In contradiction to what is mostly believed, during the early period the populations of Europe did not settle in a certain place, but were always "on the move". The people of the Balkans, including the Greeks, did not settle permanently in one region either. National movements of the Albanians, the Slavs and the Greeks begin from the 13th century and mainly from the 15th century because of the Turkish threat as a result of the war operations and the resistance movements but also because of the deregulation of the social-economic system, famine and the plague. Often these movements begin within the "cultural relations" and the economic conditions that exist in the eastern Mediterranean area.

The last decade, we witness a constant movement of population groups. In the whole of Europe but particularly in south eastern Europe, people individually or in groups are either obliged to move to another place or move voluntarily (as much as restrictive and vague "voluntarily" may seem). It would be unmethodical and irrealistic to make references and compare periods of time and especially long and agitated ones, such as the period between the 15th and 18th centuries and the one from the 19th to the 20th century. We will not try to render the whole picture of the migrations of those times but we will make an effort to place the phenomenon of the migrations in the methodological approaches of contemporary research on migration in a concise way.

The oldest historiography on the phenomenon of the colonies, mainly up to the first half of the 20th century, often refers to the Greeks as "the ingenious Greeks" founders of a significant number of colonies that date back to the ancient times. Efforts have been made to highlight the continuation of the cultural phenomenon and to give explanations by rendering the Greek phenomenon of the colonies to racial and geopolitical factors. The following brief introduction as well as separate studies on each colony are restricted to the latest period, thus avoiding generalities and references to the past which are rarely confirmed by research and often lead to precarious and simplified conclusions.

In the contemporary historical evolution we would divide the phenomenon of the Greek colonies in three periods: a) 15th - 16th century, b) 17th - early years of the 19th century and c) 19th - 20th century. As the researcher of the third period is confronted with difficulties that derive from modern historiography and study methods of the waves of migration of the industrial and capitalistic society, but also from the internationalization of the phenomenon, we consider that the best method to present the phenomenon of the Hellenic colonies is in one single chapter including the two first periods. Moreover, the period beginning from the 15th century until the 19th constitutes for both the Greek history and the history of other peoples of southeastern Europe, a period with a certain number of common characteristics in political organization and economic orientations. These peoples belong to multinational state formations -the Ottoman Empire, the Hapsburg monarchy, the Venetian democracy- which are integrated in economic systems of the European powers competing for the prevalence in the eastern Mediterranean basin. They either cooperate or conflict in order to obtain an independent position in this strategic geopolitical region. The third period is determined by the common characteristic of the disintegration of the empires, the creation of national states and the re-orientation of each people to the new international economic conditions imposed by the industrial revolution and capitalism.

Modern historiography imposes the cooperation of more than one of the humanities. The first conclusions of the study on the Greek colonies were restricted to the registration of the sources and the description of the first difficulties, which were mainly relevant to the organization of the communities. Furthermore, there was a tendancy of quest of similarities with the Greek region and an effort to reinforce the explanation of the continuation of Greek civilization. Later efforts, especially after the development of studies on the economic and demographic history, aimed at presenting the community history and particularly promoting the economic character of the colony (e.g. Alexandria, Trieste, Livorno). Contemporary historical studies demand a more global, methodical approach of the phenomenon of the Greek colonies. Migrants must be seen not only as representatives of national groups whereas their history must not be exclusively bound with the national history. It has been admitted that the study of the phenomenon of colonies constitutes a historical chapter for the countries and towns where Greeks settled. As individual personalities, and social groups, migrants influence and are influenced by their greater social-political environment. They are vehicles of their country's traditions and civilization and receptors of the changes of the regions that receive them. Historical anthropology, as far as methodology and research are concerned, has the possibility and must offer the researchers of the phenomenon of the colonies the tools that will enable them to give answers to questions related to thematic combinations, such as migrants and economy, migrants and social identity or national identity, migrants as a minority of foreigners in a foreign society.

The term "phenomenon of the colonies" is preferred instead of "the Greeks living abroad" (Greek: apodemos Hellenismos), "the Greeks of the diaspora (the Greeks dispersed all over the world)", "the migration of the Greeks", which all refer to the phenomenon of the colonies. The term "the Greeks living abroad" determines mostly the Greeks all over the world in modern times and seems ideologically stressed, as the derived word "apodemo" implies the link to "demos" which is the outset of the nation-state, the Greek state. The second term "the Greeks of the diaspora" is used mainly to place the phenomenon in the historical diachrony, while it is often ideologically stressed - particularly in contemporary political speech. The third term "the migration of the Greeks" is the most comprehensive term. It refers to the historical aspect of the phenomenon and gives international dimensions to the phenomenon of the colonies while it also implies the cooperation of many sciences.

Migration is defined as the movement of populations from one region to another, in or out of the country's borders, to or from rural and urban centers. Migrations may take the character of a permanent, a temporary, a legal or an illegal settlement. Normally, these movements of population are mass movements or movements of a considerable number of people. The reasons for which people migrate vary from economic motives, to persecution for religious beliefs or political ideology. "Population movements are very often and common in the history of the Mediterranean", writes Alain Ducellier, "and although there are very few periods when no movement takes place, there is always a tendancy to exaggerate their importance and consider them as the explanation to everything". Although there is a risk of giving simplifying explanations by attributing excessive importance to the migrations to southeastern Europe and Asia Minor (Anatolia), we must accept that the frequent wars of the Ottomans for expansion and establishment from east westward and to the northern part of the Balkans as well as repeated conflicts mainly with the Venetians and the Hapsburgs for different interests are the principle reasons of population movement.

The schematization effort comes upon source and historiographic problems. However, the populations of various nations and religions which lived together in a large area for such a long period that ended in the creation of national states were bound to become a subject of study by the national historiographies. Although the exaggeration of the oldest historiography on the scurry of the Albanians before the danger of the Turkish conquest or the emphasis on the "mass movements" of the Greeks from Asia Minor (Anatolia) to the islands of the Aegean sea and the peninsula of Italy may include historical mistakes and distortions, this can only be explained by the need of the national historiographers to place emphasis on the oppression of the Ottoman conquerors by unifying as a whole the long years of conquest. The exaggeration concerning populations which fled because of the conqueror's raids from the countryside to the mountainous regions during the first centuries of the Turkish oppression in southeastern Europe can be placed in the same pattern. The dispersal of the Greeks in the Italian Peninsula and Central Europe seen through the long tradition of the Greek colonies or the "Greek (creative) genius" and the "potentiality of the Greek race" as well as the suppression or peripheral occupation of the Greek historiography with similar movements of the Serbs or Vlach populations can be integrated in the national plans of the continuation of Hellenism etc. The fact that the conclusions of recent studies tend to reverse or dispute such intentions enables us to continue not so ideologically stressed in grouping the migration movements.

The migrations of this long period can be concisely placed in the following groups:

1. This group comprises the great national migrations of the Greeks, the Albanians, the Slavs (particularly Serbs) mainly during the 14th up to the 16th century and partly after that period as a consequence of the war conflicts due to the expansion of the Ottoman empire. In this group, we can also include compulsory settlements which the Turks proceeded in Asia Minor (Anatolia) and in the Balkans. The Serbs and Vlachs also moved to settle in the region of the Military Frontiers (Militargrenze Gebiet), which extended to Vojvodina in the south frontiers of today's Hungary and to a part of Transylvania.
2. This group includes the internal migrations of farmers and stock-farmers from the mountainous regions to the plains and the opposite, the movement to towns for economic reasons or because of an epidemic. The vague, coercive limits of town-countryside, the organization of groups of bandits (klephts-literally robbers), the seasonal movement of craftsmen, the state policy of settlement for the reinforcement of the cities' population (a policy adopted by the Venetians and Ottomans - see cases of Constantinople and Thessaloniki in the 15th century) and mainly the migrations of merchants in or out of state territories.
3. This period involves - already before but mainly immediately after the fall of Constantinople - the migration of Greek scholars, painters but also Greek and mostly Serb teachers, to the cities of the Italian peninsula during the whole period of our study, but more intensively in the 18th century.
4. This group comprises the great number of colonies during two periods, the 15th-16th centuries and the period from the 17th to the 19th century in the Italian peninsula and in the countries of the Hapsburg monarchy.

This grouping could be examined in relation to the migration categories of Charles Tilly: "circular migration", "local migration", "career migration", "chain migration" as well as "compulsory" and "settlement" migrations.

There is a number of questions that have either been answered or need to be answered concerning: a) the migration conditions, that is the organization of migration on an individual basis, on a group or on a state basis, b) the routes that migrants followed, c) the policy of the state or that of the reception authorities and those for the integration of the migrants, d) the organization and social integration of the migrants in the new regions of settlement; how is the "foreigner" conceived in the regions of migrant reception in the Balkans and in settlement towns and cities out of the borders of southeastern Europe? e) the assimilation stages, whether assimilation is achieved and in what degree; the linguistic, religious and mainly cultural factors that contribute to the preservation or loss of the individual or collective identity of the migrants.

However, we need to insist mostly on the explanation of the term "phenomenon of the colonies" than on the other terms. In my opinion, this term corresponds to its literal meaning, as it refers to the settlement of individuals and other small groups mostly in urban areas, with the exception of the movements of the Greeks and the Albanians to south Italy and Sicily in the 15th and 16th centuries. Their settlements usually led to the composition of colonies (Greek: paroikies < para+oiko) the organization of communities, the foundation of temples, which are all the characteristics of the phenomenon.

The movements of the Greeks during the first phase (15th-16th century) have the following character: a) migrations of few personalities, scholars or others, to the free West of Renaissance (according to Charles Tilly these are the career migrants) and b) the movement of populations within the frontiers of the Balkans with a tendency of settling in free or latin ruled regions in the beginning and later in countries of the Italian peninsula. In fact, the last movements were either movements of groups of populations (not only Greeks but Albanians also; the Slavs settled in central and south Italy, and Sicily where they created farms on mountainous regions), either movements that prefigured the form of the colonies that first appeared at the end of the 17th century onward. These colonies were settlements (e.g. in Venice, Ancona, Naples, Livorno) that enjoyed the privileges offered by the reception authorities to merchants or other migrants, because they benefited from their coming. Therefore, both sides gained and fulfilled their interests. We must note that the movement of Greeks from Crete, the Ionian islands, Cyprus, parts of the Peloponnese to Venice at various periods must be treated as a phenomenon of immigration. Venice was the metropolis for the Cypriots up to 1571, for the Cretans up to 1669 and for the people of the Ionian islands until 1797. This parameter imposes different questions for the examination of the evolution of the colony of Venice and its exceptional prosperity. Venice was for its Greeks tributaries, what Constantinople meant for the Greeks tributaries of the Ottomans. Consequently, the relation between the Serenissima Venice and the Greeks was exceptional.

The Greeks of the diaspora of the second phase from the 17th century onward must be considered in relation to more general factors involving: a) the administrative organization of the Ottoman Empire b) the economic crisis that occurred in the Ottoman Empire from the end of the 16th century, the consequences of which had a long term influence on the state economy and the life of the tributaries and c) the balance and the competition of the European powers and their attitude towards the Ottoman Empire, especially after the signing of the treaties of Karlowitz (Karlowitz, 1699) and Passarowitz (Passarowitz, 1718), but also the changes in trade. The role of the Levant was important for the economic orientation of each of these powers (France, England, Holland, Venice but later Austria-Hungary as well) in various periods. These factors contributed to the formation and evolution of the christian tributaries' new role in the Ottoman Empire both in the economic life of the country and mainly in commercial transactions with foreign powers. The christian tributaries, mainly the Greeks, but also the Serbs and other people of the Balkans found new enlarged routes of economic activities. Their activities took place next to the foreign merchants, while they benefited from their presence in the Levant. They expanded their activities on land and sea while their orientations depended on the sea routes and land trade. This direction would very soon form the sort of trade that they would take over and the places where they would exercise their new activities. Many of the Greeks had been apprentices in the service of the representatives of trade powers in the Ottoman empire's coastlines (see the "nations" francais in Smyrna, etc.). The colonies of the foreign merchants were economic centres and centres of rallying and evolution of the local urban population as well as organization models for similar centres, while they were also considered as "study" and specialization centres in the art of commerce and in the international dimensions of that time.

The space where the Greek colonies stretched in the 17th-18th centuries was that of the influence of Venice, France, the Netherlands, the Hapsburg monarchy and the Italian states. At the end of the 18th century a new perspective for the regions of south Russia appears; this perspective will be positively effected by the treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji in 1774. At the same time, but mainly from the 19th century, Egypt began attracting the interest of the Greeks for settlement. Alexandria and Cairo would be the first centres of rallying and evolution of the Hellenism and their high prosperity will last until our days. In Britain, from the beginning of the 19th century, the colony of London will prosper as it constitutes the place where the first Greek representatives of shipowner companies settled. Later, London will become the city of their headquarters.

With the exception of the scholars that moved during the first centuries of Ottoman rule, the most common occupation of the Greek migrants was trade. Mertchants would leave their places of origin to carry their merchandise in Europe, to participate in local trade fairs and markets; eventually they would settle in their new cities. Once they had permanently settled, one of the top priorities of the Greeks was the composition of their community and the foundation of an orthodox church. Religiousness during the period we study was an indispensable element of human life and the foundation of a temple satisfied both the desire of the Greeks to fulfill their religious duties and their need to rally as a social group. The foundation of the temple and the composition of the community were possible thanks to the privileges (privilegi/privilegien) that the migrants managed to obtain from the authorities of reception. The conferment or the extension of these privileges to national-religious groups was in function with the more general political orientation of the authorities of the countries where the Greeks settled. Therefore, the facility with which privileges were granted to migrants by the Hapsburg monarchy (e.g., the Austrian authorities granted privileges to the Greeks and the Serbs of Trieste, the Greeks, Serbs, "Macedon Vlachs" in Vienna and in Hungarian regions in the early and the mid-18th century) is explained by the Hapsburg policy of attracting foreign and experienced merchants. On the contrary, the orthodox Greeks in Venice or Ancona in the 15th century confronted difficulties in obtaining privileges in order to found an orthodox temple or to attend the liturgy in one. This was due to the conflicts between the Orthodox and Catholic church. The relationship between the Orthodox and the Catholic church were still obscured by the unionist and anti-unionist tendencies. As for Austria, the religious matters were more intense, as the country lived the consequences of the Reformation clashes up to the end of the 18th century. The conflicts on religious matters -at least for Central Europe- were put aside only at the time of the rule of emperor Joseph II and with his Decree on religious tolerance (Toleranzpatent, 1781), while they were to begin again during the French Revolution.

At this point, it is worth mentioning that in this early, "pre-national" period, the privileges were conferred to the Greci, the Griechen, the Gorog. As known, the term Greci/Grieche, by the beginning of the 19th century, did not necessarily mean the Greeks only, but the orthodox people of the Eastern church. According to sources, these were the "greci scismatici", the "greci non uniti", while sometimes the word greco/gorog referred also to the merchants. Thus, the privileges granted for the foundation of a temple and the composition of a community, mainly in the countries of Central Europe, were destined for the Greeks, the Serbs and the Vlachs since it is historically proven that mainly these people followed the trade routes in the Balkans beginning from the south to the north when the economic conditions were favourable. Cohabitation, unimpeded in the first years of their settlement in the new countries, became in most cases problematic. Economic strength, evolution in education, the influence of the Enlightenment Age and principally the dissemination of the ideas of the French Revolution led gradually to the awakening of national consciousness and consequently, to the separation tendencies and organization of exceptional communities and temples. The language will become the theoretical kingpin of nationalism. The common religion was inadequate for placing emphasis on common cultural factors. Moreover, the autonomy of each Church was a tradition for the Eastern Orthodox Church. During the Ottoman rule, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople constituted the supreme ecclesiastic authority for the orthodox people of southeastern Europe. Not all people of the region, and particularly the Serbs, recognized the high position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Serbs of the Ottoman Empire and the Hapsburg monarchy, especially in the beginning of the 18th century, managed to obtain their own archbishop's palace, and consequently their own education and national orientation. The language and religion imposed differentiation from the mainly Catholic, Italian, German, and Hungarian-speaking environment of the migrants. The Vlach-speaking population in the south Balkans, which settled mainly in Hungary and Transylvania, close to people speaking a relative language to their own, constitute an exception. Differentiation tendencies from the Serbs and Greeks that appeared in the colonies did not end in national differentiation or in a clear claim for the formation of an autonomous state.

The community organization of the Greeks as well as that of other migrants was based on almost the same principles while there were differentiations from place to place. The community constituted the legal representation of its members before the local authorities while it also represented the centre of social rallying. In addition, it was via the community that the foreigners could maintain their national particularity by organizing schools and contributing to the publication of books in their own language. It was in the colonies that the spiritual renaissance centres of Hellenism were created and where agents that would act as intermediaries for the dissemination of the Enlightenment messages to the Greek people and other people of the Balkans were constituted.

Nevertheless, the most important characteristic of the colonies was their contribution to the performance of commercial transactions in the greater land and sea area of southeastern Europe. In the first centuries, they were pedlars who gradually settled in one place. The Greeks founded stores or expanded their family commercial businesses by linking economically the places of their new settlement to the ones they started from. In this way, they contributed to the multi-organization of trade, insurance companies and shipping issues. They were integrated in the local and international for that time trade networks. They were retailers, they performed transit trade and participated in trade fairs. These merchants transported mainly to the North raw materials for the European artisanship and manufacture and bought manufactured products: a market action integrated in the mercantilism system. Merchants, insurers, shipowners and bankers were the migrants of the prosperous colonies of the early 19th century and the people that would form the Greek bourgeois class in and out of the Greek region and the ones that would make the Greek language known as the lingua franca of trade and education in the Balkans.

The diachronic existence of a colony in a region that offers hospitality to its members keeps pace with all aspects of life of its residents and members. Migrants are scholars, which carry manuscripts from the East in the 15th and 16th centuries, but they also teach in the academies of renaissance cities. They also write, translate and in general contribute to the development of the renaissance civilization. Migrants are tutors that will teach in community schools of the Greeks of the diaspora while they will also bring together the intellectual trends of Europe and the East by contributing to the spiritual regeneration of the Balkan people. Migrants that own thriving businesses participate in the financial administration of the cities that received them. Very often they manage to obtain the nationality of the country that offers hospitality to them, they become members of the noble class by participating in the local administration and economic aristocracy. This participation does not imply that they were assimilated in the greater social environment. The national-religious identity, as it is formed from the end of the 18th to the 19th century, is not necessarily determined by their economic role. Their role often imposes cooperation with the local authorities and they are often assigned high offices in the country of reception. The cultural dimensions within which the migrants act, develop their businesses and create their families could not be determined only by national orientations, as mainly our contemporary historians claim in contradiction to the opinion of people of that time. Cosmopolitanism which is evident in the school syllabus -apart from Greek, students are also taught Italian, French, German and Russian- but also in the mixed marriages and mixed companies. Despite the small percentage of these mixed relationships, we must note that these constitute the principle characteristic of the colony. However, it is not right to exaggerate the assimilation procedure the migrants are subject to. Usually, they remain "foreigners" for the local society for a long period or are treated as "foreigners" (acatolici is one of the terms) by the official language. "Foreigners" means strangers towards the language, the religion, their origin and the places of their economic orientation. According to the evolution of the contemporary sociological and historic-anthropologic methodological tendencies, the most proper confrontation would be to consider the migrants as individuals and groups that act in multi-cultural social groups, carry their traditions and the tactics of their entrepreneurial organization, are influenced by the new environment and contribute in their turn in the formation of the cosmopolitan society of which they will be members. As a rule, at least for the period we study, the Greek migrants maintain their family, entrepreneurial and ideological communication bonds with their places of origin. When they decide to return to Greece, they participate actively in the economic and cultural field and are integrated in the bourgeois class, the social administrative bodies and they contribute to the modernization of the Greek state.