CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Pelopia

Open-knowledge reference entry

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionAug 28, 2025
Entity authoritySource title only
Source-derived summary

In Greek mythology, Pelopia or Pelopea or Pelopeia was a name attributed to four individuals:Pelopia, a Theban princess as one of the Niobids, children of King Amphion and Niobe, daughter of King Tantalus of Lydia. She was slain by Artemis.

Pelopia, daughter of Pelias, King of Iolcus by either Anaxibia or Phylomache, daughter of Amphion. She appears briefly in the Argonautica, giving her brother Acastus a mantle of double fold before he sails off with the Argonauts. She and her sisters killed their father, having been tricked by Medea into believing this was needed to rejuvenate him.

Pelopia, mother of Cycnus by Ares.

Pelopia, daughter of Thyestes by whom she mothered Aegisthus.

Editorial summary

“Pelopia” enters the record as open-knowledge reference entry. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Pelopia, Open-knowledge and entry can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewA practical starting point whose main value is the path it opens into stronger specialist and primary sources. The current 112-word lead offers orientation but no explicit four-digit date, so chronology should not be assumed. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Pelopia, Open-knowledge and entry.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“Pelopia” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Pelopia, Open-knowledge and entry provides the most credible route into that argument.

Evidence profile

Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 28, 2025.

Critical limits

The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Pelopia”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Pelopia primary sources, Pelopia archive and Pelopia research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Pelopia”?
  2. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
  3. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Pelopia” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.