This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofGreece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see ourproject page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see ourtalk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating toethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
On the disambiguation page forIonian there is a claim that the ancient greeks were divided into four groups. here, the first sentance says three. Which is correct and why? --129.25.4.7416:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 theDorians 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 termAchaea remained to a small state in northernPeloponnesus. I do not believe the inhabitants ofArcadia called themselves Achaeans or those ofCyprus either, but in any case inMycenaean times they were all Ionians.Ionia was left to a small group of settlements inAnatolia but the Athenians also were considered Ionians. The Aeolians - a fact which so far escapes Wikipedia entirely - is the name given to the population ofBoeotia 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 andGreek 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 onDorians 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)[reply]
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.—Precedingunsigned comment added byTimpap (talk •contribs)22:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence doesnt work syntatically and it isnt clear which "name" is meant:"They were then prior to Dorian dominance inCrete, if the name refers to Cretans."—Precedingunsigned comment added byLemccan (talk •contribs)16:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.—Precedingunsigned comment added by88.240.110.184 (talk)22:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 2 external links onIonians. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them withthis tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.
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.— Precedingunsigned comment added by71.168.238.185 (talk)13:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alexanderik53 The addition you mentioned was based on aWP:PRIMARY source oversimplification and was aWP:UNDUE generalization for the lead. Most ofIonia was outside ofCaria and Herodotus' quote spoke specifically of events in the city ofMiletus. Additionally, the quote focused on a very limited number of Ionians, specifically "those who came from the verytown-hall of Athens" (prytaneion) and thought they were the "best born" among the rest. I also removed the template "Chinese exonyms" and the map of Central Asia for being almost off-topic.Piccco (talk)17:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
