> But it's completely absurd to call that "Persia"
Is it necessarily that much (to an extent it is of course) more absurd than to call the Bronze Age Mycenaeans/Achaeans Greek though? Yes they were a lot more concentrated geographically and the link between them and classical Greeks/Hellenes is strong but still seems like an anachronism.
> If you want to consider the geographical extent of the Achaemenid Empire
Not sure why would anyone want to considering the 700 year gap.
> But it's completely absurd to call that "Persia"
Certainly, that why I wasn't sure why did they mention Persia in the first place.
> none of them including the ones on the Iranian plateau would have thought of themselves as "Persian"
Considering that the word is derived from Farsi/Farsi wouldn't the people living in the territory that became heartland of the Achaemenid empire have called themselves that?
> Is it necessarily that much (to an extent it is of course) more absurd than to call the Bronze Age Mycenaeans/Achaeans Greek though?
If you want to refer to an Iranic group in the Bronze Age as "Persian", that's not what I meant to label as completely absurd.
Referring to Anatolia as "Persia" because Persia conquered it many centuries later, and then failed to maintain control, is completely absurd.
> Not sure why would anyone want to considering the 700 year gap.
Yes, agreed, but that was the only reason I could think of for the original claim about contact between Bronze Age Greeks and "Persia".
> Considering that the word ["Persia"] is derived from Farsi/Farsi wouldn't the people living in the territory that became heartland of the Achaemenid empire have called themselves that?
I don't know when that term originates. It's possible that people living in the region would have used a related term for themselves in the Bronze Age. It would have had nearly no political significance. It's also possible, as far as I know, that the term is more recent than that.
I also don't know whether Achaemenid Persians would have referred to themselves by a term of that nature. There's a huge ongoing fight on Wikipedia over what terms are appropriate as Persian endonyms. What appears to be beyond dispute is that the people tended to refer to themselves by a term cognate with Aryan or Iranian. (Though when the Parsees leave for India, a thousand years later, they end up being called Parsees.) If you know more about this, I'd like to hear it.
> Referring to Anatolia as "Persia" because Persia conquered
Yeah, that was the entire point of my initial comment. To be fair I don't think I was able to contribute much besides that and of course I agree overall with what you're saying.
Is it necessarily that much (to an extent it is of course) more absurd than to call the Bronze Age Mycenaeans/Achaeans Greek though? Yes they were a lot more concentrated geographically and the link between them and classical Greeks/Hellenes is strong but still seems like an anachronism.
> If you want to consider the geographical extent of the Achaemenid Empire
Not sure why would anyone want to considering the 700 year gap.
> But it's completely absurd to call that "Persia"
Certainly, that why I wasn't sure why did they mention Persia in the first place.
> none of them including the ones on the Iranian plateau would have thought of themselves as "Persian"
Considering that the word is derived from Farsi/Farsi wouldn't the people living in the territory that became heartland of the Achaemenid empire have called themselves that?