Talk:Lydia

Culture

Lydian Culture? Religion? Rony P Q H Taril 00:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lydia in Lydian?

does anyone know the Lydian name of Lydia? 85.97.40.61 21:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"==Scientist's Input== Most likely, there was a glacier located here that scientist refer to as one of the most prominent sources of finding evidence of evolution. Unfortunally, researchers have not been able to dig down deep enough to get samples."

--removed from anon user, im assuming this is vandalism. Also noticed that in the List of Kings of Lydia article some of the first ones listed are all greek gods, I wonder how those got into the page Astrokey44 03:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Candaules

different accounts refer to two people being called Candaules "the Dog-strangler" - Im assuming that the correct one is the last Lydian king of the Heraclid dynasty - Mursylos - that fits in with the dates given on Candaules (735-718), rather than what it says on Gyges of Lydia - that it was Sadyattes (624 BC to 610) as it says at the wiki article there aswell. Astrokey44 03:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

For the Lydian name of "Lydia", you mean the Hittish term.

Language

Somebody finally came up with a source supporting the claim that Lydian is descended from Hittite.However, it is from 1986 and by a non-linguist, NOT an expert. I have added to the language article a reference from 2004 by a specialist in Anatolian languages which indicates no special relationship between Lydian and Hittite.Bill 17:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Map of Croesus' Lydia including Lycia and Ionian cities

There is a certain problem here with the language. Unlike Carian and Lycian, which with Luwian seem to belong to the Luwian subgroup, Lydian has distinct characteristics. I can't find anyone willing to say it descends from Luwian and the main question seems to have been whether it was Anatolian or some closely related IE language. Now the problem is, in these articles Arzawa is put forward as having spoken Luwian. But if you look at Melchert's maps, which are available in commons, most Luwian is spoken in eastern and southern Anatolia. The Lydia region is not covered there at all. So, either Lydia did not fall within Arzawa, or not all Arzawa spoke Luwian. Anyone know of any solutions to this before I get started on Lydia and Arzawa?Dave (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Misleading map

This "territorial" map even shows Lycia as part of Lydia. A good map would show cities that paid tribute to Croesus, not a modern "colored-in" territory. --Wetman (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Separate articles for Lydia and Lydians as per Caria and Carians

Distinct articles for Carians, focusing on the people, and Caria, focusing on the geographical region, exist since 2005 and blossoming. I suggest we adopt the same approach for Lydians (for the people) and Lydia (region, state and province). Cretanforever (talk 17 November 2008 (UTC)

First coinage

I added some material to the "First coinage" section, based on two articles I've written on the subject, one for the Numismatist, the monthly magazine of the American Numismatic Association, the other for the Journal of the Classical and Medieval Numismatic Society, both based on my reading of all the available material in books and journal articles on the subject. This is the second time I've done this here. The first time someone deleted my additions and switched back to the previous text. My additions aren't meant as an intrusion on someone else's turf, just a more complete and accurate rendition of what is known or generally believed about this interesting subject.

Reidgold (talk) 07:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You need to provides sources for your edits that are Verifiable and from Reliable sources. _{El Greco}^(talk) 22:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The only source you provided was Herodotus! Herotodus is unreliable in general and in this specific instance famously ambiguous. Where did you, who whoever wrote this, get your other information? You don't include any "verifiable" or "reliable" sources. What's more, much of the information that is provided in this section is wrong. It looks like it came from a mismash of online coin auction catalogs or some old, outdated primer on coins.

Reidgold (talk) 05:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Turkish Name of Lydia

As most of the direct descendants of the Lydians and other ancient anatolian civilizations currently speak Turkish, the name of these civilizations should also be provided in Turkish language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lycianhittite (talk • contribs) 23:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The Turks didn't enter Anatolia until the 11th century AD, 1,500 years after the fall of the independent Lydia and 1,000 years after the Lydian language became extinct. The only thing Turkey has in common with ancient Lydia is geography, with the Turks ruling the land today that was once ruled by the ancient Lydians. Most of what we know about Lydia comes from the Greeks. The name "Lydia," used in references written in English, comes from the Greeks as well. It doesn't make sense to refer to ancient Lydia by its Turkish name in an encyclopedia article written in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.188.51 (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Turkic armies did not settle in a deserted and empty Anatolia. In fact DNA analysis has shown that East Asian subgroup traces in the modern Anatolian population are only between 9-15%, cognate with East Asian (military) influx of a few hundred thousand into the region approximately 30 generations ago. The descendants of Lydians still live in Anatolia and ignoring this suggestion by Lycianhittite is circumspect. 2A02:A445:79E2:1:4FD:C6DE:7196:2F5C (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hebrew Name of Lydia

Appologies to Til Eulenspiegel I thought you were one of the idiots which your user page indicates you actually do well struggling against.

Genesis 10:יג וּמִצְרַיִם יָלַד אֶת-לוּדִים וְאֶת-עֲנָמִים, וְאֶת-לְהָבִים--וְאֶת-נַפְתֻּחִים. 13 And Mizraim begot Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim,

You see Ludim are from Mitzraim not to be confused with Lud son of Shem (in the far east). Best wishes and keep up the good work.81.103.121.144 (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What is your source for this view? Paul August ☎ 11:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The sources for the two views are 1) Josephus (that Lydians are from Lud son of Shem) and 2) Hippolytus (that Lydians are from Ludim son of Mizraim). Other Christian commentators such as Jerome etc. went with Josephus' view, which has remained predominant. This is all explained on Lud, son of Shem, but it would probably be relevant here too, if it clears up the confusion. Regards, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Can better sources for these views be added to the article? The cite I (quickly) added: Dictionary of the Holy Bible (1832), for the first view could probably be improved upon. Paul August ☎ 14:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Josephus and Hippolytus are significant as the earliest known sources for these two views, but any later significant sources you can find would also be good. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

An authoritative secondary source would be good (I would classify Josephus and Hippolytus here as primary sources). Paul August ☎ 15:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Erm, why is the abundantly published and very clear primary source not good enough? Is it a new wiki policy to favour reportage of sloppy secondary sources over primary sources? Please clarify.81.103.121.144 (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

See WP:Primary. Paul August ☎ 23:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok thank you Paul. Having read that it is very clear that my use of the Primary source was in absolutely the right way, and that Augustin's publication comes under the Novel interpretation category and is therefore minority view. The Primary source is not only clear it is also backed up by the commentary ( and therefore secondary source) offered by Hippolytus. As you may remember from history classes, a source is primary only where its comments are not upon a prior source (in which case they become secondary). It is therefore not possible to consider any commentary on a source still with us today as primary but only secondary. Josephus is thus both a primary and secondary source. Best wishes.81.103.121.144 (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If what we are debating here is how Genesis 10 is interpreted, the primary source is Genesis 10. Josephus and Hippolytus are commentators. It's easy for people with a modern perspective to get fuzzy on what a "primary source" is, and simply define it in their minds "as any source over 500 years old is automatically a primary source". But that's not the correct meaning. Primary doesn't mean "old". Josephus and Hippolytus may be old, but they are offering commentary, analysis, interpretation and additional views and data, BEYOND the primary text, Genesis 10.

The majority of Christian commentators including Jerome, Augustine, Isisdore, Nennius, and continuing on in every century even down to our own, have followed Josephus' view - that the Lydians were implied as being from Lud son of Shem. This can thus be called a more "mainstream" view. A much smaller school of thought over the years has taken the position of Hippolytus - that the Lydians were really implied as being from Mizraim son of Ham. Hippolytus' minority pov is harder to trace through the centuries, but representatives may be found in Epiphanius (c. 375), Movses Kaghankatvatsi, and John Skylitzes (c. 1057). I don't know who is saying the Lydians were Hamites nowadays (other than our anon poster), but presumably, someone is still holding up this interpretation and putting it out there, or this probably wouldn't be an issue.

The reason for the two interpretations is, as usual, a Hebrew ambiguity. The Hebrew plural "Ludim" certainly seems to refer to Lydians from Lydia ("Lud") in some places. But "Ludim" also is the spelling given for the Mizraimite (Egyptian) tribe in Genesis 10, whereas Shem's son appears only as "Lud". Some infer that there were thus both Semitic and Hamitic groups of "Ludim"; our anon's secondary interpretation seems to be that all instances of "Ludim" necessarily imply the Egyptian Ludim. A popular and widespread view is that "Ludim" in Gen. 10 is an ancient miscopy for "Lubim", and that it was therefore the Libyans, not the Lydians, who had come from Egypt. It is true that Lydians had a hierogyphic type of writing, but we have not yet seen any modern sources making the case for an Egyptian origin for the Lydians, so we must tread lightly so as not to imply that that is a current interpetation, unless we can find any reliable sign of that school of thought still being active today. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether intentionally or not your post is just so very offensive to Jews and anyone who uses the Hebrew tradition instead of the "Church" tradition. You need to realised how offensive you have just been to dismiss an entire tradiiton just liek that as "monority" when it is THE original so I hope you will take it on board. Where would Christians be were it not for Hebrew culture in the first place? It also I am sure unintentionally regurgitates the points of view of white supremacist Aryanism. You have clearly never heard of the book "Black Athena". Even the DNA evidence backs it up these days. I already explained that Josephus is not a primary source and even if all tertiary sources refer back to him it is irrelevant because the primary sources in this issue are clear. P.S. I am not anon, this is the ID I have chosen to go by.81.103.121.144 (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, 81.103.121.144 (May I call you 144 for short?) I did not mean any offense, and I am certainly not a supremacist of any kind. Your points about Black Athena (which I have not heard of) and DNA went over my head and seem digressive. I thought that I had just written above a fairly balanced and even-handed look at the historiography of the matter. I did not ignore Jewish culture or tradition; Josephus was of course a Jewish interpreter, who followed the Lydia = Lud (Shem) equation. How does recognizing his view as the mainstream qualify me as an Aryan supremacist? Ironically, the first source for your interpretation, Hippolytus, was a Christian, and all of those I could find who have followed it, whom I named, were also Christian, mostly Byzantine or Georgian sources. So Lydia = Ludim (Mizraim) would appear to be not only a minority view, but a minority Christin view of interpreting the Old Testament. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Josephus was allegedly Jew yes but has never been a Jewish authority and is not taught in Yeshivah anywhere. All sources for Josephus are Christian, and were it not for Christians Josephus would have been forgotten totally by the Jews (as he is clearly on his own in his novel opinions). There are doubts among Jews whether he was Jewish at all since his comments are so ignorant of Hebrew tradition. This is all very well known. I will be happy if you rephrase it that the traditional Hebrew opinion (Lydia from Mitzraim) is also a minority Christian opinion though Christians usually go with Josephus who is not taught in Yeshivah. If Hyppolytus backed up the Hebrew opinion then good for him getting a Hebrew education instead of relying upon sources as unreliable as Josephus. As for Black Athena it is a book about the Egyptian origins of Greek cultures including Lydia, which has now been backed up by DNA evidence such as primarily but not exclusively the spread of Y-Haplogroup E1b1b1a, both relevant to your comment about Egyptian origins for Lydia. White supremacists have been trying to cover up the Ham origins of European civilisation for well over 100 years now and their putrid ideas pop up in even the most reputable sources as a result of their propagation.81.103.121.144 (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

We'd definitely require some secondary sources to back up the kind of things you are claiming now. Do you have any source at all for the "traditional" Hebrew interpretation being what you say it is? Do you have any source at all suggesting it is "very well known" that Jews doubt Josephus was really Jewish? Even if you did, would this mean that your interpretation must be regarded as necessarily correct and the mainstream view (of Josephus) is wrong, assuming yours could be shown to be the "traditional Hebrew" interpretation? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't pretend to be stupid now. No reputable yeshivah will teach the views of Josephus as valid Hebrew tradition (Mishnah). If you say they do then the onus is upon you to prove it. Since you don't accept Hebrew texts you are now going in circles. Trying to keep on topic we are basically talking about how to translate Ludim so try the Good News Translation of the bible (translations are secondary sources). Mitzraim's Ludim = Lydia. Take it or leave it, I'm too ill to be bothered anymore. 81.103.121.144 (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I take it your response means you don't wish to provide any secondary sources backing up your unusual claims, and surprise surprise, you expect your claims and statements regarding "Hebrew tradition" to stand as automatically proven unless I can disprove them. (Hint: It doesn't usually work like that on wikipedia.) And I am not just pretending to be stupid; I freely confess to be utterly ignorant of whatever they may teach in a "reputable yeshivah", never having attended one. Presumably, if a yeshivah or even a mishnah really teaches that Lydia = Mizraim, then we can easily get the reliable source on that for the article, where that info would belong. So, if you ever do happen to come across a source for what a Yeshivah and or mishnah says regarding Lydia, then this would be the correct page to share it. Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Made a small edit on "Persian Lydia"

I made a small edit there. My grammar is not the best so I am asking if someone could correct my mistakes.

The reason why i wrote that is because the Lydians and Persians made two huge battles called "The battle of Pteria" which was a stalemate and "The battle of Thymbra" which was a persian victory. It should at least be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsaces (talk • contribs) 07:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Introduction - Coins

Coins are said to have been invented in Lydia[2] around the 7th century BC.

2 ^ "Lydia" in Oxford Dictionary of English. Oxford University Press, 2010. Oxford Reference Online. 14 October 2011.

In fact, the relevant entry on the Oxford Dictionaries website at http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Lydia?q=Lydia states:

Definition of Lydia in English: Lydia
Line breaks: Lydia
Pronunciation: /ˈlɪdɪə

An ancient region of western Asia Minor, south of Mysia and north of Caria. It became a powerful kingdom in the 7th century bc but in 546 its final king, Croesus, was defeated by Cyrus and it was absorbed into the Persian empire. Lydia was probably the first realm to use coined money.

Hence, the cited source asserts merely that Lydia was probably the first realm to use coined money. This is a more modest claim than the claim made in the Wikipedia article's introduction that Coins are said to have been invented in Lydia[2] around the 7th century BC. It's more modest because, first, it does not give a date for the use of coins in Lydia; second, because the claim is not made that coins were invented as such in Lydia, but merely that Lydia was probably the first realm to use coined money. There is a difference between making a claim about the first place and first time that a thing is invented, and making a claim about the first place and first time that a thing is widely used. It's possible for example that coins were invented by someone some time earlier, in a different place to Lydia, initially for a different purpose, and that the invention was adopted by a Lydian merchant or by Lydian merchants or by others who brought the invention to Lydia where it took off and became established. What is to be deprecated here is the sadly all too common device found in Wikipedia of citing a single source that does not in fact properly support the position or point of view adopted by the editor, which, nevertheless, that editor subsequently incorporates into the text of the Wikipedia article. Such devices are misleading and unethical. 124.186.104.184 (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Famine

I see no mention of the famine that struck lydia and the concept of games that was used to survive it, some info about this here http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/23145/did-the-lydians-invent-games — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.22.129.164 (talk) 05:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lydia. 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/20110825084927/http://www.ancientanatolia.com/historical/lydian_period.htm to http://www.ancientanatolia.com/historical/lydian_period.htm

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) 14:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Lydia

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Lydia's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "EB1911":

• From Apella: One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Tod, Marcus Niebuhr (1911). "Apella". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 2 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 160.
• From Gela: Ashby, Thomas (1911). "Gela" . In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 11 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 554.
• From Pontus (region): This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Anderson, John George Clark (1911). "Pontus". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 22 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 70–71.
• From Brindisi: Ashby, Thomas (1911). "Brindisi" . In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 4 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 572.
• From Velia: One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Ashby, Thomas (1911). "Velia". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 27 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 978.
• From Antisthenes: One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Antisthenes". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 2 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 146.
• From Corfu: One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Gardner, Ernest Arthur; Caspari, Maximillian Otto Bismark (1911). "Corfu". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 7 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 145–146.
• From Isauria: One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Hogarth, David George (1911). "Isauria". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 14 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 866.
• From Dionysius of Halicarnassus: One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Dionysius Halicarnassensis". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 8 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 285–286.
• From Sparta: One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Tod, Marcus Niebuhr (1911). "Sparta". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 25 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 609–14.
• From Menander: One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Freese, John Henry (1911). "Menander". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 18 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 109–110.
• From Electrum: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Electrum, Electron" . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 9 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 252.
• From Panyassis: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Panyasis" . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 20 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 686.
• From Pliny the Elder: One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Sandys, John Edwin (1911). "Pliny the Elder". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 21 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 841–844.
• From Alaşehir: One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Ala-Shehr". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 1 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 472.
• From Assos: One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Hogarth, David George (1911). "Assus". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 2 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 790.
• From Enna: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Castrogiovanni" . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 5 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 484.
• From Lentini: Ashby, Thomas (1911). "Leontini" . In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 16 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 455.
• From Empedocles: Wallace, William (1911). "Empedocles" . In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 9 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 344–345.
• From Mysia: One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Hasluck, Frederick William (1911). "Mysia". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 19 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 115–116.
• From Africa (Roman province): Babelon, Ernest C. F. (1911). "Africa, Roman" . In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 1 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 359.
• From Hippolytus of Rome: One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Krüger, Gustav (1911). "Hippolytus". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 13 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 519.
• From Athenian festivals: One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Apaturia". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 2 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 160.
• From Apollonia (Illyria): One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Apollonia s.v. (1)". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 2 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 186.
• From Mauretania Tingitana: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Mauretania" . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 17 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 908.
• From Boeotia: One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Boeotia". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 4 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 114–115. This cites as authorities:
  • Thucydides iv. 76-101
  • Xenophon, Hellenica, iii.-vii.
  • Strabo, pp. 400-412
  • Pausanias ix.
  • Theopompus (or Cratippus) in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol v. (London, 1908, No. 842, col 12
  • W. M. Leake, Travels in Northern Greece, chs. xi.-xix. (London, 1835)
  • H. F. Tozer, Geography of Greece (London, 1873), pp. 233-238
  • W. Rhys Roberts, The Ancient Boeotians (Cambridge, 1895)
  • E. A. Freeman Federal Government (ed. 1893, London), ch. iv. § 2
  • B. V. Head, Historia Nomorum, pp. 291 sqq. (Oxford, 1887)
  • W. Larfeld, Sylloge Inscriptionum Boeoticarum (Berlin, 1883). (See also Thebes.)
• From Pamphylia: One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Pamphylia". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 20 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 662.
• From Crimea: Kropotkin, Peter Alexeivitch; Bealby, John Thomas (1911). "Crimea" . In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 07 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 449–450, see line one. ...ancient Tauris or Tauric Chersonese, called by the Russians by the Tatar name Krym or Crim
• From Alyattes of Lydia: Chisholm 1911, p. 776
• From Chersonesus: One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Minns, Ellis Hovell (1911). "Chersonese". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 6 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 86.
• From Kamarina, Sicily: One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Camarina". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 5 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 80.
• From Cilicia: One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Cilicia". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 6 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 365–366.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 25 September 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. A detailed review of other topics that compete for the primary topic would be more productive (as well as evidence of majority usage of "Kingdom of Lydia", if such exists), but it appears here that Lydia is the preferred title for now. (closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE 15:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Lydia → Kingdom of Lydia –

• 1) There are many things called "Lydia", see Lydia (disambiguation). Kingdom of Lydia is a more WP:PRECISE and WP:NATURAL title as there were other entities in the same area with the name Lydia.

• 2) Summarize the entire text after the 'Hellenistic Empire' section, including the 'Christianity' section, into a single section and/or move most of the text after the mentioned section above to the articles Lydia (satrapy) and Asia (Roman province). Mawer10 (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The kingdom appears to get more views than every other possible primary topic combined, meaning it's a clear primary topic and should be kept where it is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Zxcvbnm. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The dab page should certainly not be primary, so best to leave it as is. Srnec (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 08:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Map

I really like the aesthetics of the "File:Kingdom_of_Lydia.png" map. However, I worry that it's misleading to include Bronze Age placenames alongside Iron Age ones. Having Lydia and Arzawa on the same map is a little like having the Soviet Union and the Holy Roman Empire on the same map.

I agree that the previous map is suboptimal, and I really am a fan of these aesthetics, so I'd suggest a new map, which could perhaps take inspiration from those in this book. For instance, Roosevelt's Figure 2.4 (on page 25) shows the boundaries of the core Lydian Kingdom as well as its broader territory, relative to modern geography. Botterweg14 (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Unfortunately It's not currently possible for me to access to the book you have suggested. I'll check some sources and fix misleading region/place names and re-edit the article with proper map in no time. Besides since it's me creating these maps, I can use the same artwork and aestechics for other maps about ancient Anatolian kingdoms. So I am always up for suggestions.

Sincerely, Ennomus (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Ennomus:, sorry I never replied to this! Just wanted to say that this new map is an improvement and that I hope you'll stick around and make more of them. I can recommend sources to work from, for which you can find pdfs in the places where one finds such things. Botterweg14 (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I am always open for the new map ideas alongside with sources which would give better and more detailed informations for defining the boundaries of such ancient realms. Sincerely. Ennomus (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

November 5, 2024 edit justification

I accidentally pressed enter before finishing the edit summary, but what I mean to say was that I thought for a moment that "Libya" was spelled "Lybia" because of this page's spelling and the fact that they sound similar in my head, hence why I felt that the "Not to be confused with" addition was necessary. 74.98.241.87 (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the edit, I know I prematurely hit save before completing my edit summaries sometimes. I initially changed your addition to Lybia (which itself hatnotes to the country). But giving it further thought I don't think confusion is likely, this I removed it. The other existing direction to Lycia could legitimately cause confusion given they share a similar topic; they are both old Turkey related things. If someone has spelling troubles they can try searching again I think. Open to discussion though. Commander Keane (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)