Talk:Ionians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Greece Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece.
If you would like to participate, you can improve Ionians, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
Top	This article has been rated as a Top priority article
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

[edit] Comments

Corrected some errors. Needs more information about the earlier Yawones and also some linguistic theories. The mythology could be brought in.

[edit] inconsistancy

• On the disambiguation page for Ionian there is a claim that the ancient greeks were divided into four groups. here, the first sentance says three. Which is correct and why? --129.25.4.74 16:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You are right they are actually four. The Achaeans (i.e. Mycenaeans) are generally forgotten in the historical period (after 8th century BC) because they are only found in Arcadia and Cyprus. I will correct it. --Kupirijo 03:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • You are wrong, there are three. The tradition of the ethne comes from classical times. The main ref is in Herodotus, who says there are three. The Achaeans appear extensively in Homer, where they are also Danaans, Argives and Hellenes. The term Achaean included everyone in southern and eastern Greece, including Athens. The eastern sources - Biblical, Egyptian - make it clear that the foreigners considered them all Ionians. Pelasgian is used quite a lot; the Pelasgians were operating with and were part of the Achaeans. Then the war was over and a period of turbulence followed, a "dark age." When the smoke cleared the Dorians were in the Peloponnesus, Crete and some of the islands. The Ionians had been pushed out of the Peloponnesus except for populations now subordinate. The term Achaea remained to a small state in northern Peloponnesus. I do not believe the inhabitants of Arcadia called themselves Achaeans or those of Cyprus either, but in any case in Mycenaean times they were all Ionians. Ionia was left to a small group of settlements in Anatolia but the Athenians also were considered Ionians. The Aeolians - a fact which so far escapes Wikipedia entirely - is the name given to the population of Boeotia and a small collection of settlements in Anatolia. The Aeolians were pushed out of Thessaly by the Dorians, where they were definitely among the earlier Ionians. So, the classical authors for the most part understood that the remnant Achaeans had been mainly the Ionians. So, your error is as follows. Bottom line: it is oversimple, compressing diachronic complexity into a single mythic unspecified time that you consider to have been contemporaneous. In Homeric times representing Mycenaean times there were Hellenes/Achaeans/Argives/Danaans (southern Greek) and possibly Dorians (northern Greek). In classical times there were Ionians, Aeolians and Dorians according to the traditions and Greek dialects. I believe the population of the rump state of Achaea had been Dorianized and was speaking Dorian. Everyone was considered a Hellene. The Danaans were gone. The Argives were the rump state of Argos which had been Dorianized and were speaking Dorian. A remnant of Mycenaean Greek (a southern Greek dialect) was being spoken in Arcadia and on Cyprus but as I say I do not believe they considered themselves Achaeans, who were the Dorianized rump state. The term "Achaean" as you use it is a synthetic construct devised by Müller and published in 1824? I think you are beginning to see that the article is totally inadequate for the concept. So far it has escaped attention. There are no line references here. That is because it is a relatively major research project for some happy editor with the inclination to do it and none has come forward. I started on Dorians first, which is why you do not see me here. Eventually if no one else undertakes it you will and you may anyway. By the way I think the Greek History box goes here. Meanwhile I refrain from loading the article up with templates as I do not wish to get further involved at this moment.Dave (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)