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)

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)