composition of the areas studied as seen in Figure
5.

-239-

223

Konstantinos N. Zafeiris

Konstantinos N. Zafeiris

Based on its population composition, Greece is largely subdivided into two broader groups
(Figure 5; total), if the criterion for this classification is the distribution of the local
populations according to their status as non-migrants and short, moderate and long range and
external immigrants. The most distant population is that of central and eastern Macedonia.
The other group is a rather heterogeneous one, including areas such as Attica, which is the
more distant one, followed by Thrace. Northern Aegean Islands, Chalkidiki and Herakleion
form another but less diverse group, connected with the other Departments of the countries
where the distances are variable but smaller, and a spatial pattern for their classification is not
recognized. Rather the mobility patterns observed among them resulted in rather smaller
divergences.

Similarly, the urban population is more diversified in central, eastern Macedonia, Thrace and
Attica. The rest of the populations form a large cluster, each in turn subdivided into two
smaller sub-clusters. In the first one, except Lassithi, urban Crete is included along with
Northern Aegean Islands and Evia. The second sub-cluster is subdivided into 3 smaller ones,
where the populations included in each of them exhibit great affinities. Chalkidiki, western
Macedonia and Larissa form the first one. The others include the areas of Epirus, the nearby
Florina and Trikala, Peloponnese Ionian Islands, Cyclades and Lassithi. These smaller
clusters are spatially heterogeneous, although sometimes neighboring areas tend to cluster
closely together.

The rural population - apart from the distinction of central, eastern Macedonia and Thrace
observed above - tends to creates smaller clusters in the other areas. However, although Attica
Province still holds its special position, the other departments form spatially diverse groups
connected to each other in variable but rather smaller distances than those found for the urban
population. Overall, it seems then that a clear distinction is observed among the rural and
urban areas of the country concerning their population composition resulting from their
differential mobility patterns.

E. Major religious and linguistic groups in Greece

Map 8: The Jews (urban) and the Muslims (total) of Greece (1928). Data source: SGG 1935: 246-296.

Even if the country, according to the 1928 census, was a homogeneous one inhabited 92% by
Christian Orthodox and Greek speaking populations, small religious and linguistic groups
were distributed among its Departments.

In 1907 only 6.127 Jews were recorded in Greece (Service du Recensement 1909: ξγ’), but
because of the territorial expansion of the country in subsequent years their number increased
to 72.791 persons in 1928 (SGG 1935: 246). The Jewish population of Greece was an urban
one, as it was distributed by 98,8% in the urban centers and principally in the city of

-240-

224

On the Bridges between Demography anOdn tBheioblroidggiecsabletAwenetnhdreompooglroapghyy:and biological anthropology:
What a census can tell us about theWcohamt apocesnistuios cnanoftetllhues maboudtethrencGomrpeoeskitioPnoopf uthleamtioodnern Greek Population

Thessaloniki (75,9%), where accounted for 22,6% of the population, and in other cities like
Ioannina, Kerkyra, Arta, Florina, Kavala and elsewhere (Map 8). But despite its religious
identity, the Jewish population was a multilingual one. 86,5% of the Jewish people, known as
Sephardim, spoke Lantino (named as “Spanish” in the census), because of their origins in
Spain from which they were expelled in 1492 and settled down in the Ottoman territories
(Dakin 1982: 373). Some of them had gradually enriched the population of Thessaloniki. The
rest of the Jewish population spoke Greek (12,5%) and several other languages. However,
because of the severe persecution suffered at the hands of the Nazis and their allies in 1941-
1944 (OSGG 1961: cx; Clogg 1995: 136-138), only 6.235 persons were recorded in the 1951
census (SNG 1958: 184).

In common with the Jewish, the Muslim population of the country increased from 3.516
persons in 1907 (Service du Recensement 1909: ξγ’) to 126.017 in 1928 (SGG 1935: 246). It
was largely made up of two groups. The first was that of Thrace; it was a non-exchangeable
population after the compulsory population exchange between Greece and Turkey described
in the introduction of this paper. This was rather a heterogeneous group consisting of Turkish
speaking populations (84.585 persons), of the Pomaks (16.740 “Bulgarian speaking” persons
according to the 1928 census) and other smaller groups like the Roma etc. (Zafeiris 2006: 54-
58). In its turn, the Turkish speaking population of Greece comprised only 45,2% Muslims of
which 98% were those from Thrace. The rest of the Turkish speaking population were Greek
Orthodox (54,2%) and some other followers of other religions or dogma. In the 1951 census,
the Turkish speaking Christians were found to be 86.838 persons and the Turkish speaking
Muslims 92.219, of which the Muslim minority of Thrace constituted 85.945 (SNG 1958:
208). In it 18.664 Pomaks are added, along with smaller groups coming to a total of 105.092
persons.

The second group of Muslims consists mainly of the Albanian speaking population of Epirus
(especially Tsamouria, largely nowadays the Department of Thesprotia) known as “Tsamis”
(16.951 persons) which were also considered as non-exchangeable persons (Divani 1995:
218-258). These people left Greece after World War II (OSGG 1961: x) and in the 1951
census only 77 persons were recorded as Albanian speaking Muslims in Thesprotia and 47 in
the Department of Ioannina (SNG 1958: 236).

Finally, a very small religious group was that of the Catholic Christians (35.182 persons),
mainly an urban population (65,2%) living in Cyclades, Athens, Kerkyra, Thessaloniki,
Achaia-Ilia and in others Departments. Their contribution to the local populations was minor
apart from in the Cyclades (8,5%), Kerkyra (3,3%) and Attica (1,2%). In the 1951 census
28.430 persons of Christian Catholic religion were recorded in the country (SNG 1958: 184).

Among the population groups which inhabited the country was that of the Armenians (Map
9), established mainly in the urban areas (84%). It is said that Armenians were settled in the
current Greek territories long ago (Krikorian 1995), but the majority of them came to the
country after the Asia Minor disaster. Their population was 33.634 persons in 1928,
established in urban Attica (40,8%), the city of Thessaloniki (17,9%), and other cities mainly
of Northern Greece. Their contribution to the local populations is insignificant in the majority
of the Departments; however, in the urban areas of 8 of them, urban Attica and the city of
Thessaloniki they were enumerated to be 1-3% of the local population. The most significant
population concentration of Armenians is found in the cities of Evros. The majority of them
left the country mainly after World War II, migrating to the Soviet Union (OSGG 1961: cx)
and in 1951 their population reduced to 8.990 persons (SNG 1958: 184). “Slavic” speaking
people, the very great majority of them Christians, were found in the Departments of Florina
(38.566 persons, 30,7% of the total population) and in Pella (19.570 persons, 20,1% of the
total population) and elsewhere in Northern Greece counting as a whole to 81.984 persons
(Map 9). As mainly a rural population (90,6%) their concentration is higher in rural areas. In
the 1951 census 41.047 Slavic speaking persons were recorded in the country (SNG 1958:
184) because many left the country during the civil war (1944-1949) (OSGG 1961: cx).

-241-

225

Konstantinos N. Zafeiris

Konstantinos N. Zafeiris

Map 9: The Armenians and the “Slavic” speaking population of Greece (1928). Data source: SGG 1935: 246-296.

Conclusions

During the first decades of the 20th century, the modern Balkan States in order to fulfill their
irredentist policies were fighting for their territorial expansion at the expense of the Ottoman
Empire. As a result, the geopolitical status of the area would be consolidated and remain
unchanged for many years.

Because of the historical momentum of the era, intense population movements took place
among the Balkan States either in refugee form or as a voluntary migration towards the
motherlands of the people. In 1928, a few years after the end of hostilities in the Greek-
Turkish War and the Asia Minor disaster, 1.159.311 external immigrants were enumerated in
the country; 17,8% of its population. Even more, 1.221.849 persons were counted as having
refugee status (18,7%); in these both those born abroad and their children born in Greece
were taken into consideration. Also, 576.469 persons, 9,3% of the total population were found
in a different Department from that in which they were born (long range immigrants). To
these 664.341 persons or 10,7% of the total population were the short and moderate rang
immigrants. Totally, the number of people found in another place than where they were born
is 2.400.121 persons, or 38,7% of the total population of the country. This huge amount of
people spread over the country indicates a very complicated, even chaotic, pattern of
migration.

In that pattern, more than a million external immigrants originating from different areas -
though all from the places of the geographic expansion of the Greek population - came to the
country in great numbers and dispersed spatially in an uneven way. In genetic terms a huge
gene flow from populations potentially genetically isolated by distance is observed in the
local gene pools, and this gene flow is extremely variable among the local sub-populations of
the country. Similarly long range migration contributes unevenly to the local gene pools but
in a more moderate way. The different mobility patterns of these immigrants have resulted in
a significant differentiation of the local populations as revealed by the cluster analysis;
differentiation which had different characteristics in the rural and urban territories of the
country.

-242-

226

On the Bridges between Demography anOdn tBheioblroidggiecsabletAwenetnhdreompooglroapghyy:and biological anthropology:
What a census can tell us about theWcohamt apocesnistuios cnanoftetllhues maboudtethrencGomrpeoeskitioPnoopf uthleamtioodnern Greek Population

This is reflected in the population composition of the different areas studied, if this is to be
estimated by the analogy of the non-migrants and the short, moderate, long range and external
immigration. As also found for the dispersion, a significant differentiation is observed among
the urban and rural populations of the country, in which the newly annexed territories and the
urban centers of Attica are distantly located in the cluster analysis.

The immigrants (refugees) established themselves in the abandoned villages and
neighborhoods of the cities of the people left who Greece because of the population
exchanges and other reasons. In other cases they were settled on the edge of the existing but
populated settlements, or in newly established settlements. For example, the refugees in
Iasmos (a village in Rhodopi) were settled in a new neighborhood at the edge of the old
settlement. Anthohori, another village of Rhodopi, was established by Refugees from eastern
Thrace (Zafeiris 2010) and Karydia and Pandrosos are ex-Bulgarian villages inhabited by
refugees from eastern Thrace and Asia Minor. The set-up of the former municipality of Dion
in Pieria (Macedonia) is one paradigm for the historical development of a residential area
(Zafeiris, under publication). It is comprised of 7 settlements, named Vrontou, Nea Ephessos,
Kontariotissa, Karitsa, Dion, Agios Spyridon and Platanakia (Map 1). Historically, it is an
area of ex “Tsifliks”, large tracts of land ownership, whose roots date back to the Ottoman
Empire (for the Tsifliks see Nitsiakos 1997: 2-3). In those times many mountainous
pastoralist families used to rent parts of the “Tsifliks” lands in order to winter their flocks in
the lowland pastures, living at the same time in temporary settlements. By the 19th century,
these families had started to settle down permanently there. Then, new settlements were
established and the pre-existing ones were enlarged. In Vrontou, a large number of
pastoralists, probably Vlachs, was added to the local population, after the 1800s. Karitsa,
Dion and Agios Spyridon are inhabited mainly by immigrant Vlachs and to a lesser degree by
Sarakatsans. Finally two waves of immigrants from Asia Minor (refugees from Ephessus)
caused the local population of Nea Ephessos to triple between 1913 and 1928. Also, refugees
from Neochori Chilis (Yenikioi, Black sea) were added to the local population of
Kontariotissa after 1923.

With the advent of the immigrants a model of coexistence and cohabitation of populations
with heterogeneous geographical origin is developed. However, it is rather unclear if marriage
barriers were developed among them. Qualitative evidence suggests that such barriers existed
for quite a time, but the degree of their genetic isolation is unknown. Quantitative evidence
for the Pomaks indicates that at least for some of the linguistic or the religious groups these
barriers still hold (Zafeiris 2006: 201-210). On the contrary, the Vlachs of Karitsa were
originally and endogamous population but with time exogamous marriages prevailed (Zafeiris
and Xirotiris 2007: 45-46). So, if any kind of reproductive isolation existed (and to what
degree) is another open subject to be examined.

It is obvious then that the continuous demographic and anthropological research will greatly
benefit the evaluation of the ethno-genetic processes which took place in the population of
Greece. In this effort, census data, especially these of 1928 and maybe of 1951, despite their
limitations and methodological weaknesses are of great importance, as a basic tool for the
understanding of the mechanisms which acted for the formulation of the modern population
profile of the country.

References

Brettell, C. and Hollifield,J. (2008).Introduction. In Brettell, C., and Hollifield, J (eds.) Migration -243-
theory: Talking across disciplines. 2d ed. New York: Routledge: 1-29.

Castles, S., de Haas, H. and Miller, M. J. (2013). The Age of Migration. International population
movements in the Modern World. 5th edition. New York Guilford Press.

Choulriarakis, M. (1973).Geographic, administrative and population development of Greece, 1821-
1971. V. I. part I. Athens: EKKE. [In Greek]

Clogg, R. (1995). A Concise History of Greece, 1770-1990. Transl. L. Papadaki. Athens: Istoritis [In
Greek].

227

Konstantinos N. Zafeiris Konstantinos N. Zafeiris

Colamn, A. M. (2008). A dictionary of psychology (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press
Dakin, D. (1982). The unification of Greece, 1770-1923. Xanthopoulos, A. (trans). Athens: Morfotiko

Idryma Ethnikis Trapezis [In Greek]
Department of Statistics. Ministry of Hygiene, provision and comprehension. Kingdom of Greece.

(1923). Refugees’ census of April 1923. Athens
Direction de la Statistique, Ministère De l’Economie Nationale. Royaume de Grèce. (1915)

Dénombrement des habitants des nouvelles provinces de la Grèce de 1913. Athènes: Imprimerie
Nationale. [In Greek].
Divani. L. (1995). Greece and minorities. The system of International protection of the League of
Nations. Athens: Nefeli. [In Greek].
Divani. L. (2000). The Territorial Integration of Greece (1840-1947). Athens: Kastaniotis: [In Greek].
ELSTAT. Hellenic Statistical Authority. (2011). Statistical yearbook of Greece.2009 & 2010. Piraeus.
Hand, D. J. (1981). Discrimination and Classification. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Krikorian, Z. (1995). The community in Greece. 12.000 Armenians live and create in our country. In
Seven Days: Anniversary: 80 years since genocide. Kathimerini newspaper. [In Greek].
Lasker, G. W. and Kaplan, B. A. (1995). Demography in biological anthropology: human population
structure and evolution. American Journal of Human Biology 7(4):425-430.
Lasker, G. W. and Mascie-Taylor C. G N. (2009). The framework of migration studies. In Mascie-
Taylor, C. G. N. and Lasker, G. W. (eds.) Biological aspects of human migration. Cambridge
studies in Biological and evolutionary anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Livi-Bacci, M. (2001). A concise history of world population. 3rd edition. Massachusetts: Blackwell
Publishers Inc.
Mascie-Taylor, C. G. N. and Lasker, G. W. (eds.) (2009). Biological aspects of human migration.
Cambridge studies in Biological and evolutionary anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Mascie-Taylor, C. G. N. and Little, M. A. (2004). History of migration studies in biological
anthropology. American Journal of Human Biology 16(4): 365-378.
Matej Francetič, M., Nagode, M. and Nastav, B. (2005). Hierarchical Clustering with Concave Data
Sets. Metodološki zvezki 2 (2): 173-193
Ministère de l’Intérieur (1872). Statistique de la Grèce. Population (Dénombrement de 1870).
Athènes: Imprimerie Nationale. [In Greek].
Mourelos, G. G, (1990). Population rearrangements after of the Balkan wars: the first attempt for
population exchange among Greece and Turkey. Proceedings of the Symposium: The Bucharest
Treaty and Greece. Thessaloniki 16-18 November 1988. Thessaloniki: IMHA.
Nitsiakos, V. (1997) “Tsifliki” and “Tseligkato”. The Complementarity of two Socioeconomic
Formations. In Nitsiakos, V. Folklore Miscellany. Athens: Odysseas: 88-95. [In Greek]
ONSG. Office National de statistique de Grèce. Royaume de Grèce. (1961). Résultats du recensement
de la population. Effectue le 7 Avril 1951. I. Aperçu historique- Rapport méthodologique, Analyse
des résultants. Tableaux par superficie et altitude. Athènes: Imprimerie Nationale.
Reed-Danahay D, and Brettell, C. (eds.). (2008). Citizenship, political engagement, and belonging:
Immigrants in Europe and the United States. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press.
Rosenblum, M. R., and Daniel J. Tichenor (eds.) (2012). The Oxford handbook of the politics of
international migration. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
SEPS. Section d’économie publique et de Statistique. Ministère de l’Intérieur (1884). Tables provincial
de l’Epire et de la Thessalie dans le recensement de 1881. Athènes: Perris fr. [In Greek].
SEPS. Section d’économie publique et de Statistique. Ministère de l’Intérieur (1890). Population.
Recensement général a la date 15-16 Avril 1889. Deuxième partie. Tableaux I. Athènes: Imprimerie
Nationale [In Greek].
Service du Recensement. Ministère de l’Intérieur. Royaume de Grèce. (1909). Résultats Statistiques du
recensement général de la population effectue le 27 Octobre 1907. Tome I. Athènes: Imprimerie
Nationale. [In Greek].
SGG. Statistique Générale de la Grèce. (1931). Annuaire Statistique de la Grèce. (1930). Année 1.
Athènes : Imprimerie Nationale
SGG. Statistique Générale de la Grèce. Ministère de l’Economie Nationale. République Hellénique.
(1928). Recensement de la population de la Grèce au 19 Décembre 1920 - 1 Janvier 1921.
Résultats statistiques généraux. A. Population – B. Familles. Athènes: Imprimerie Nationale.
SGG. Statistique Générale de la Grèce. Ministère de l’Economie Nationale. République Hellénique.
(1933). Résultats statistiques du recensement de la population de la Grèce du 15 –16 Mai 1928.
Population de Fait et de Droit-Réfugiés. Athènes: Imprimerie Nationale.
SGG. Statistique Générale de la Grèce. Ministère de l’Economie Nationale. République Hellénique.

-244-

228

What aOcnenthseusBcraidngteesllbuestwaebeonutDtehmeWocgoharmtaappochesynistauiosnOcndnanotBhfteeiotlblhlruoeisdggmaiebcsooaubdlteettAwhrenenectnGohmdrrepoemopesokoigtilroPoanpgohoypyf:utahlneadmtbiooiodnleorgnicGarleaenktPhrooppuollaotgioyn:
(1935). Résultats statistiques du recensement de la population de la Grèce du 15 –16 Mai 1928. IV.
Lieu de Naissance-Religion et Langue – Sujétion. Athènes: Imprimerie Nationale.
SNGG. Statistique Nationale de la Grèce. Royaume de Grèce. (1958). Résultats du recensement de la
population. Effectue le 7 Avril 1951. II. Tableaux des caractéristiques démographiques et sociales
de la population. Athènes: Imprimerie Nationale.
Sokal, R. R. and Michener, C. D. (1958). A statistical method for evaluating systematic relationships.
University of Kansas Scientific Bulletin, 38: 1409–1438
Theil, H. (1967). Economics and Information Theory. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Ward, R. H. and Weis. K. M. (1976) The demographic evolution of human populations. Journal of
Human Evolution 5:1-23.
Tsimpos, K. (2009). Measures of regional population distribution. In Tsimpos K. (ed.) Introduction to
Population Geography. Athens: Stamoulis: 73-112.
Zafeiris, K. N. and Xirotiris N. I. (2007). The genealogical and demographic history of Karitsa Pierias.
A contribution to the study of Vlachs in Greece. Komotini: Laboratory of Anthropology of
Demokritus University of Thrace. [In Greek].
Zafeiris, K. N. (2006). Comparative Analysis of the Biological and Demographic Structures of Isolated
Populations in the Department of Rhodopi. PhD Thesis. Democritus University of Thrace,
Department of History and Ethnology. Komotini: Laboratory of Anthropology: [In Greek].
Zafeiris, K. N. and Xirotiris, N. I. (2002). The Roma of Aratos. A Demographic and Genealogical
Study. In collective The Roma In Greece. Athens: Elliniki Etairia Ethnologias (Greek Ethnological
Society): 25-109. [In Greek].
Zafeiris, K. N. (2010). The marriage system in Greek Thrace: A sample of marriages from the
Department of Rhodopi. Proceedings of the IVth International Conference of Balkans
Demography. Spatial demography of the Balkans: trends and challenges. Budva, Montenegro, 13-
15 May 2010. Under publication. Available at: http://www.demobalk.org
Zafeiris, K. N. (under publication). An account on the variability of completed fertility and some
demographic variables of the marriage system in 32 settlements of Northern Greece during the 20th
century.
.

229 -245-



On the marriageOsn btheetmwaererinagreeslbaettwiveeens-rbelya-tiaveffsi-nbyi-tayffoinfitythorfetherekeikninss.T.Thheeccaasesoef oAgf lAaiga lKaairaatKheaodroartihaenoddCoorstiakains Kdalliadis
Costakis Kalliadis according to the documentasccoofrdSintgavtortahkeidsoAcurmiesntatsrocfhSitasvararkcishAivriesta(rccohdisearVchaivtiec(.cgord.e2V4a5tic5.g.Ir.I2)455.II)

Περὶ τῶν ἐξ ἀγχιστείας τριγενῶν γάμων
῾Η περίπτωση τῆς Ἀγλαΐας Καραθεοδωρῆ καὶ Κωστάκη Καλλιάδη
μέσα ἀπὸ ἔγγραφα τοῦ Ἀρχείου Σταυράκη Ἀριστάρχη (κώδ. Vatic. gr. ἀρ.

2455.ΙΙ)

On the marriages between relatives-by-affinity of three kins.
The case of Aglaia Karatheodori and Costakis Kalliadis according to
the documents of Stavrakis Aristarchis archive (code Vatic.gr.2455.II)

Georgios Papazoglou

Democritus University of Thrace, Dept. of History and Ethnology, Lab. of Palaeography

Abstract

A codex in the Vatican Library that had belonged to Stavrakes Aristarkhes, Grand Logothete
of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, preserves a letter from the former Patriarch Gregorios VI,
dating from 7 November 1863 and addressed to Sofronios, at the time acting Patriarch,
concerning a request from the latter to Gregorios to express his opinion on the forthcoming
marriage of Aglaia, daughter of Konstantinos K. Karatheodori and Efrosyni (Kharitou?).
Aglaia was to marry Konstantinos Kalliades, her first cousin by marriage, while her father's
first marriage had been to Erifile, aunt of Kalliades. The question, therefore, was whether
church rules permitted such a marriage arrangement. The letter to Patriarch Sofronios was
accompanied by a relevant opinion from Gregorios, to the effect that such a marriage was
unacceptable. Presumably, after the families of Karatheodori and Kalliades had intervened
with the Patriarchate, Gregorios seems to have reiterated with a second, similarly negative,
opinion. In this paper we publish the relevant documents, which had hitherto been unknown
to scholars, with a commentary and useful information regarding the Karatheodori and
Kalliades families, two prominent families of Constantinople in the second half of the
nineteenth century.

Περίληψη -247-
Σὲ κώδικα τῆς Βιβλιοθήκης τοῦ Βατικανοῦ, ἄλλοτε κώδικα τοῦ μεγάλου λογοθέτη τοῦ
Οἰκουμενικοῦ Θρόνου Σταυράκη Ἀριστάρχη, μᾶς σώζεται ἐπιστολή ἀπὸ 7 Νο-εμβρίου 1863
τοῦ πρώην πατριάρχη Γρηγορίου ΣΤ´, ἀπευθυνόμενη πρὸς τὸν πα-τριαρχεύοντα τὴν
συγκεκριμένη χρονικὴ στιγμὴ στὸ Πατριαρχείο τῆς Πόλης Σω-φρόνιο, σχετικὴ μὲ αἴτημα του
τελευταίου νὰ γνωμοδοτήσει ὁ Γρηγόριος ἀναφορικὰ μὲ τὸν ἐπικείμενο γάμο τῆς Ἀγλαΐας,
θυγατέρας τοῦ Κωνσταντίνου Κωνσταντίνου Καραθεοδωρῆ, καὶ τῆς Εὐφροσύνης
(Χαρίτου;)˙ ἡ Ἀγλαΐα ἐπρόκειτο νὰ πανδρευθεῖ τὸν Κωνσταντῖνο Καλλιάδη, πρῶτο “ἐξ
ἀγχιστείας” ἐξάδελφό της, ὁ πατέρας της σὲ πρῶτο γάμο εἶχε νυμφευθεῖ τὴν θεία τοῦ
Καλλιάδη Ἐριφίλη, τὸ δὲ ἐρώτημα ἦταν ἂν ἐπιτρεπόταν κατὰ τοὺς κανόνες ἕνα παρόμοιο
συνοικέσιο. Ἡ ἀποσταλεῖσα πρὸς τὸν πατριάρχη Σωφρόνιο ἐπιστολὴ συνοδευόταν ἀπὸ
σχετικὴ γνωμοδότηση τοῦ Γρη-γορίου, ἡ ὁποία κατέληγε στὸ συμπέρασμα πὼς δὲν ἦταν
ἀποδεκτὸς ἕνας παρόμοιος γάμος, ἐνῶ ὁ ἴδιος ὁ Γρηγόριος, μετὰ προφανῶς τὴν ἐπέμβαση
πρὸς τὸ Πατριαρχεῖο τῶν οἰκογενειῶν Καραθεοδωρῆ και Καλλιάδη, φαίνεται πὼς θὰ
ἐπανέλθη μὲ δεύτερη σχετική, ἀρνητικὴ καὶ πάλι, γνωμοδότηση˙ στὴν παροῦσα ἐργασία
ἐκδίδουμε τὰ σχε-τικὰ κείμενα, ἄγνωστα ὣς σήμερα στοὺς ἐρευνητές, τὰ σχολιάζουμε καὶ

231

Georgios Papazoglou

Georgios Papazoglou

δίδουμε χρή-σιμες πληροφορίες γιὰ τὶς δύο μεγάλες οἰκογένειες τῆς Πόλης τοῦ β´ μισοῦ τοῦ
19ου αἰῶνος, αὐτὲς τῶν Καραθεοδωρῆ καὶ Καλλιάδη.
Σὲ κώδικα τοῦ Ἀρχείου Σταυράκη Ἀριστάρχη ἄλλοτε, ποὺ σήμερα ἀπαντᾶ στὴν Βιβλιοθήκη
τοῦ Βατικανοῦ, στὸν κώδικα Vatic. gr. ἀρ. 2455 (ΙΙ), κώδικα τῆς Ἀλληλογραφίας τοῦ
πατριάρχη Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Γρηγορίου ΣΤ´(9), μᾶς διασώζονται καὶ δύο ἀνυπόγραφες
καὶ ἀχρόνιστες “γνωμοδοτήσεις” ποὺ ἀφοροῦν στὴν περίπτωση τοῦ συνοικεσίου τῆς Ἀγλαΐας
Καραθεοδωρῆ καὶ τοῦ Κωστάκη Καλλιάδη˙ οἱ “γνωμοδοτήσεις” ἀπαντοῦν στὰ φφ. 765v-
766v καὶ 766v-768v ἀντίστοιχα τοῦ ὡς ἄνω κώδικος μὲ τίτλους: “Παράρτημα τοῦ ἀνωτέρω
πρὸς τὴν αὐτοῦ παναγιότητα γράμματος περὶ τοῦ προβληθέντος συνοικεσίου” καὶ “Ἕτερον περὶ
τοῦ αὐτοῦ συνοικεσίου”.

Ὅπως εἶναι γνωστό, ὁ γεννημένος στὴν Ἀδριανούπολη στὶς 2 Φεβρουαρίου 1802 γιατρὸς
Κωνσταντῖνος Καραθεοδωρῆς, τέκνο τοῦ Ἀντωνίου Καραθεοδωρῆ καὶ τῆς Ἄννας Σωτηρίου,
θυγατέρας τῆς Αἰκατερίνης, “ἀδελφῆς Κυρίλλου τοῦ ΣΤ´ τοῦ οἰκουμενικοῦ πατριάρχου”, θὰ
συζευχθεῖ τὸ 1835, ὅπως σημειώνεται στὴν δημοσιευθεῖσα ἀπὸ τὸν Σπυρίδωνα Μαυρογένη
βιογραφία τοῦ περιώνυμου Ἀδριανοπολίτη(10), τὴν Ἐριφίλη, “σπανίας καλλονῆς καὶ ἀρετῆς
μετόχου”, θυγατέρα τoῦ “Σταύρου τοῦ Ἀριστάρχου, τοῦ κατὰ τὴν ἐποχὴν τῆς ἑλληνικῆς
μεγάλης ἐπαναστάσεως τὴν τοῦ μεγάλου διερμηνέως τοῦ Διβανίου (…), ὑπουργοῦ τῶν
ἐξωτερικῶν”, θέση κατέχοντος, μὲ τὴν ὁποία καὶ θὰ ζήσει τρία μόλις χρόνια(11)˙ ἡ Ἐριφίλη
θὰ πεθάνει, “δυστοκίαν νοσησάσης καὶ βαρὺ ἄλγος τῷ ὑπερφιλοῦντι αὐτὴν ξυζύγῳ (…)
καταλιπούσης”(12). Θανοῦσα ἡ νεαρὴ σύζυγος τοῦ Κωνσταντίνου φαίνεται πὼς θὰ ταφεῖ σὲ
ἕναν χῶρο μὲ τὸν ὁποῖον ἡ οἰκογένεια Ἀριστάρχη εἶχε ἰδιαίτερους δεσμούς, στὸν ἐν
Κουρούτσεσμε ναὸ τοῦ Ἁγίου Δημητρίου, ὁ Βασίλειος Μυστακίδης εἶναι ἰδιαίτερα
ἀποκαλυπτικός, σημειώνει πὼς θὰ πεθάνει στὶς 27 Δεκεμβρίου τοῦ 1837, σὲ ἡλικία 20 μόλις
ἐτῶν, γράφει: “μεθ᾽ οὗ [τοῦ Κωνσταντίνου Καραθεοδωρῆ] ζήσασα εὐδαιμόνως ἐνιαυτοὺς
τρεῖς ἐτελεύτησε κατὰ τὸ εἰκοστὸν χρόνον τῆς ἡλικίας της, τῇ 27 Δεκεμβρίου 1837, μετὰ μῆνας
ἓξ ἐτελεύτησε καὶ ἡ θυγάτηρ αὐτῆς Ἑλένη μηνῶν δεκαπέντε”(13).

Κάποια χρόνια ἀργότερα, σημειώνει ὁ Μαυρογένης, ὁ Κωνσταντῖνος “ἐσκέψατο κατὰ τὸ τοῦ
θεοῦ ῥῆμα οὐκ ἀγαθὸν εἶναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον μόνον ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ παραδείσῳ βιοῦν” καὶ ἔτσι
“ἐξελέξατο περικαλλῆ καὶ αὐτὴν νέαν κόρην ὁμοπάτριον πρὸς γάμου κοινωνίαν”, τὴν
Εὐφροσύνη, “μεθ᾽ ἧς πλέον ἢ μετὰ τῆς προτέρας εὖ βιώσας τέτταρα ἐγέννησε τέκνα, ὧν τὰ δύο
θήλεα καὶ τὰ δύο ἄρρενα”(14). Ὡστόσο καὶ τὴν δεύτερη αὐτὴ σύζυγό του θὰ τὴν χάσει ὁ
Κωνσταντῖνος Καραθεοδωρῆς τὸ 1856 σὲ ἡλικία μόλις 35 ἐτῶν, “μετὰ τὸν τελευταῖον τοκετὸν
νoῦσον μητρικὴν νοσήσασα (…) ἡ δύστηνος νεαρὰ καὶ ἕτερον ἄλγος ἀνίατον τῷ περιλύπῳ,
μέχρι τοῦ τοῦ βίου ἐσχάτου τέρματος ἀ-γάμῳ μείναντι”(15).

(9) Π ρόχειρα γ ιὰ τὸ Ἀρχεῖο τοῦ Σταυράκη Ἀριστάρχη πρβλ. P. NIKOLOPOULOS, L’inventario dei codici

Vaticani Greci 2403-2631, Ε Ε ΒΣ (1966/67), 129-131, τὸ σύνολο τῶν 100 περίπου κωδίκων τοῦ Ἀρχείου

Ἀριστάρχη ἔχω σὲ μικροταινίες ἐδῶ καὶ χρόνια στὴν διάθεσή μου προκειμένου σὲ συνεργ ασία μὲ τὸν

φίλο Π. Νικολόπουλο νὰ προχωρήσουμε σὲ περιγραφή τους.
(10) ΣΠ . ΜΑ ΥΡ Ο ΓΕ ΝΗ , Β ίος Κ ωνσταντίνου Κ αραθεοδωρῆ, Ε Φ ΣΚ ΙΔ ´ (1879/80), 3-27 (- τὸ κείμενο θὰ

ἀναγ νωσθεῖ στὴν Συνεδρίαση ἀρ. Φ Ο Θ ´ τοῦ Συλλόγ ου καὶ ὄχι στὴν ἀναγ ρα-φόμενη Φ Ο Γ´), ἡ

ἐργ ασία θὰ ἐπανεκδοθεῖ καὶ αὐτοτελῶς κάποια χρόνια ἀργ ότερα στὸ Π αρίσι, πρβλ. ΤΟ Υ ΙΔ ΙΟ Υ, Β ίος

Κ ωνσταντίνου τοῦ Κ αραθεοδωρῆ ψηφ ίσματι τοῦ ἐν Κ ωνσταντινου πόλει Ἑλληνικοῦ Φιλολογ ικοῦ

Συ λλόγ ου συνταγ εὶς καὶ ἐκφ ωνηθεὶς (….), Ἐ ν Π αρισίοις 1885 (σελ. 76, καὶ Π αράρτημα 77-85).
(11) Ὅ .π., 18-19 (- παραπέμπουμε στὴν ἔκδοση τοῦ Π αρισιοῦ).
(12) Ὅ .π., 19.
( 13 ) Β. ΜΥΣΤΑ ΚΙΔ Η , Π ερὶ Κ ου ρού τσεσμε τινά, ἤτοι τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν, πατριαρχείων, σχολείων

αὐ θεντικῶν οἴκων, κρηνῶν κ.λπ., Ε Α 7 (1885), 511, ὁ Mihail Dimitr i Stur dza θέλει νὰ πεθαίνει τὸ 1838 σὲ

ἡλικία 25 ἐτῶν, ἐνῶ ἀγ νοεῖ καὶ τὴν θανοῦσα θυγ ατέρα της Ἑ λένη, βλ. M. D. STURDZA, Grandes

(F1a4)mΣilΠle.s de Grèce, d’Albanie et de Constantinople, Par is 1999, 259.
ΜΑ ΥΡ Ο ΓΕ ΝΗ , ὅ.π., 50.
(15) Ὅ .π..

-248-

On the marriageOsn btheetmwaererinagreeslbaettwiveeens-rbelya-tiaveffsi-nbyi-tayffoinfitythorfetherekeikninss.T.Thheeccaasesoef oAgf lAaiga lKaairaatKheaodroartihaenoddCoorstiakains Kdalliadis
Costakis Kalliadis according to the documentasccoofrdSintgavtortahkeidsoAcurmiesntatsrocfhSitasvararkcishAivriesta(rccohdisearVchaivtiec(.cgord.e2V4a5tic5.g.Ir.I2)455.II)

Ὁ Κωνσταντῖνος φαίνεται ἀπὸ τοὺς δύο γάμους του νὰ ἀποκτᾶ πέντε τέκνα, “πενταφυεῖς δ᾽
ὄζους δῶκα πόλει θαλερούς” διαβάζουμε στὸ ταφικό του ἐπίγραμμα, ποὺ ἐντοπίζουμε στὸν
περίβολο τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ Ἁγίου Νικολάου στὸ Νιχώρι, ἕνα τέκνο, τὸν Στέφανο, φαίνεται νὰ
ἀπέκτησε ἀπὸ τὸν πρῶτο γάμο του μὲ τὴν Ἐριφίλη (- πέρα ἀπὸ τὴν θανοῦσα βρέφος λίγων
μηνῶν Ἑλένη)(16), καὶ ἄλλα τέσσερα τέκνα, δύο ἀγόρια καὶ δύο κορίτσια, τοὺς Τηλέμαχο καὶ
Ἀλέξανδρο, τὴν Ἄννα καὶ τὴν Ἀγλαΐα, ἀπὸ τὸν δεύτερο γάμο του μὲ τὴν Εὐφροσύνη˙ μὲ
βάση τὶς πληροφορίες ποὺ ἔχουμε ἀπὸ διάφορες πηγές θὰ μποροῦσε νὰ συντεθεῖ τὸ κάτωθι
γενεαλογικὸ δένδρο τῆς οἰκογενείας τοῦ Κωνσταντίνου Καραθεοδωρῆ:

Κωνσταντῖνος - Ἐριφίλη (Ἀριστάρχη) - Εὐφροσύνη (Χαρίτου;)
(1802-1879) ↓ (1816;-1837)(17) ↓(1811-1856)

↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓
Ἀγλαΐα Ἀλέξανδρος
Στέφανος Ἑλένη Ἄννα Τηλέμαχος
(1846-1919) (1848-1919)(18)
(1836-1907) (1837-1838) (; - 1939) (1845-1927)

Μία ἀπὸ τὶς ἀδελφὲς τῆς πρώτης συζύγου τοῦ Κωνσταντίνου Καραθεοδωρῆ, ἡ Ἑλένη
Ἀριστάρχη, γεννηθεῖσα πιθανότατα ἀρκετὰ χρόνια πρὶν ἀπὸ τὴν Ἐριφίλη, θὰ πανδρευθεῖ τὸν
γεννημένο τὸ 1796 Σωτήριο Καλλιάδη, ποστέλνικο τῆς Βλαχίας, ἀπὸ τὸν ὁποῖον καὶ θὰ
ἀποκτήσει δύο τέκνα, τὴν Μαρία καὶ τὸν Κωστάκη (Κωνσταντῖνο) Καλλιάδη˙ ἡ Mαρία δὲν
εἶναι ἄλλη ἀπὸ τὴν κατοπινὴ σύζυγο τοῦ περιώνυμου γιατροῦ τῶν σουλτανικῶν ἀνακτόρων
Σπυρίδωνος Μαυρογένη, αὐτοῦ ποὺ θὰ ἀναλάβει νὰ συνθέσει τὴν βιογραφία/νεκρολογία τοῦ
Κωνσταντίνου, μὲ ἐντολὴ τοῦ Φιλολογικοῦ Συλλόγου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, ἐνῶ ὁ
Κωστάκης Καλλιάδης, γεννημένος τὸ 1836, μεγάλος ῥήτορας τοῦ Οἰκουμενικοῦ
Πατριαρχείου καὶ σύμβουλος τοῦ Κράτους, θὰ νυμφευθεῖ σὲ πρῶτο γάμο τὴν Constance
Falcoianu(19), καὶ εἶναι αὐτὸς ποὺ θὰ τοῦ γίνει συνοικέσιο γιὰ νὰ νυμφευθεῖ στὴν συνέχεια
τὴν Ἀγλαΐα, θυγατέρα τοῦ ἐξ ἀγχιστείας θείου του Κωνσταντίνου Καραθεοδωρῆ ἀπὸ τὸν
δεύτερο γάμο αὐτοῦ μὲ τὴν Εὐφροσύνη, μετὰ τὸν θάνατο τῆς ἐξ αἵματος θείας του
Ἐριφίλης( 20 ). Μὲ βάση διάφορες πηγὲς θὰ μπορούσαμε νὰ συνθέ-σουμε τὸ κάτωθι
γενεαλογικὸ δένδρο τῆς οἰκογενείας τοῦ Σωτηρίου Καλλιάδη:

Σωτήριος Καλλιάδης - Ἑλένη (Ἑλέγκω) Ἀριστάρχη

(1796-1858) ↓ (; - 1890)

↓↓

Μαρία Κωστάκης (Κωνσταντῖνος)
(1826-1877)(21)
(1836-1894)

(16) Γ. Κ. Π ΑΠ Α ΖΟΓΛΟΥ, Ταφ ικὰ μνημεῖα τῆς Π όλης, Γ´. Τὰ ἐντὸς τῶν περιβόλων ναῶν καὶ μονῶν –
Φαναριῶτες καὶ Ἑλληνοοθωμανοί, λογ άδες καὶ ἄλλοι (ὑπὸ ἔκδοση).
(17) Ὁ Μihail Dimitr i Stur dza θέλει τὴν Ἐ ριφίλη νὰ γ εννιέται τὸ 1813 καὶ νὰ πεθαίνει τὸ 1838, ἐνῶ

γ νωρίζει ἕνα μόνο παιδί, τὸν Στέφανο, νὰ γ εννιέται ἀπὸ τὸν γ άμο τοῦ Κωνσταντίνου μὲ τὴν Ἐ ριφίλη,
πρβλ. Μ. D. STURDZA, ὅ.π., 259, σχετικὰ βλ. καὶ ΣΠ . ΜΑ ΥΡ Ο ΓΕΝΗ , ὅ.π., 50˙ ἀξίζει νὰ προσεχθεῖ πὼς
καὶ στὸ ταφικὸ ἐπίγ ραμμα τοῦ Κωνσταντίνου γ ίνεται λόγ ος γ ιὰ “πενταφ υ εῖς ὄζου ς”, ποὺ “ἔδωκε στὴν
πόλη θαλερούς”, προφανῶς δὲν γ ίνεται λόγ ος, ὅπως σημειώθηκε ἤδη, γ ιὰ τὴν θανοῦσα βρέφος Ἑ λένη,
ποὺ δὲν πρόφθασε νὰ “θάλει” γ ιὰ τὴν πόλη.
(18) Τὸ γ ενεαλογ ικὸ δένδρο μὲ πλούσια σχετικὴ βιβλιογ ραφία βλ. Γ. Κ. Π Α Π Α Ζ Ο ΓΛΟ Υ, ὅ.π..
(19) Μ. D. STURDZA, ὅ.π., 221.
( 20 ) Π ρόχειρα πληροφορίες γ ιὰ τὴν ζωὴ τοῦ Κωνσταντίνου Καλλιάδη βλ. [Α ΝΩΝΥΜΟ Υ],

Κ ωνσταντῖνος Κ αλλιάδης, Ἡ μερολόγ ιον Σκόκου 10 (1895), 305-306, ὅπως καὶ EA 18 (1894/ 95), 27-28 (-
νεκρολογ ία).
(21) Ὁ M. D. Stur dza θέλει λανθασμένα τὴν Μαρία νὰ γ εννιέται τὸ 1828 καὶ νὰ πεθαίνει τὸ 1874, βλ. M.

D. STURDZA, ὅ.π., 340, ἡ Μαρία θὰ πεθάνει τρία χρόνια ἀργ ότερα ἀπὸ τὸν χρόνο ποὺ καταγ ράφει ὁ
Stur dza, βλ. ἐφ. Θ ράκη, ἀρ. φύλ. 1005, 2/14 Μαΐου 1877 (- ἀναφορὰ στὸν θάνατο καὶ στὴν κηδεία τῆς
Μαρίας Μαυρογ ένους), ἀρ. φύλ. 1006, 3/15 Μαΐου 1877 (- “Λ όγ ος ἐπικήδειος” στὴν Μαρία
Μαυρογ ένους), τὸ ἴδιο λανθασμένα θέλει ὁ Κωνστατνῖνος Καλλιάδης νὰ πεθαίνει τὸ 1896, βλ. M. D.
STURDZA, ὅ.π., 221.

-249-

Georgios Papazoglou Georgios Papazoglou

Τὸ συγκεκριμένο θέμα, τοῦ συνοικεσίου/γάμου τῆς Ἀγλαΐας Καραθεοδωρῆ μὲ τὸν ἐξ
ἀγχιστείας πρῶτο της ἐξάδελφο Κωστάκη Καλλιάδη, μεγαλύτερό της κατὰ δέκα περίπου
χρόνια, θὰ ἔλθει νὰ ἀπασχολήσει τὸν Οἰκουμενικὸ Θρόνο˙ τὸ γεγονὸς ὅτι τὰ κείμενα τῶν
“γνωμοδοτήσεων” ἀπαντοῦν στὸν κώδικα τοῦ Βατικανοῦ σήμερα μεταξὺ ἐπιστολῶν τοῦ
πατριάρχη Γρηγορίου γεγραμμένων περὶ τὸ 1863 μᾶς ἐπιτρέπει νὰ συμπεράνουμε ὅτι
πρόκειται γιὰ γνωμοδοτήσεις ποὺ συνετέθησαν ἀπὸ τὸν Γρηγόριο ΣΤ´(22), ἡ ἀναφορὰ δὲ
στὸν τίτλο τῆς πρώτης “γνωμοδοτήσεως” πὼς αὐτὴ προσεκολλήθη ὡς παράρτημα τοῦ
“γράμματος πρὸς τὴν αὐτοῦ παναγιότητα” μᾶς ἐπιτρέπει νὰ δεχθοῦμε πὼς αὐτή, μαζὶ μὲ
σχετικὴ ἐπιστολή, ἀπεστάλη περὶ τὸ 1863 ἀπὸ τὸν Γρηγόριο ΣΤ´, ὄντας πρώην πλέον
πατριάρχης( 23 ), πρὸς τὸν κατὰ τὸ συγκεκριμένο χρονικὸ διάστημα πατριάρχη
Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, πρὸς τὸν πατριάρχη δηλαδὴ Σωφρόνιο Γ´, πρώην Ἀμασείας καὶ εἴτα,
ἀπὸ τὸ 1870 καὶ γιὰ εἴκοσι περίπου χρόνια, πατριάρχη Ἀλεξανδρείας(24). Στὴν συγκεκριμένη
προσαρτηθεῖσα σὲ ἐπιστολὴ γνωμοδότηση ὁ πρώην Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Γρηγόριος ΣΤ´,
βασισμένος κυρίως στὸν Ἀρμενόπουλο, στὸ ἱερὸ Πηδάλιο, ἀλλὰ καὶ στοὺς Ράλλη-Ποτλῆ(25),
καταλήγει στὸ συμπέρασμα πὼς ἡ

“σχέσις τῆς ἐξ ἀγχιστείας συγγενικῆς οἰκειότητος οὐ μόνον μεταξὺ τῶν διὰ τοῦ γάμου
συνημμένων δύο προσώπων περιορίζεται, ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰς τοὺς κατὰ γένος ἑκατέροις
προσήκοντας ἐκτείνεται διατηρουμένη καὶ μετὰ θάνατον ἀδιάλυτος τῷ τῆς συγγενείας
δικαίῳ διὰ τὴν συνδεθῆσαν στενὴν συνάφειαν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς μετὰ τῆς γυναικός”,
ἀφοῦ καὶ οἱ κανόνες τῆς Ἐκκλησίας δέχονται πὼς

“οἱ κατὰ γένος προσήκοντες ἑκατέροις ἀκολούθως δικαίῳ συγγενείας ἐπισυνάπτονται
καὶ εἰς μίαν ἁρμόττονται ἀγχιστείαν αἵματος καὶ οἰκείσιν, ὡς ἐπάναγκες εἶναι τούτοις
εὐλαβεῖσθαι καὶ δεδιέναι σφαλερὰν τὴν εἰς ἀλλήλους γαμικὴν ἐπιμιξίαν καὶ συμπλοκήν. Οὐ
γὰρ ἐνὸν εἰσιέναι πρὸς πάντα οἰκεῖον σαρκός, διὰ τὰς συνθολώσεις καὶ συγχύσεις τοῦ γέ-
νους”(26).

Φαίνεται ὡστόσο πὼς ἡ συγκεκριμένη γνωμοδότηση, σύμφωνα μὲ τὴν ὁποία ἕνα παρόμοιο
συνοικέσιο ποὺ θὰ δημιουργοῦσε, κατὰ τὸν σοφὸ νομοθέτη τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, “συνθολώσεις
καὶ συγχύσεις τοῦ γένους”, δὲν θὰ ἐπέφερε τὰ δέοντα γιὰ τὴν ὀρθόδοξο χριστιανικὴ ἠθικὴ καὶ
θὰ ἐπενέβησαν κάποιοι νομικοὶ κύκλοι, ποὺ δὲν θὰ ἦταν ἄλλοι ἀπὸ τοὺς “μέγα ἰσχύοντες”
στὴν πατριαρχικὴ αὐλή, μέλη τῶν οἰκογενειῶν Ἀριστάρχη καὶ Καλλιάδη, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς

(22) Ὁ Γρηγ όριος θὰ ἀναδειχθεῖ στὸν Θ ρόνο δύο φορές, τὴν πρώτη ἀπὸ τὸ 1835 ὣς τὸ 1840 καὶ

τὴν δεύτερη ἀπὸ τὸ 1867 ὣς τὸ 1871, βλ. Μ. Ι. ΓΕΔ ΕΩΝ, Π ατριαρχικοὶ Π ίνακες – Ε ἰδήσεις
ἱστορικαὶ βιογ ραφ ικαὶ περὶ τῶν πατριαρχῶν Κ ωνσταντινου πόλεως ἀπὸ Ἀ νδρέου τοῦ Π ρω-τοκλήτου
μέχρις Ἰ ωακεὶμ Γ´ τοῦ ἀπὸ Θ εσσαλονίκης, Ἐ ν Κωνσταντινουπόλει 1888 (ἀναστ. ἔκδ. Ἀθῆναι 1996), 612-
614, 623-624, εἰδικότερες πληροφορίες γ ιὰ αὐτὸν πρβλ. ΧΡ . ΧΑ Μ-ΧΟ ΥΓΙΑ, Ὁ οἰκου μενικὸς πατριάρχης
Κ ωνσταντινου πόλεως Γρηγ όριος ΣΤ´ ὁ Φου ρτου-νιάδης ἐν μέσῳ ἐθνικῶν καὶ ἐθνοφ υλετικῶν
ἀνταγ ωνισμῶν, Θ εσσσαλονίκη 2006 (διδ. δια-τριβή), 10-219, 330-452.
(23) Κατὰ τὸ διάστημα τῆς μεσοπατριαρχείας του, μεταξὺ 1840 καὶ 1867, σχετικὰ πρβλ. ἀνω-τέρω,

ἀξίζει νὰ προσεχθεῖ πὼς ὁ Γρηγ όριος ΣΤ´ φαίνεται νὰ διατηροῦσε στενὲς σχέσεις μὲ τὴν οἰκογ ένεια

Καλλιάδη, μόλις λίγο χρονικὸ διἀστημα πρὶν ἀπὸ τὴν σύναψη τοῦ σχετικοῦ συνοικεσίου φαίνεται νὰ
ἀλληλογ ραφοῦσε συχνὰ μὲ τὴν Ἑ λένη/Ἑ λέγ κο Καλλιάδη, ποὺ ζοῦσε στὸ Βουκουρέστι, καὶ μετὰ τὸν
θάνατο τοῦ Σωτηρίου Καλλιάδη, μεταξὺ Νοεμβρίου 1858, λ.χ., καὶ Ἰ ουλίου 1860 ἀπαντοῦν 23
τοὐλάχιστον ἐπιστολὲς τοῦ Γρηγ ορίου ἀπευθυ-νόμενες στὴν Ἑ λένη, πρβλ. κώδ. Vatic. gr . ἀρ. 2455(ΙΙ),
φφ. 608v-609r , 610r -v, 613r -v, 615r -616v, 618v-619r , 619r -620r , 625v-626r , 626r -v, 627v-628v, 635v, 639v-
640r , 640v-641r , 641r , 650r -651r , 654r , 656r -657r , 658v-659r , 659v, 660v-661r , 661v-662r , 663r -664r , 664r -

v, 665r .
(24) Μ. Ι. ΓΕΔ ΕΩΝ, ὅ.π., 622-623.
(25) Τελευταῖες σχετικὲς ἐκδόσεις βλ. Κ. Π ΙΤΣΑ ΚΗ, Κ ωνσταντίνου Ἀ ρμενοπούλου Π ρόχειρον Ν όμων ἢ

Ἑξάβιβλος, Ἀθήνα 1971, Α ΓΑΠ ΙΟ Υ ἱερμ. – ΝΙΚΟ Δ Η ΜΟ Υ μνχ., Π ηδάλιον νοητῆς νηὸς τῆς μιᾶς ἁγ ίας
καθολικῆς καὶ ἀποστολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας τῶν ὀρθοδόξων Ἐκκλησιῶν ἅπαντες οἱ Ἱεροὶ Κ ανόνες τῶν
ἁγ ίων καὶ πανευ φ ήμων ἀποστόλων (…), Ἐ ν Ζ ακύνθῳ 1864 (ἀναστ. ἔκδ. Θ εσσαλονίκη 2003), Γ. Α .
Ρ Α ΛΛΗ -Μ. Π ΟΤΛΗ, Σύ νταγ μα τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν κανόνων τῶν τε ἁγ ίων καὶ πανευ φ ήμων ἀποστόλων
καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν καὶ οἰκουμενικῶν καὶ τοπικῶν συ νόδων (…), Ἀθήνησιν 1852-1859, Α ´-ΣΤ´ (ἀναστ. ἔκδ.
Ἀθήνα 1996).
-250- (26) Σχετικὰ πρβλ. κατωτέρω, στὴν ἔκδοση τοῦ κειμένου.