Talk:Ionians

considered themselves to be divided into
WTF?! rewrite that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.149.173.190 (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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)

are you sure about that? i think it is widely accepted that there were four tribes. at around 2000 BC the ionians, the achaeans and the aioleans came to greece from the north. these are indoeuropean tribes. the achaeans along with the indigenous pelasgians started the mycenean civilization. some of the pelasgians where assimilated along with achaeans but some of them were pushed to the mountains of arcadia. From peloponesus the acheans travel to crete and rodes at around 1400 BC and in 1193 BC along with all other greeks they fight the trojans. At that time the dorians werent at greece. The dorians, who are about to come, either assimilate the achaeans or they kill them. So im quiet sure there were four tribes. Achaeans aioleans and ionians at first and a 1000 years after them the doric invasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timpap (talk • contribs) 22:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

unintelligible
This sentence doesnt work syntatically and it isnt clear which "name" is meant: "They were then prior to Dorian dominance in Crete, if the name refers to Cretans." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemccan (talk • contribs) 16:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

no —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timpap (talk • contribs) 22:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Map
I am from turkey and ı want ot tell you about photo which shows ionia. İzmir/Smyrna is an aeolis city. Then it became an ionia city, like halikarnassos(it is a dor city), so if you want to show ionia, you will take a photo of south izmir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.240.110.184 (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ionians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927151807/http://www.indoeuropean.nl/index2.html to http://www.indoeuropean.nl/index2.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927151807/http://www.indoeuropean.nl/index2.html to http://www.indoeuropean.nl/index2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Odd statement
In the "Biblical" sub-section of the "Name" section on this page there is an odd line:

"The date of the Book of Isaiah cannot precede the date of the man Isaiah, in the 8th century BC."

I'm not exactly sure what this is trying to get at. Maybe it's trying to compare the antiquity of the reference in Isaiah to the antiquity of the other sources? It seems like this should be reworded, such as something like "This reference has been traditionally dated to the lifetime of the Isaiah in the 8th century BC, modern scholars usually date the Book of Isaiah to X year", not sure what the current consensus is on that. On a side note, it is very possible that sections and traditions within the Book of Isaiah could pre-date Isaiah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.238.185 (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)