Talk:Dorians

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Greece Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Classical Greece and Rome High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject 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 our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Ethnic groups This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Since the Dorians did not play the guitar (!) the 'guitar chord' terminology to refer to the Dorian mode seems rather out of place. I've changed it. Paul

It's the dorian mode of the natural scale? What's the problem...? You don't seem to even know the difference between a scale, chord, or mode. 89.152.106.107 (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These two articles essentially belong together at Dorian, supporting one another until some subsection is overwhelmingly complicated and might stand on its own, represented at the main article by a concise paragraph. Perhaps there are three subsections to the "Dorian invasions" part:

1. "The Greek view"
2. "Race and Historians: the 19th century view"
3. "Archaeology and the modern view"

If you see other natural subdivisions, please insert them, and then let's get going with this interesting big article. --Wetman 06:45, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, the author never responded. The subject turned out to be more complex than the subtopics suggested, but there are some problems with those suggestions. "The Greek view" spreads itself out into the whole article. "Race and Historians" is too big: it requires a study of 19th-century ideas of race and whether they might apply to the ancient sources; furthermore, it isn't just the 19th but the 20th. "Archaeology and the modern view" implies that there is only one modern view or only one archaeological view. It's too big also - you have have to break it up into another level of subsections.Dave (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wetman: Yes your revision of my edit is better. Can you be more specific what you mean by "late mythology"? Also I don't quite know how to incorporate the notion that the common ancestry of the Dorians, Ionians, and Aetolians (all "descendants" of Hellen), is more than mere "mythology" and probably represents and the early beginnings of an ethnological theory. Paul August ☎ 20:14, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

According to a note in Kerenyi, The Heroes of the Greeks p 184, the Dorians recalled that three times Heracles had aided their "oldest king", Aigimios, "under whom they had not yet emigrated to the Peleponnesos." (Kerenyi). Kerenyi's source is Apollodorus (II.7.7), who though he is late, was working with ancient materials lost to us. Robert Graves (Greek Myths) in mentioning that Dorus and his brothers were fathered by Apollo on Phthia, gives Apollodorus as his source. All tribal groups have myths of an "original', whose name is the eponym of the tribe, a Danaus for the Danaans, etc. Even tribal eponyms in Genesis. The oldest ones are essentially eponyms of extended families, who are worshipped in archaic cults into Roman times; Walter Burkert, Greek Religion devotes a chapter VI.1.2 to "Clan and family mysteries". The important descendance, however, is from Heracles, well laid out here. The figure of "Dorus" is a back-formation, so I guess the first task is to demonstrate that back-formations do exist. --Wetman 20:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is much to the point sir - elsewhere. It should go in Dorus. I am not working on that right now so I haven't checked to see if it is there but whoever works on it certainly should check. For the back-formation - I'd keep it to one sentence or a footnote or just a link, as it belongs under some linguistics article. For the "late" - well, the late mythographers do talk about it, but so does Hesiod, who is early. So I took out "late" but the single sentence given to the myth is enough as there is a link to Dorus.Dave (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now see Dorus, freed from Dorus (disambiguation). An account of "Dorians" without Dorus might be thought less than complete. I added a link at "See also".--Wetman (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is about the same evidence for the "Dorian Invasion" and the "Return of the Heracleidae". The distinction made in the present text is Mueller's dogmatism. Don't see how to fix it right now, but shall return Septentrionalis 18:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll leave Mūller aside, and concentrate instead on the theme of return of the Heracleidae as it is expressed in the written myths themselves, you'll really improve this article. --Wetman 19:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wish this suggestion had been noticed. The article as it stands still makes it sound like the Dorian invasion was a historical event, rather than a myth. It's particularly concerning that the sole source cited for any historical fact in the article is for a "tradition" in Sicily. The 1911 Britannica won't cut it, I'm afraid: at that time many people did actually believe in the actuality of a Dorian invasion, but that's not a reputable theory now. I'm adding a "Not verified" template, but the whole article needs reorganising to make clearer distinctions between myth and history. I may be able to do something about it sometime in the next couple of weeks, but I can't make any promises as it's not a topic I know a huge amount about. Petrouchka 16:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So THIS is the source of the template. Petrouchka never got back. Well he's right of course but on this round I expanded the whole concept, which expansion I think makes clear the difference between history and myth - but you know there are also modern historical myths believed for a while to be history. So to me the answer was to give something of the history of the concept of the Dorian invasion. If the "puppet" of the opera wants it (if that is why he chose his name) then no doubt others are similarly puzzled and interested. The article IS getting big, which is why I want to break out Dorian invasion. The Dorians without their invasion are quite historical.Dave (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some rare writings [1] of another dialect (probably an Illyrian language or a Pelasgian one), which according to some researchers looks like modern Arvanitic language, have been discovered in ancient Corinth and Athens. There is no proof though that the people who spoke those dialects were Dorians.

I'm not sure this belongs here either; but I agree it belongs somewhere; so I'm adding it to this talkpage so it doesn't just disappear. Septentrionalis 20:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was only put here in the first place because someone else had earlier tried to project a non-Hellenic Illyrian identity onto the Dorians, an assertion that was fairly quickly edited out. If it belongs anywhere, it's either Pelasgian or Arvanitic language, even if it is fairly well established that the latter derives from the same source as modern Tosk Albanian rather than an indigenous pre-Hellenic language.--Theathenae 08:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Fairly well established..." It's also "fairly well established" that Old English is a Germanic language. Alexander 007 07:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I see this as irrelevant now as there seems to be a good article of the topic and its says the Arvanites date from the middle ages. Our Dorians and Dorian invasion are ancient.Dave (talk) 12:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dorian was also a sacret mage from the guild named rugcutters -

- Removed the above, seemed off-topic

Meersan 20:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with any interest in this topic and knowledge of in can mention it in the new Dorian disambig page.Dave (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dorian is a first name, where's the disambiguation?? Shandris^{the azylean} 19:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dorian (disambiguation). There ya go! Fill 'er up! --Wetman 05:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hah. That was over a year ago. Why can't we keep any editors? Hmn. Recently I created Dorian as a disambig page. It seemed to me people were far more likely just to type Dorian or dorian. But if anyone wants to move it, I believe Dorian (disambiguation) is more consistent with policy.Dave (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think this basic bit of information would be included somewhere in the beginning of the article... Instead, only one gets clues and hints much further along. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tullie (talk • contribs) 22:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Moved it up. The question is wrong anyway. It is like asking a new mother when the stork came.Dave (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to reiterate the concerns noted above. The "when" might even merit its own subsection. The Jackal God 20:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional date varies, but is usually four generations after Heracles, or about 1100 BC. There is no particular reason to believe this, or any, date; and it has been argued that the Dorian league was invented in the Peloponnesus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you see, the proper answer based on today's views is , "never." The concept of Dorians entering Greece vanished 50 years ago with the decipherment of Linear B and no one now holds the view, but our country is so rich in inherited literature that you can easily find the older works that assert the Dorian migration from further north. I have tried to make this clear in expanding the article. I think it is part of our job to make it clear. Our great advantage is that we keep things up to date here, which printed literature cannot do. Yes, it is universally asserted by the academic world that the Dorian dialect dissimilated in Greece and therefore there can have been no Dorian invasion of outsiders. Excellent concern and we have been a bit slow in addressing it.Dave (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So how come the dorians had no written language if they had been part of Greece for a long time? And how come they introduced iron weapons, hithertho not found in Greece?132.150.9.210 (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The presumptions are wrong. Greece had a dark age when there was no writing, but anyway you mustn't expect the mountaineers to be as literate as the big city Athenians. Did they introduce iron weapons? I doubt it. The iron infiltrated south. No need to suppose a migration was required. The earlier archaeologists liked to suppose that inventions spread by people carrying them here and there. More likely they passed from market to market.Dave (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was brought there from the middle east. It never existed among the Dorians, also, the sources are all wrong.

Here is the passage in question:

The Dorians are also credited with the introduction of formalized pederasty into the Greek arena. Some have postulated this to have taken place at the time of their original migration, others much later, around 630 BC, starting in Crete,then a part of Mycenean_Greece, and spreading to Sparta and the rest of the Greek city states. According to Erich Bethe,

What the Dorians brought was boy-love as a publicly recognized and honorable institution. The Dorians strictly regulated the love relationship between man and boy and treated it as a very important arrangement very publicly with honorable earnestness under the protection of the family, society, the state, and religion. . . . In Sparta, Crete, and Thebes. . . . the education of the ruling class, resting on pederasty, [was directed towards] arete and manly virtue, which principally manifested itself in war.^[1]

Here is why I took it out. First of all, I doubt the editor ever saw the article he cites. Doing a search on the words you find it word for word in Pederasty and Pedagogy in Archaic Greece along with the article citation, which the editor no doubt just took without ever seeing the article. Unless they are on the Internet or you happen to be in a well-stocked college library those sorts of articles are completely inaccessible to ordinary editors. However, in the book the author destroys the idea. It was based on speculations by German authors about the fact that Spartans boys were assigned a mentor to help them through childhood. Victorians it seems trusted no intimacy at all and unless you covered your whole body densely with clothes and never touched anyone or even got close then by gosh you were certainly a homosexual or a pederast or a cad or some other of the Victorian cast of fascinating sexual evil-doers. Touching I believe was a crime; certainly, that was true in the United States and the descriptions of criminal touchers are completely ludicrous. Now, there is inappropriate touching but the Victorians notoriously carried their peculiar abbhorrence of anything affectionate to praeter-normal extremes. There is some evidence of tolerance of homosexuality and pederasty in ancient Greece in some quarters. The Thebans had some elite troops who were reportedly such. In the dialogues of Plato Socrates earns merit by refusing pederasty. This is the first I have ever heard that the Dorians brought pederasty to Greece. There is no evidence of it at all. Even if you suppose that it existed among the Dorians - after all, all populations have it to some degree - to suppose that the Dorians brought it in contradicts the evidence concerning previous times and concerning the Dorian social system. For example, one of the kings of Thebes was driven from the throne for his barbarian pederasty. So, the removed passage is not NPOV and casts the Dorians as homosexuals. To attribute it to the Dorians is nothing less than vandalism. However, I tend to see it as a boyish homosexual jest by someone trying to establish a sexual identity. Who do you think you are kidding, whoever you are? This isn't a schoolboy locker room, it's an encyclopedia and your edits are clearly non-helpful.Dave (talk) 17:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest that you make a greater effort to assume good faith? I don't think your suspicion of vandalism is at all justified. Not everyone who edits a Wikipedia article has some devious ulterior agenda, believe it or not.

If what you say is accurate, though, the original source was misleading, Bethe never actually argued for what the quote might imply, and you are right to remove it. FilipeS (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I understand what you are saying. The passage strikes one's attention. I don't think classicists are any more prudish than anyone else and homosexuality and pederasty are certainly openly discussed in their place and Lord known classics has its fair share of persons of non-standard sexuality. You can certainly read Aristophanes or look at the vase paintings and find plenty of discussion on the topic and there are articles that cover the topic in Wikipedia. Now, I've read works that profess Achilles and Patroclus were a homosexual pair on no other evidence than what is given in the Iliad, which seems to me to be nothing at all, but it is a topic of research. But really, I have never seen anyone with any sort of evidence thin or otherwise propose that a whole segment of the ancient Greek population were customarily pederasts and not only that brought it to the rest of Greece as a cultural contribution. If that were true, it would have to be the biggest cover-up conspiracy in history. This editor had look far and wide to dredge that one up, but the first thing I noticed is that it came from some victorian-age Germans. I don't want to pick on Germans so let us say that the victorian age came up with some pretty sweeping views that are now considered too sweeping. The great Atlantis is one, but at least it had Plato's myth. This Dorian pederasty one has nothing. Today we have Von Daniken and his vistors feom apace, the point being that nobody credible ever proposed or would propose such an idea. So why would anyone put it in the article in favor of so many substantiated things that might be said? First of all someone with a great interest in pederasty for some reason or other and second someone not a serious student of ancient Greek history. Sometimes I grant you it is very tough to draw the line between serious insertions and vandalism. I believe that I usually try to grant credibility where there is any possibility of it. My judgement was and still is that this is in fact vandalism just because it is so out of place and shocking. That was the editor's intent and it matches the intent of most wall-scribblers, who intend to get attention by shocking while they enjoy it from the sidelines. Just let me say, if you put the passage back and make it stick you will be subscribing to a greater conspiracy theory, that the Dorians were really pederasts and all of history has conspired to remove the evidence but only Bethe through great psychological insights has uncovered the plot. Even if you get through that there is still the fact that the passage was presented as a cultural contribution! So, my presumption of vandalism to shock is the more favorable view as otherwise we would have to presume some sort of twisted mind to suggest pederasty as a cultural contribution. Do you follow me? Do you see the problem? I'm really quite sure that if the passage is allowed to stay the article is going to lose all credibility and become a dirty joke. My name is already on there and I can't take my contributions out, which are probably most of the article (hear that Wetman?) but you will leave me no choice but to file a complaint with the administration. Academic disagreement is one thing but porn is something else altogether and although Wikipedia is typically frank where frankness is appropriate (including the pictures) this stuff is porn.Dave (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this article exist under the name Dorians? All the ethnic group/tribe-related articles are titled with the name of the people, not the adjective which refers to them. See Greeks, Ionians, Aeolians, Achaeans etc - Sthenel 11:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. If nobody else objects, feel free to move it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was moved so this is dead.Dave (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it me, or does this section sound a tad non-NPOV?... FilipeS 15:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's you. There is absolutely no question by anyone anywhere that "the Dorian Invasion" is NOT a historical event but is a reconstructed one. In your mind it looks as though I'm questioning whether there was such an event and there really was and my presenting of it as uncertain is not NPOV. I can see how as a Wikipedian you would think that. However this is the exception. There really was no attested Dorian invasion, the scholars made the whole thing up. There might have been such an invasion - no one knows. The concept of the "invasion" has changed over the decades. It is a model to explain certain evidence. The ancients knew it only as "the return of the Heracleidae" and that is all we get from them. All the rest is linguistic, circumstantial and archaeological semi-speculative reconstruction. That is what the title conveys. But this discussion is almost irrelevant now. In presenting enough information to address these concerns of you and others I find I have expanded the article up over 40 kB and it is not going to get any smaller if the issues are to be addressed. So I am undoubtedly going to break it out as just "Dorian Invasion" which as a broad topic covering even constructs will do nicely. I have asked for comments on that. There aren't any so far and I tend to think everyone sees the problem - they want answers and can't get them in one article.Dave (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read all comments by “Dave” and he does not seem to be NPOV. One can’t claim with certainty viewpoints that are debated among modern scholars. 2A02:A445:79E2:1:F8E9:4B4A:2FF9:EDFB (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dorus 1 is the man who called the Dorians (one of the main Hellenic groups) after himself. He was son of Hellen 1, son of Deucalion 1, the man who survived the Flood. His mother was Orseis, one of the NYMPHS. His brothers, Aeolus 1 and Xuthus 1, are also well known. Dorus 1's children are Aegimius 1, Tectamus, and Iphthime 2 [Apd.1.7.2-3; Dio.4.58.6, 4.60.2; Nonn.14.114].

Dorus 2. Son of Apollo and Phthia 2, and father of Xanthippe 1, who married Pleuron, son of Aetolus 2, the man who killed Dorus 2 [Apd.1.7.6-7].

Dorus 3. Father of Cleues, a descendant of Agamemnon [Strab.13.1.3].

dorus Megistias (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much to the point, sir, elsewhere. I suggest you check out Dorus to see if that material is in there and if not consider adding it. If you are not much of Wikipedia editor right now you can request it on the discussion page although you may have to wait a while for an adequate response.Dave (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took this out:

fought between the allies of the two groups. The degree to which fifth-century Hellenes self-identified as "Ionian" or "Dorian" has itself been disputed.^[1] The fifth- and fourth-century literary tradition through which we view these ethnic identifications was profoundly influenced by the social politics of the time.^[2] Nineteenth-century European admirers of virtues they considered "Dorian" identified themselves as "Laconophile" and found responsive parallels in the culture of their day as well; their biases contribute to the traditional modern interpretation of "Dorians".

And here are my reasons. Bottom line, the text is obscure and does not say enough to be meaningful. But if you did say enough to be meaningful, the topic would not belong here. This is about the major things we KNOW about the Dorians or about the major theories concerning the things we don't know for sure. It is not about whether we or anyone have the appropriate perspective. The KISS principle applies here. We don't want an epistemological treatise, we want to know about the Dorians. Now for the detail. You seem to be saying the war was fought between the allies of the two groups but not the two groups! In any case we don't need that info because it is in the linked article on the war. As for the degree to which people considered themselves Ionian or Dorian, what has that got to do with anything? Are you trying to say they did not consider it a war between Ionians and Dorians? That there are other lines drawn, other reasons for the war? What are you trying to say there? Whatever it is, I doubt it belongs in the upper material, but unless you expand it, we'll never know. Shouldn't it be in the article on the war? And about this profound political influence of the literary tradition, again, I question what you mean there. Unless you say, the meaning is null. Are we supposed to realize we have learned that politics influenced literature in 5th century Athens? or did you have something else in mind? Then all of a sudden we jump to the 19th century laconophiles. What happened to all the other 2500 years of laconophiles and phobes? What's the relevance to the topic of the article, what does that tell us about the Dorians? I'm sorry, I don't mean to pull your chain. Historical writing is an art that does not come overnight if at all. I appreciate your efforts and I hope you continue with them after reflection and practice but I do not see how the removed passages add anything at all to the article, which is why I removed them. Thanks. Keep at it. Bonne chance.Dave (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from User talk:Wetman) (Wetman (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)):[reply]

Well hello Wetman, we don't seem to be able to keep away from each other. Now, for this text, I'm not denying it is neutrally expressed and sourced. So are many texts about the other side of the moon, but they are not relevant to the Dorians. Its the relevance I question. Is this your writing? It isn't bad writing, I don't deny, but so is a lot of writing about many topics. I see these statements as concerning our view of the Dorians and the 5th century view of the Dorians. The problem is, they don't explain what they mean! They don't tell us anything at all. What is the view being expressed in the source? Hey? It is not stated. So, in order just to make the idea understood, the editor (you?) has to add more and if he is going to do that it really belongs in another section, does it not? It isn't actually about the Dorians, it is about our view of the Dorians. So my reaction was to take it out! But I admit one can just as well put an expanded form of it back in, not in the intro, but in a separate section. I just don't see that being done. For now I am responding to the request for more serious citations, which means expanding the article a bit (not too much I hope). I hope to get it in the order of the Battle of Thermopylae. Those paragraphs can stay there for now. They are not in error as far as I know; they just don't say anything except to suggest the reader look up this fellow's opinions in the cited source. My feeling is the editor should have done that and have given the view. I invite YOU to do it. If nobody does it by the time I finish and you and others still think it should be in there, then it appears I will have to try to do it. If I can't get the source and you insist, well, it's not enough to raise an issue over, so it will have to stay, but in my mind the article is the less for it. By the way, I'd sure like to know myself what the argument is, as all the sources are very clear about the distinction. He must have in mind those Dorian states that did not wish to throw in with the Dorians or the city of Corinth, which didn't act like Dorians, but until I can get access or someone tells me I have no way to know. That is the point. By the way you can put that tag wherever you like, but when I finish it is coming out unless you or someone can prove that it shouldn't. ciao and I am hoping we can all settle this in a reasonable manner at a lower level as I have no intent of getting off these articles until they start saying things that are right.Dave (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wetman simply "restored inadvertently deleted neutrally expressed and sourced text", as his edit summary put it, at Dorians; the deleted text began with the incontrovertible observation. "The degree to which fifth-century Hellenes self-identified as "Ionian" or "Dorian" has itself been disputed", a statement that was footnoted (see diff). The question does undercut much anhistorical and simplistic modern "ethnic" discourse, a fact which in itself renders the subject relevant. An image of "Dorians" has figured in the history of ideas since Karl Otfried Müller gave a revised sketch of them (in English, 1839), providing the popular view— still uncritically treasured by some, one senses. Suppressing text, which apparently needs to be more explicit and extensive, not less, is not really the same as editing it. Wetman didn't connect the deletion with anyone in particular and still doesn't. This text is being copied to Talk:Dorians. --Wetman (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noted Wetman put it back in. It's OK, the way the article is coming down now it probably should be in. I'm fixing the citation though.Dave (talk) 13:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no point in addressing further points, where an article is so firmly owned by one editor.--Wetman (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're not using footnote format for the refs here and that is partly my fault as I did quite a bit of work on it some months ago. But it is never to late to fix it so let's fix it and you classicists can no doubt find more refs to the things said. As far as I can see the info is sound except where I am removing statements. Remember our intent is not to shock the public or joke with your teenage friends but to inform the public about this interesting historical topic in encyclopedic style. Abstract coffee and conversation concerning your or someone's personal opinions of the Dorians also should not find a home here. We're telling it to the best of our ability like it was.Dave (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what has happened on this article now. I and the other original editors hoped to do a summary that would avoid the issues. As soon as the readers started looking for refs they discovered the controversies. This topic has been controversial and often bitterly so for a long time, and still is. Were there any Dorians? Was there any Dorian invasion? Just what were "Dorians" like? So, if you are are a general reader and you happen to find one or the other of the outspoken presentations you are likely to jump in with the reaction "why, this is all wrong!" favoring the first thing you read. It isn't all wrong. Readers, now that we know you want more detail and some answers, we can try to fill in enough to give you a balanced view. Balance is the key. Hall, for example, a good scholarly writer, errs in my view on the skeptical side: there were no Dorians. Halicarnassus was not a Dorian state. Heck Hall it isn't that bad. So bear with and if you have questions or answers and can do it right pitch in!Dave (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In responding properly to the issues raised by editors and commenters I find that I have managed to lengthen this article to 40 kB. It looks as though it will get longer still. What I want to do is break out Dorian Invasion but I want to to give you some time to consider it. Meanwhile I will continue work on that section here with a view to its being broken out. As you are always quick to respond on this one I suppose that by the time I finish you will have commented if you are going to. I further presuppose that no comment implies approval as you appear to be quick to disapprove. For the material iteself, Dorians and Dorian Invasion are indispensable topics in the field. It is a specialized field.Dave (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there is a great misconception as to what Herodot said about the origin of the Dorians.

I here present the text in question :

“Although the one nation nowhere yet went out, the Lacedaemonian was very much wandering. For, in the time of King Deucalion, it was settled in the land of Phthia, and in the time of Dorus, the son of Hellen, in the country under Ossa and Olympus, the so-called Histiaean. From the Histiaean, after it had been expelled by the Cadmeians, it was settled in Pindus called Macedonian. Thence again it changed its place to the Dryopian land, and from the Dryopian thus it came to Peloponnesus, and was called Doric.” (Herodot, Book I, 56.3)

Herodot clearly says that the Dorians are the Greek tribe of Macedonians who migrated south to Peloponnesus. I strongly believe that this is worth mentioning in this article. I understand that it is commonly believed that it was the Macedonians who were Dorians but according to Herodot it was the other way around...

GK1973 (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the article there is the line :

"Another theory is that they originated from Asia Minor, and that they either immigrated through the northeast of Greece and settled in southern Greece or immigrated from the coast of western Asian Minor into the Aegean islands and into southern Greece."

Although I have heard of this theory I have never encountered any evidence as to its truth. Does anybody know of the evidence given or the true origins of its proposal?

GK1973 (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The over-reliance of Wikipedia on supposed, hypothetical, unproven "proto-Indo-European" etymologies devised by the heavily politically motivated linguist Julius Pokorny is simply amazing and laughable. Instead of looking under a rock for a supposed "proto-Indo-European" etymology for Dorian that is supposedly connected with woods or trees, how about starting with the obvious - an etymology for Dorian in the GREEK language, seeing as the Dorians were a GREEK tribe.

the word for Dorian in ancient Greek is Δωριεύς (Dorieus).

The closest word in Greek I found relating to wood or trees is δρυς (drys), "oak", which is distant, and the word for spear δόρυ (doru), contains an o-micron, instead of an o-mega, and an ypsilon following the rho. These do not look like reasonable leads.

The name Δωριεύς (Dorieus) is found in the Mycenean Linear B texts to represent a masculine name, and Δωρίς (Doris) is the name of a sea goddess in Greek mythology. The root of this name, Δωρ, is clearly derived from the Greek word δωρον (doron) "gift". This word later found its way into other Greek names, such as Πανδωρα (Pandora), meaning "all gifts", and Θεοδωρος (Theodoros), which meant "gift of god". The modern Hebrew name דוֹרוֹן (Doron), also meaning "gift", is in fact derived from the same Greek root. http://www.behindthename.com/name/doron

(The ancient Biblical Hebrew word "Dor" means "generation" or "habitation" and has a completely different etymology.)

In conclusion, the most fitting etymology for "Dorian" is a Greek personal name based on a Greek root meaning "gift".

This is the idea that first came to my mind, and the Online Etymology Dictionary seems to agree with me: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Dorian

All due respect to Mr. Pokorny, it's time to start taking these supposed "proto-Indo-European" *etymologies with a grain of salt, and start a search based on what is obvious, verifiable, and validated.

Jacob Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your post. This looks like original research. If you can find a reliable secondary source that supports your premise, please feel free to add this to the article. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, something more has to be said here. Now Mr. Davidson, aggression of presentation is not going to make up for deficits in linguistics. I have no desire to be too hard on you as one has to applaud efforts to do original research. I will say what your other friends are evidently not saying. You don't know enough linguistics. I can sympathize. Linguistics is a lot of work! But now, you've gone and attacked the major historical linguist of the 20th century on the strength of your personal opinions. Pokorney had a prodigious mastery of the topic as did most of the other major linguists. I see you know some Hebrew. I suggest you befriend your local churchman and try some of this stuff out on him first. They are usually fairly well trained. Now, Mr. Davidson, you aren't going to deny the Indo-Europeans and deny that Greek is Indo-European, are you? I doubt you have any idea of the effect that has on your educated readers. I think we better keep that one in the closet here before it gets out. I think I know a few works along lines in which you might be greatly interested. Levin, Saul (1970). The Indo-european and semitic languages. Albany. {{cite book}}: Text "State University of New York Press" ignored (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link). Levin, a professional linguist, compares Sanskrit and Hebrew and comes up with some amazing discoveries. I think he proves that the early Indics of the Middle East had a serious influence on the formation of Hebrew. It is however going to be tedious for you to learn all the linguistics in it. A second source I suggest is Klein's Etymological Dictionary of the English Language. As you might guess from the name, Klein's gives all the Semitic derivations other people pass over. Along those lines also I suggest the latest edition of our own American Heritage Dictionary. It contains a new appendix of Semitic roots, in addition to Watkins' Indo-European ones. Well I hope I have been of some use to you sir. Now, no need to thank me for my concern. I strongly suggest that berating us here on WP for going for the major linguists instead of you is not going to go in propitious directions. You got to have references here, but don't despair, nothing good was ever gained without trouble toil and tears unless God gives it for free. Ciao.Dave (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS I did look at the online dictionary. I'm surprised. Typically they follow the standard sources. I have used them quite a lot. I think in this case the publisher was looking at a baby naming dictionary. He probably relates it to Dora. Well naturally babies are gifts to their parents. I can't see a people naming itself "the gifts", can you? Sounds like a street gang. The online ED provides no supporting material and no linguistics in this case. Sorry, I pick the linguists. I do not think the online ED is appropriate in this case. Therefore do not expect me to put it in. If you want to put it in that is up to you. The note would probably take a template:cite web. I will not take out properly referenced material. We would in this case just be listing etymologies. As for your Hebrew dor root theory, we need a ref on that as well. Good luck!Dave (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Another theory is that they originated from Asia Minor, and that they either immigrated through the northeast of Greece and settled in southern Greece or immigrated from the coast of western Asian Minor into the Aegean islands and into southern Greece."

No, sorry, this is not even a possible possibility. No Greek tradition mentions such a possibility. No Greek mythological story mentions such a possibility. The inhabitants of Anatolia are sufficiently known and documented to preclude it. This "theory" appears to be original with the editor. While I appreciate your interest in trying it out I think you got from us what you were really seeking, feedback. The Anatolians were on the coast of Anatolia until it was settled by the East Greeks. Some Dorians came in to the south later but that was through the Peloponnesus and the islands. You really have to spend some time studying the subject before you can come up with credible speculations. I do applaud your interest and it is something you can study mainly on your own. Here we don't alow original research.Dave (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could the Dorians have been Proto-Celts? with paternal haplogroup R1b? emigrating across the black sea to the Danube, up into the danubian basin, before a sub branch went south and were called the Dorians by the Ionians? This map on Eupedia kind of implies something like that happened (It kind of all fits together nicely). http://www.eupedia.com/europe/neolithic_europe_map.shtml Were these so called Dorians also the "Sea peoples" which ravaged the old classical world? .... could be.. Stephen Grant-Davies 12/10/2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.243.166.218 (talk) 12:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are not real Dorians and the language is not Greek. This is a figure of speech. That section did not belong here so I took it out. It was only a duplicate of stuff found in the Scottish Dorian article, to which you can get through the disambig.Dave (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In the Linear B tablets the word "do-e-ro" is also found, meaning "slave".^[1]"

So what? The reference given does not connect this word with "Dorian." The editor does not suggest it either. It is apparently a sort of wisecrack thrown in there gratuitous. Please, we're trying to do an article here. The derivations I included are referenced to the works of famous linguists. I did not just pluck them out of the air. It is of little concern to us whether you agree with Pokorney or Boisacq or not. We aren't playing the "pluck out of the air game." If you find another derivation and care to put it in I for one would be pleased to see it. However, your own surmises, true or false, are not fair game. This is not a debating ground or a place where you state whether you agree or disagree, respect or scorn the referenced material. If some linguist of note suggests that the Dorians were named "slaves" then by all means put it in under his name. I'm not saying they were not slaves, I'm saying you have to document it.Dave (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Davidson, your acrimonious attack on Pokorney threw me off. I did find a valid and serious gift theory proposed by notable scholar. It is not the baby name. You might be interested in this: Zeus gave the Peloponnesus to the Dorians as a chosen land, a gift of the gods. The Spartans it seems had an ideology of maintaining their gift from Zeus. Dorian would mean therefore something like "the people of the chosen land." The proponent of course is Hall. Something like this I will write up and put in based on Hall. You may take a hand if you wish. Any connection with the Hebrews of course would have to be documented. What do I think myself? I don't know. There are these good theories out there. In etymology you seldom get any certainty. It isn't rocket science. But, this is a case in point on what happens on WP. You began argumentatively without any backup of what you were saying. We all do it. Not a good idea, though. I immediately assumed from your disputational approach you did not have one and were covering that lack with outrageous statements about the people who knew what they were talking about. Well I forgive you, but it mislead us and wasted time and energy. Maybe you did not know about Hall. In any case now that I have found him I cannot pass him by.Dave (talk) 04:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has gotten totally out of hand. It is not even readable at many points. Originally intended as an author-by-author reference (main ancient authors) it suffers from the application of new organizations inconsistently carried through. Not only that but the editors attempt to give the whys, wherefores and corrections to the ancient suthors. No, we can't do that. The ancient authors are the prime data. You then compare this data. We can't correct the prime data with theories based on it. Sorry, some radical changes are warranted here when I get to it not long from now. I'm keeping the author-by author approach, which means, we don't put Strabo under Homer, among other things.Dave (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am misreading Hdt. 5.87, he indicates (contrary the Wiki here) that all the Greeks, esp. the Athenians, used to wear "Dorian" dress (WITH a brooch), but that, after the Athenian women killed the sole returning Athenian from the Epidauran expedition, they changed to an "Ionian" dress (NO brooch--so as to avoid further puncture wounds from angry widows, e.g.). But then Hdt. goes on to say that "no-brooch Ionian" was actually Carian, presumably from contact with Ionians in Asia Minor (?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.17.60.68 (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dorians. 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/20110809064309/http://www.indoeuropean.nl/cgi-bin/startq.cgi?flags=endnnnl&root=leiden&basename=%5Cdata%5Cie%5Cpokorny to http://www.indoeuropean.nl/cgi-bin/startq.cgi?flags=endnnnl&root=leiden&basename=%5Cdata%5Cie%5Cpokorny
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071104015800/http://1911encyclopedia.org/Dorians to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Dorians

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 by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC 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 with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I realize the Dorian Invasion article has better citations, but I feel like the origin section of this article either needs some citations for some of it's rather bold claims, or they should be reworded to reflect less certainty on the subject.

In Herodotus 1.56.3, the original Greek text has "οἴκεε ἐν Πίνδῳ Μακεδνὸν καλεόμενον" [2] and its correct translation in English is: "it settled in Pindus and was called Macedonian". But Godley's translation, which we use for reference, is wrong, having "it settled about Pindus in the territory called Macedonian" instead of "and was called Macedonian". However, Robin Waterfield’s translation (“The Histories”, [Oxford World's Classics], Oxford University Press, 2008), considered the best translation overall, as well as G. C. Macaulay’s (1890) translation, have “and they were called Macedonian” and "and was called "Macedonian" respectively, which are both in accordance with the original Greek text. Unfortunately, Waterfield's translation is not available online, but Macaulay's is; hence I am replacing Godley's translation with Macaulay's one. Macedonian (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Social Structure" section of this article an account of the Social Structure of Sparta is given (indeed of Sparta at a certain stage of its history) with, for example, full Spartan adult male citizens under 30 all living together - and various other aspects of the City State of Sparta during a particular period of its history. However, the section does not say "Sparta" (let alone "Sparta in a certain period of its history") - it pretends that this Social Structure applied to all Dorian City States (such as Corinth) and, as such, the section of the article is absurd. If you do not like me changing the article - then please do so yourself.2A02:C7D:B41D:C800:495D:D86A:7AC7:2896 (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having read this entire talk page, it seems as if user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Botteville (Dave) has been the one taking it upon himself to fashion this entire article according to his own POV. All his talk comments reek of absolutism. Check for yourself, read every comment on this talkpage and see how “Dave” has made a unilateral decision by himself for the article. The entire wiki page is the POV view of one editor. 2A02:A445:79E2:1:F8E9:4B4A:2FF9:EDFB (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just be sure to balance his blinder-view with the alternate viewpoint. The article will remain neutral in that respect.

OK. Absolutely nothing the commenter says has any truth. His contributions are limited to less than a page of scurrilous attacks mainly on me. This is a totally non-objeetive review undertaken by some juvenile or juvenile-minded semi-person interested only in attacking "Dave," so don't be taken in by it. I doubt the critic has read any history at all let alone Greek history. I'm surprised he can read or write. I don't in any way think he is interested in the topic or the article, only in shooting his mouth off against "Dave." No credible person shoots his mouth off in this childish way. He's using our privacy to do something naughty. 1) This isn't my article. Most of it was not written by me. I think I wrote the intro, as I recall. 2) Don't read the TALK page, read the article. As for the talk page, there are many upon it. I'd like to point out, if I appear to be the major editor (which I am not) that is because no one else is talking. Anyone can talk here, as you can see for yourself. As far as the "reeking of absolutism," what absolutism is that? Anyone can edit Wikipedia and even the administrators have trouble pushing over their own agendas and points of view. I notice our young critic presents no points of view, only makes unspecified complaints about mine. Why don't you present a point of view, son, or is that beyond you? Sorry to have to say this but you asked for it. Now for the absurd "blinder" follow-up. Blinder? In what way? Frankly I do not think you would know the difference. Better stick to school, WP is above you. Now for the article. It has plenty of references but there are gaps. So, I'm letting the tag at the top stand. We could do a better job on the refs, in case anyone is actually interested. I did not finish with this article when I left it a long, long time. There is plenty of room for other editors to make significant references here, should anyone be interested in doing anything but using the public opportunity to shoot his mouth off, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. I can't get back to it right now. I'm busy with other stuff. I can't be jumping around too much, nothing ever gets done.Botteville (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]