Talk:Lycia

recently discovered? When?

The words "recently discovered" are too loaded. Better answer the questino or delete it...Undead Herle King (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

What is the etymology/root word of Lycia? Badagnani 23:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Lycia is the Greek toponym for people who in their inscriptions called themselves Trmmli, according to H.C. Melchert, Lycian Lexicon vol 2 of Lexica Anatolia 1993. From "The modern place-name of 'Dirmil', the excavators suggest that the Dirmil highlands, located at the upper end of the Xanthos river valley, were the ancestral homeland of the Lycians." I get this from Pedar W. Foss, Stanford University: Lycia; I would add it to "External links" but that a class of Wikipedians is currently passing through articles deleting such links, apparently without asessing their value first, so that one is loath to waste one's efforts in this particular way. --Wetman (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

looks like a greek history book, very subjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.23.2 (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"Greek toponym" does not quite cover it. The word does not have a Greek origin. It was known as Lukka in the Late Bronze Age. True, Lukia has a Greek form, only superficially.Dave (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Lycia or Caria?

Surely the rock tombs at Dalyan as picture twice on this page are actually Carian rather than Lycian?

Gordon.a.robinson (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Classics they say is eternal and we want to think in terms of classical eternity, as a hedge against the understanding of death. But, history tries to tell a real story as much as possible. In the real story, most of the Lycians were assassinated by the Persians before the classical period even began. Then the Greeks from various places fought over it like dogs over a bone. By the time these classical states were established the likelihood of finding Anatoloan descendants was no doubt small. The borders flowed this way, and that way, as each tyrant or empire got hold of it in turn. Then there is the question of Lycian speakers in Caria. But what Caria? What Lycia? How do you know who made the tombs and who is buried there? There was no Lycia, there was no Caria, only a bunch of people speaking this or that and paying taxes now to this and now to that. I'm working on the Lycian list article. If any source called the place Lycian it is going in as Lycian even if several other sources call it Carian. If the inscription is Lycian it is going in as Lycian even if located in outer Mongolia. I did address that question in that article. When I am through there I am coming over here to blow the place up. Ho ho! I will address that concept here also. Classics might be eternal, but real people are not.Dave (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you complete the list?

And.. good for you for your response above 😊 Elleiaaa (talk) 00:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Lycia=Lykia

I am not sure how to properly add this, so perhaps some more senior editor can help. The Greek spelling is Lykia (Lycia is the Roman spelling), but either way the region is pronounced with a "k" sound. Many sources now reference the region using the Greek spelling, so it should be added. FYI, even during Roman times, Greek language dominated in Asia Minor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syennesis (talk • contribs) 15:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope. English WP should use the English classical name, which is by convention the Latinization. Even if the name were Greek in origin, which it is not, one should Anglicize it, unless one means specifically the Greek. In that case it probably should be in Greek letters. If we are transliterating Greek letters into English letters, which are from the Roman letters, then the WP convention is to use u for upsilon. Otherwise Lycia is fine.Dave (talk) 09:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sidyma

There was a hat note for Sidyma, which redirected here. This article does not mention it, probably will not, ever. The list article on Lycian places should mention it but did not. I fixed that; the list now mentions it. There is no article on Sidyma. There was a disambig to the moth genus, and a comment to leave the red link, that such a thing was somehow necessary. The link was not red. Well, now you need to find some other solution to whatever the problem was. I suggest a disambig to Sidyma. Now you have Sidyma in the list. Or, you can disambig to the missing Sidyma article, except I am not sure there ever will be one. Indirects to unknown places not in the target article don't strike me as too logical a solution to unknown problems. You must be able to do it some other way.Dave (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Itlehi Trm̃mili

I do not know what that is and there is no ref for it. The editor would have us believe it was the inscriptional name of a sovereign Lycian government embodying all the principles of democracy idealized but never achieve by revolutions of the Age of Reason. First, I observe that it appears to be anachronistic. No one in Lycia knew how to pronounce those words or what they meant and probably had not for at least a century. I suppose it is possible that they wanted to perpetuate the idea of Lycian Lycia in the same way that the Celts try to perpetuate their past in concepts such as Tara's Halls. There were no Lycian halls and Lycia was no longer Lycian. It was Greek. The coins of the league are all in Greek. The community names have been Hellenized. It may have been named Lycia but it was not Lycian. The last Lycian speaker died in the age of Alexander. However, if I'm wrong, if Bryce or someone else has presented an inscription or a quote that says the name of the Lcian League in Lycian, I will be glad to recant, eat crow, whatever, and not only restore the name but explain where it comes from. Meanwhile unless YOU can do that, it might be best to leave it out.Dave (talk) 17:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

PS I found it in Keen 44. The whole expression is itlehi Trmmili huwedri, which might (or might not) be some sort of office of the Lycians. The translation is uncertain. Keen goes on to point out that even if it should be proved to represent some kind of national office there is no connection between the earlier dynastic times and the league, calling it anachronistic. Our stating it as the name of the Lycian League, a known historical event of non-Lycia, would require some sort of definite connection and explanation of the anachronism, otherwise it is just a crank theory based on nothing. Anyone can hypothesize anything. The problem is to get the evidence, and that isn't evidence. I vote it stays out.Dave (talk) 19:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Byzantine empire takeover

", when it was taken over by the Byzantine Empire." It was not taken over by that empire, it was that empire, at least in part. The late empire divides into a western and eastern branch. The western falls to the Goths. The eastern goes on as the Byzantine. Lycia was in the eastern this whole time.Dave (talk) 17:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Congressional record article by stearns

I see a lot of the original statements on the Lycian League seem to have come from an article in the Congressional Record of May 16 2006 by Stearns. While interesting, the article is not by a professional scholar and draws many wrong conclusions. The article can be used with reservations to demonstrate an interest by some members of the government past and present in the Lycian League. It is not a good source on the history, however. I'm removing some ideas from there put into the WP article. For example, the name of the building, bouleterion, is not the name of the deliberative body. And who says it was a bouleterion? Was that a name assigned ad hoc by the excavators or did someone find an inscribed sign, bouleterion? Maybe it was, but that needs substantiation. Just because the building stood until 400 AD does not mean the legislative body did. We can't invent history ro match the archaeology. Maybe they sold fish there. Colonial government buildings in Boston and elsewhere are now used for commerce and merchandizing, and they are not even 400 years old. These things need substantiation if this article is not to be a fantasy, which it mainly has been.Dave (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Stadiasmus Patarensis

Great book I am sure but no one can now get it and you sure can't review it online. The library of Congress might have it if you care to use Interlibrary Loan or make a trip to DC. Let's get realistic. I doubt the editor ever lifted the cover or saw the cover either. Now, those things are not a requirement for WP. However, no page numbers are listed. Fortunately the editor had the foresight to list an article in the same note. That one I just finished reading, and it makes the point excellently. Moreover, it includes a ref to the rapidly vanishing Stadiasmus. Therefore I am dropping the ref to Stadiasmus and using the article to make the point. The point has to be made, I think. If you throw together an article that is only references to other articles it is worth less than nothing. Why bother with it? You have to do some intro.Dave (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Cibyra

That part of the article needs sharpening, which I am going to do. Apparently Cibyra was never in the Leage, and was certainly not Lycian. The Romans broke up the league it was in and handed over the cities except Cibyra to the Lycian League. Cibyra then threw in or was thrown in with Pamphylia for a while and then Phrygia.Dave (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Encycl Roman Provinces

This is an Internet effort of Pedar Foss, which, although to be applauded for its intent, has not been worked on since 1998. I guess Pedar decided on other means of publication, and I cannot say that I blame him. In any case the "encyclopedia" had not got very far and still has under construction signs from 1998. The only thing I can say is, if it is worth doing, it is worth doing well. I don't consider this an encyclopedic soutce and I note Pedar is using all the same sources I am, such as Keen, who published in 1998. Why do we need Pedar? I don't think we do, and there are two mentions of him here, one as an external link and one as a footnote. The footnote invites us to read Pedar's entire effort to extract whatever random information the original editor had (not much). No thanks. He can stay in the external links but he comes out of the notes, unless by chance there is a published book or article by him there.Dave (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Modern/ancient geography

This is not a useful feature for an expanded geography as on the whole geography is fairly independent of chronology, unless you are speaking of geologic time. The change of geologic features over time is not generalyl geography but geology although I am sure there are cases where the distinction gets blurred.Dave (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you expand? In Turkey the geology has changed sometimes radically in historic times. A classic example is the Maeander river (and, like the Maeander, Patara's harbor has filled in). In Lycia some land has sunk beneath the sea. Those are geologic changes. In addition what names are used for geologic features has change and in some cases there are debates about which ancient geographic name matches up with which geological feature. --Erp (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lycia. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/19/international/europe/19patara.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204045045/http://www.lycianturkey.com/ to http://www.lycianturkey.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120226204856/http://people.usd.edu/~clehmann/erp/Lycia/lycia.html to http://people.usd.edu/~clehmann/erp/Lycia/lycia.html

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) 03:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Republican inspiration

The lead includes the sentence "The Romans validated home rule officially under the Lycian League in 168 BC. This native government was an early federation with republican principles; these later came to the attention of the framers of the United States Constitution, influencing their thoughts," with a citation to a NY times article. I have problems:

1. It seems inappropriate and Americano-centric to mention this in the lead, especially given that it is mentioned nowhere in the body of the article. Based off of the NY Times piece the influence on the thoughts of the framers of the constitution boils down to "the Lycian League was mentioned twice in the Federalist Papers, once by Alexander Hamilton, once by James Madison." So, it was an exceptionally minor influence, which again makes the reference in the lead disproportionate.
2. "Home rule" seems anachronistic and implies a preceding period of direct rule (which isn't the case)
3. The Lycian League is not an especially early Greek federation - it is preceded by several centuries by the Boeotian League, the Second Athenian Confederacy, the Achaian League, and the Aetolian League, among others (the author of the NYTimes article was clearly unaware of this, saying "in fact, it was history's earliest example").
4. Pretty much all Greek city-states had "republican principles".
5. I accept that NYTimes articles are acceptable sources generally, but this one is definitely not a great one, with a large number of corrections of basic facts appended to it.

Accordingly, I'd like to remove the reference to the USA and change the first half to something like, "From 168 BC, the local cities were organised into the federal Lycian League, which enjoyed autonomy under Roman rule." Furius (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)