Talk:Bryges

Shea and breg

This is undoubtedly one of the more serious of Shea's numerous errors, such as his description of Basil II of the Macedonian dynasty as being of "Macedonian Slavic background" when he was in fact of Armenian descent. The word breg, present in all modern Slavic languages of the region, cannot possibly be the origin of the ancient name of the Bryges. Shea is clearly confusing the ancient Macedonian language with the unrelated Slavic "Macedonian" of today. If the name of the Bryges did indeed derive from a Macedonian word, that could only have been an ancient Macedonian word. Are there no better sources we could cite? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. See if you can find one, will you? Also I do not think you are considering that place names are typically adopted from one language into another, and that must be true of the Slavs in the Balkans, as they overran the Balkans from some place in the Carpathians later than classical times during the Slavic migrations. I appreciate the tip and why don't we both work on it? While you are at it, I think Mygdonia might be a form of Macedonia but I have not been able to find it yet so since you are interested (as am I) perhaps you could keep an eye out for it. This article of course will take a while to develop properly.Dave (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's entirely plausible that the Slavs could have adopted a Thracian name left behind by the Bryges, for example. But not the other way around, for purely chronological reasons. That's entirely my point. Also, how do we know that the Macedonian synonymy is "the most credible view"? Good work, by the way. We've always had a shortage of good classicists. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Short search. I found it. It's in Pokorny, the great master, to whose work a whole site and research effort at the U. of Leiden has been dedicated. Pokorny cites the ancient Macedonian name and makes various connections. It will take me as long as a few hours to write this up as I cannot dedicate every minute to it (much to my regret). I think Shea deserves some credit so I'm not just going to exclude him and he is readily reviewable on the Internet, this section anyway. What's the point of being reviewable if no one ever reviews you? For the most credible, I based that on two points: 1) The bryges actually lived right there in Macedonia so if there was a local derivation of the name it would be more believable 2) The great sweeping views are often pretty thin pulling in rag tags from every which way. However in this case I am not willing to give up the people of light or fire as it seems unusual that so many people should be named after the light and when you consider that its worship is so ancient. But as I say they cannot all be right even though they are all excellent and credible. Perhaps then I should drop the idea of most credible but as the highland people seems the strongest and most present to the Bryges I would like to keep that one first. Thanks for the nice words. I've always been a generalist and only reluctantly a specialist so when I saw how well Wikipedia serves that purpose I went for it right away. You can get sweeping views on here that would only be possible with multiple printed encyclopedias elsewhere and although it is a bit like sidewalk art or ice sculpting still it is adaptive and reactive to new information.Ciao.Dave (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the ancient Macedonan name? I have a hunch it's not breg. I think Pokorny definitely deserves a mention, especially in support of the highland theory. The connection of Macedonia to Bryges or Mygdonia had never actually occurred to me, but it is a fascinating hypothesis. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on it. I'm only remembering what I read somewhere but you never can find things you read when you want to so if I cannot find it in my library or on the Internet than it can't go in unless you or someone else finds it.Dave (talk) 03:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Kékrōps your accusations on the modern and ancient language of the Macedonians lack sources and much linguistic evidence suggests that they may have been very similar. In this matter we have to take the side of Dr.Shea as he is a recognized academic over the views of an unaccredited anonymous internet poster. Ireland101 (talk) 06:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Shea, unlike Pokorny, is not "the great master" of Indo-European etymology as Dave so aptly put it above. If Pokorny gives berga for ancient Macedonian, then it's berga, end of story. If by "Macedonian" Shea means ancient Macedonian, then the Slavic breg is an obvious anachronistic error. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No when Shea says Macedonian he means just that, he believes that this word is an example of the continuity of the Macedonian language, ancient to modern. Most respected historians outside of Greece also believe this. Ireland101 (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Macedons were Greek and Greek speakers and Shea is a hoax.

NW greeksNothing to with slavsMegistias (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case Shea is wrong, as breg is not ancient Macedonian; it is Slavic, and present not only in what you call "Macedonian", but in the other Slavic languages of the region as well. The "continuity of the Macedonian language" is one of the more pathetic "Macedonist" myths, as it effectively implies that all modern Slavic languages are derived from ancient Macedonian. If your "Macedonian" is derived from ancient Macedonian on account of the word breg, why not Serbian as well? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

modern macedonian, as well as all slavic languages, has a big bank of indo-persian words. knock-knock macedonia...persia...who influenced who? while no other country in the world exept greece speaks greek.79.126.230.74 (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Ancient macedonian is Hellenic

Macedonian Hellenic A,MAcedonian is Hellenic "The ancient language of the Macedonian kingdom in N. Greece and modern Macedonia during the later 1st millennium BC. Survived until the early 1st millennium AD. Not to be confused with the modern Macedonian language, which is a close relative of the Slavic Bulgarian." but the Language of FYrom is SlavicMegistias (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

How is this related to the Bryges or the Ancient ethnic Macedonians.Ireland101 (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Shea is unreliable in all aspects.Megistias (talk) 09:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Macedons were Greek and Greek speakers

NW greeksNothing to with slavsMegistias (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

How is this related to the Bryges? Ireland101 (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It shows that Shea is a hoax and unreliable.Megistias (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with Shea, and Dr.Shea is defiantly more reliable then some pseudo-Wikipedia wannabe historian.Ireland101 (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep dreaming but stop disrupting and pov-pushing in pagesMegistias (talk) 09:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You and your tag team friends are the only ones pov pushing by adding un sourced wrong paragraphs to the article.Ireland101 (talk) 04:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If Ireland101 is wrong here then you can easily prove him so by providing sources. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

We have.Slavs had nothing to with ancient Macedons nor is their language today as Shea absurdly claims.Megistias (talk) 11:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, Theresa, no scholar links the Ancient Macedonian language to modern Macedonian; it's simply a case of having the same name for different reasons. I'm not aware of mr. Shea's academic credentials but his book contains other errors (see Kekrops above) as well as an obvious bias regarding the modern Greek-Macedonian dispute which he lets permeate his overall work. 3rdAlcove (talk) 12:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

His wife is from Fyrom [1]Megistias (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Actualy what Dr. Shea is trying to show is the continuity of the Macedonian language from Ancient to present and one example is the word "Bryges", there are no sources to back up the views against this because they are simply wrong. As for the "His wife is from Fyrom" comment, it speaks for itself. Ireland101 (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever your opinion is (it doesn't matter, actually), a source that states scholarly consensus has been provided. As for mr. Shea, do we have any info on his academic credentials or do we just know that he wrote a book expressing his feelings on the Greece-RoM dispute? 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Bryges as a name

Why was this removed?

", (possibly of Thracian origin)"

Megistias (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably because it conflicts with the nationalist fantasy that slavomacedonians are somehow the descendants of the ancient Macedonians. --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone please put it back in.Megistias (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

References

Source for this statement

", and may have originally been a Thracianised tribe of Illyrians."What is this based upon? Megistias (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

More research guys

Well, since I've been working on the Dorians someone added the Albanian Brigoi in a bulleted list. The problem is you do not start an article with a bulleted list. But, in order to take it out of the bullets and do a proper write-up we have to know if those Brigoi are considered by anyone to have had the same ancestors in the Balkans as our Bryges, the subject if this article. If they are, we need a proper reference and introductory write-up. If they are not they do not belong in this article but in a new stub with some disambig templates at the proper locations. My offhand guess is the name descends from a common people. If that is so we can put them here for now until we get enough material for a related article. BUT - someone has to do the research! How about you ... or maybe you... or you over there....Dave (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Moschoi

During disambiguation I have stumbled upon Moschoi link in See also section. No idea which people or region does that refer to. Anybody able to disambiguate? --Ruziklan (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My protection and my proposal

Having watched this edit-warring for some time, and after Deucalionite's edit (one of the two users edit-warring) in my talk page, I decided to protect the page for 10 days (I am one of those administrators believing that page protections work better than users' blocks).

I am sorry to see that this edit-warring is going on for so long, with none of the two users discussing it in the article's talk page. This is the least they sould have done, in order to get some feedback and opinions by other editors; and of course in order to discuss with each other. Therefore, I invite both of them to present their views here, and expose their arguments. This will also help me to understand some aspects of the disagreement because the diffs are not always helpful.

For my part, I'll also ask feedback from other users specialized in the article's topic. I hope that a solution will be found. Otherwise, and after the expiry of the 10-days protection, Deucalionite and 3rdAlcove are free to go on with their edit-warring; until of course another adm with different views than mine blocks both of them. Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, they had extensive discussion on Deucalionite's talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And before the disagreements between 3rdAlcove and Deucalionite are tackled, we need to clean up the rest of the article first. The whole etymology series of sections is complete and utter crap. Speculative OR ramblings. Brigands and Brigid and whatnot. "[O]ne is tempted into a far-flung speculation of an Indo-European synonymy". Indeed. One might also be tempted to just not do it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I find it very difficult to read the diffs between 3rdAlcove's and Deucalionite's versions, because for some technical reasons corresponding paragraphs aren't aligned in the display, and the structure of the surrounding text is just so very chaotic. Can somebody please give a brief summary of which passages exactly are under dispute?

Or better still, can somebody just rewrite the article from scratch? It's a huge mess. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph of the overall article is the center of this entire debate. There I argued that the Bryges were Thracians according to both historical and linguistic sources. 3rdAlcove argued that the Bryges were members of the Lusatian culture according to extremely limited archaeological evidence.

It was after I first organized the article that 3rdAlcove emphasized his viewpoint. After that, I naturally incorporated his sources/arguments into the article (i.e. good faith, NPOV, WP:RS, the whole nine yards). I even fulfilled a request made by 3rdAlcove to provide a modern source regarding the Bryges being Thracians.

Due to the sheer nature of this impasse between myself and 3rdAlcove, I requested Yannismarou to do something. If anyone can solve this dilemma, it's him. I hope this article benefits from whatever actions will be taken from this point on. Deucalionite (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of the etymological sections do make use of spurious sources, with the exception of the Mueller and Pokorny parts under Highlanders at least, but sadly the contributing editor hasn't edited this article in a good while. Perhaps someone with an expertise on the Bryges/Phryges could settle that as well as the 3-D dispute. I was merely making use of the source Deucalionite provided which makes the Brygian-Phrygian language not Thracian but perhaps related to it. 3rdAlcove (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2008

I also applaud Future's proposal for him to write the article from scratch. 3rdAlcove (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if the Brygian-Phrygian language is only related to Thracian 3rdAlcove, this does not negate the historical sources referring to the Bryges as a Thracian tribe. You kept deleting three valid historical references only because you disagreed with one linguistic source.

Nevertheless, it would be best to let the experts handle this article. Deucalionite (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I read their discussion in Deuc's talk page, Fut, but it is a different thing to discuss something in a user's page, and a different thing to discuss the whole matter in the article's talk page. At least, that is how I see things. And this is my experience from 12 Olympians' edit warring some time ago.

And for the record, 3rdAlcove, Fut did not offer himself to rewrite the article; he just wished: "Or better still, can somebody just rewrite the article from scratch?" Can somebody? Fut maybe? Me no! I do not have the necessary sources, and I do not like to rewrite articles, where edit wars are on the way. I feel like walking in a path, with bullets dancing around me!

And finally, I do agree that the article needs clean up and rewriting, but isn't it better first to resolve the reasons behind the ensuing edit wars, and then discuss about cleaning up and rewriting? First things first! An article need "calmness" in order to be rewritten. And, I said above, how can we speak about rewriting, if we do not have yetthe person to do that?

Therefore, can the two editors present their arguments and in general expose the problem, and explain it to us as if we were idiots, because, as Fut said and I also pointed out, the diffs do not help much. Thank you.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

With gusto my friend:

1) There are multiple ancient historical sources (aside from Herodotus) that attest to the Bryges having Thracian origins. This is why I added a reference citation from Strabo's Geography in order to prove this rudimentary point.

Proof - Strabo. Geography, 7.25 (Fragments). "Mt. Bermium, also, is somewhere in this region; in earlier times it was occupied by Briges, a tribe of Thracians; some of these crossed over into Asia and their name was changed to Phryges."

2) 3rdAlcove requested that I add a more modern source in order to validate the argument that the Bryges were of Thracian stock. In response to his request, I added the reference citation from Jonathan Roth's work entitled The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (a valid source that coincides with all aspects of WP:RS).

Proof - Roth, Jonathan. The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (264 B.C.-A.D. 235). BRILL, 1999, ISBN 9004112715, p. 93. "The Briges were a Thracian people, whom Herodotus considered Phrygians, and in classical Greek, "Phrygian" served as a virtual synonym for slave."

3) I insist on keeping the William Smith reference citation since it is a quite reliable source despite it being from the 19th century. Wikipedia has used this particular source heavily in many of its articles.

Proof - Smith, William. Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, 1854 (Original from Harvard University), p. 452. "BRYGI (Βρύγοι), called BRIGES (Βρίγες) by the Macedonians, a Thracian people dwelling in Macedonia, north of Beroea in the neighborhood of Mt. Bermius."

4) The archaeological evidence, though valid, is too meager to establish a definitive historical stance on the Bryges being members of the Lusatian culture. Moreover, Borza sounds as if he is making a speculative interpretation rather than a direct assessment of the physical data. Moreover, Borza himself states that there exists an extremely slight archaeological record.

Proof - Borza, Eugene N. In the Shadow of Olympus: the Emergence of Macedon. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1990, ISBN 0691008809, p. 65. "What can be established, despite an extremely slight archaeological record (especially along the slopes of Mt. Vermion), is that two streams of Lausitz peoples moved south in the later Bronze Age, one to settle in Hellespontine Phrygia, the other to occupy parts of western and central Macedonia."

5) The linguistic evidence may be debatable, but it does validate the historical sources since the Brygian language is related to Thracian (as opposed to it being completely foreign, which would potentially support a non-Balkan origin). (Deucalionite (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC))

Proof - Woodard, Roger D. The Ancient Languages of Europe. Cambridge University Press, 2008, ISBN 0521684951, p. 9. "According to Greek tradition, the Phrygians of Anatolia had migrated from the Balkans (see Herodotus, Histories 7.73, who writes that the Phrygians were formerly called the Briges and had been neighbors of the Macedonians; on the Macedonians see below), a view with which modern scholarship is generally in agreement. The Phrygian language does show certain similarities to Thracian, and some linguists have argued for linking the two in a single linguistic unit (Thraco-Phrygian). The appropriateness of this subgrouping is, however, uncertain..." (Deucalionite (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC))

I rest my case. Deucalionite (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

But, I actually reworded the language section based on your last point. "related to, even forming..." 3rdAlcove (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if you reworded the language section, you nevertheless removed the three historical references I added (Strabo, Roth, and Smith). Deucalionite (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I renew my request please, before I comment: What are the actual diffs? Can someone give a list of what details your two versions actually differed in? (For some reason, the wiki diff is very hard to read and doesn't give a clear picture.) What I've gathered so far is just that D's version stated "Thracian tribe" in the intro as a secure fact and 3's didn't, and there was something about "on the basis of very limited archaeological evidence". Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Updating: I've asked Akhilleus and Septentrionalis (two excellent classicists) to offer their input, which I believe would be useful on both the issue in question and the proposals for a general rewriting and cleaning up of the article. I do agree with Fut's kind request.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Good call Yannis! The versions differed in two parts: D's called the Bryges a "Thracian tribe" while mine didn't and D's added "extremely slight/limited" to archaeological findings. Btw, if you could, being a linguist, do take a good look at the etymological sections. You had a good point about that. 3rdAlcove (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try and do the etymology. About the archaeology/history, wouldn't Giorgos Tzimas also be near the top of the list? Is he around? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think he is a bit πηγμένος but I agree it would be nice to invite him as well.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Fut, feel free to unprotect the article if you intend to make extensive edits in the etymology section. I'll be away for the next of the day.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Some comments and proposals: After reading Deucalionite and 3rdAlcove arguments, I did some ggoglebooking, and I would like to add some comments:

1) I agree with the Smith's removal. In a modern encyclopedia scholarly work of 19th century is not the best we can do. I think that modern scholarship can offer us better results and cover our topic in a satisfactory way. I'd also propose to the editors to always accompany primary sources with secondary ones. It is not obligatory but some editors prefer that (and in FAC or FAR I've met such requests). Now, let's go to googlebooking:

2) Using "Bryges" or "Briges" with "Thracian" gives a series of resilts. Some examples: Harrison, 374, quotes Strabo who says that the Phrygians are Tracian (this is a secondary source that could accompany Strabo as I proposed above), Murray calls them a Tracian tribe, Tsetskhladze, 475 quotes Herodotus calling them European Phrygians, Roth has been already mentioned by Deucalionite, the Cambridge Ancient History makes also this connection between Briges and Phrygians (see also pages 709-710. See also, Higgins, 412-413 on the Tracian origin of Briges (or Bryges).

3) When I use as key words "Bryges" or "Briges" and "Lusatian" I get nothing. Maybe by google search could be improved and 3rdAlcove could help. 3rdAlcove has already provided 2 sources of him, but I think that the comparison here is a bit overwhelming. I must admit that I did not find as many sources as I would wish treating the topic "Briges", but almost everything I found has these characteristics: 1) The scholars present the Briges as Tracians or quote ancient writers presenting them as such, 2) They discuss the Briges-Phrygians relationship (both modern scholars and ancient writers).

Therefore, I would propose a rephrasing of the first paragraph of the lead as following:

"Bryges or Briges (Greek: Βρύγοι or Βρίγες) is the historical name given to a people that dwelled in Ancient Macedonia north of Beroia in the neighborhood of Mount Bermius. Most modern scholars believe that they were of Thracian origin, and research their relation with the Phrygians; Herodotus asserts that the Bryges changed their name to "Phruges/Phryges" (Phrygians) after crossing the Hellespont into Anatolia. Based on certain archaeological evidence, some scholars argue, however, that the Bryges were members of the Lusatian culture."

The Herodotus thing could go and remain where it is now if you prefer the current version. Please, tell me if my version of the first paragraph of the lead has historical and scientific inaccuracies.

This intro should be ok under two additional conditions, because the lead should always reflect and summarize the main text from which it shouldn't be isolated (and everything asserted in the lead should be further analyzed in the main text):

1) Deucalionite should write a proper and comprehensive section treating the Tracian origins of Briges and their relation with Phrygians. I think my googlebooking helps him a lot.

2) For his part, 3rdAlcove should write a proper and well-researched section supporting Briges' connection with the Lusatian culture. If he cannot do it, the inclusion of his theory in the lead is very problematic. For instance, he should clarify what archaeological evidence he is talking about. So, he should conduct some research and provide more sources, good enough to support a proper encyclopedic section, even a short one (I recognize he can't have the material Deucalionite can collect). Alternatively, the "Lusatian" theory could be a paragraph in the same section with the "Thracian" theory, which will treat as a whole Briges' origins, and analyze together all the main theories.

I hope my proposals help.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions:

• Is the "Lusatian" or "Thracian" thing a logically exclusive opposition at all?
• Isn't there another issue that is of much more obvious importance and which is currently almost completely avoided: the relationship with the Phrygians of Asia Minor? We have only the account of Herodot cited, and then the (obvious) implication hinted at that "Bryg-" and "Phryg-" are essentially the same name (which is probably correct, both would be from IE *bʰr(u)g). Shouldn't the article concentrate much more on that? Note that if "Bryges" and "Phrygians" are essentially the same, the relationship with the Thracians needs to be reconsidered, because whatever little we know about those two languages, they don't seem to have been identical. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Just to note here that the Cambridge Ancient History reference used in fn.8 also seems to be in support of the "Lusatian" view; it doesn't seem to have been used as such yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• I did not say it is exclusive. But it is always a matter of weight and sourcing.
• I've also mentioned that this issue is neglected. The Briges-Phrygians relationship in a parallel examining of the "Thracian origin" issue. Who can provide sources again? Some of the sources I stated above offer some hints, but most of these sources are the one calling them at the same time as "Thracians". So, I re-use an argument of yours above: Is the Phrygians-Briges relation exclusive of the Thracian origin of the latter?
• I also referenced, Fut, the Cambridge History above, and the exact pages as a matter of fact. But I admit I failed to make the connection "Lausitz" and "Lusatian". It seems to be indeed in support of the "Lusatian" theory, without again being clear.--Yannismarou (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Lusatia is the Latin for Lausitz. What is the source for the "extremely limited" archaeological evidence? (It seems obvious that the two claims here are compatible; one is a statement about material culture, the other probably about language and religion.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• I see Borza's quote above. That's not the same thing; he says that the record is slight; but that the evidence is enough to establish his conclusion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point. However, the supposed difference between an archaeological record and archaeological evidence seems to embody a debate over useless semantics. How do you differentiate evidence from a record (of evidence ultimately) when the former is needed to formulate the latter? Having an "extremely slight archaeological record" means that there is an extremely limited amount of archaeological evidence. Just because Borza makes assessments based on limited physical data does not mean that they should be taken at face value. Until more physical evidence is accumulated and thoroughly analyzed, I doubt any historian can be 100% sure that the Bryges were originally "Lausitz". Deucalionite (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think that Tsetskhladze, 474, gives an overview of the whole problem saying that "Whether Phrygians went from the Balkans to settle to Anatolia or vice versa or Thracians migrated to Anatolia is not the main question here", adding that what is sure is that some king of migrations took place.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• If somebody had access to Thracians and Phrygians: Problems of Parallelism, 1998 ... --Yannismarou (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To hand, not indexed, so statements about Bryges will be hard to come by. Maya Vassileva (p.13) begins her paper with "Recent progress in Phrygian studies has changed the traditional view on Thracian-Phrygian kinship." She dismisses the theory that the Phrygians migrated to Asia Minor as a relatively late Greek theory, but supports a continued cultural contact. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The movement (South Balkans -> Anatolia) was discussed and the sources (not only Herodotus was given , though the constant reverting and editing probably messed up the page) seem to support it (based on the "extremely limited archaeological evidence"; Lusatian ware -an expert on pottery or archaeology would be welcome though). Re the language, "related to Thracian, perhaps even forming a Thraco-Phrygian group" seems to be taking a neutral stance, based on the limited (right, Future?) available material. 3rdAlcove (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This language section is extremely stubby. It does not look nice. Can't somebody expand it a bit?--Yannismarou (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"Thracian people" POV dispute

After repeated edit warring, User:Jingiby is stacking sources to affirm the POV and unnecessary statement "There seems no reasonable doubt of the Thracian origin of this people." This seems to be pushing one school of thought regarding the ethnicity of the Bryges, about which there is in fact considerable doubt. The intro and the article already state in pla9in language that there are alternate conjectures, but this POV statement proclaims one school of thought the "winner" and the pthers "losers", in other words, it is written from a definite "point-of-view". Please read carefully WP:POV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, if I am wrong, I wont know which is your opinion about the origins of this people . Thank you. Jingby (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what my opinion is. What matters is that we preserve neutrality, and Classification of Thracian etc. is a question about which there are a variety of conflicting published opinions. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Some proves:

Proof - Strabo. Geography, 7.25 (Fragments). "Mt. Bermium, also, is somewhere in this region; in earlier times it was occupied by Briges, a tribe of Thracians; some of these crossed over into Asia and their name was changed to Phryges."

Proof - Roth, Jonathan. The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (264 B.C.-A.D. 235). BRILL, 1999, ISBN 9004112715, p. 93. "The Briges were a Thracian people, whom Herodotus considered Phrygians, and in classical Greek, "Phrygian" served as a virtual synonym for slave."

Proof - Smith, William. Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, 1854 (Original from Harvard University), p. 452. "BRYGI (Βρύγοι), called BRIGES (Βρίγες) by the Macedonians, a Thracian people dwelling in Macedonia, north of Beroea in the neighborhood of Mt. Bermius."

Proof - Woodard, Roger D. The Ancient Languages of Europe. Cambridge University Press, 2008, ISBN 0521684951, p. 9. "According to Greek tradition, the Phrygians of Anatolia had migrated from the Balkans (see Herodotus, Histories 7.73, who writes that the Phrygians were formerly called the Briges and had been neighbors of the Macedonians; on the Macedonians see below), a view with which modern scholarship is generally in agreement. The Phrygian language does show certain similarities to Thracian, and some linguists have argued for linking the two in a single linguistic unit (Thraco-Phrygian). The appropriateness of this subgrouping is, however, uncertain..." Jingby (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That last "proof", if I'm not reading it wrong, would seem to suggest to me that the appropriateness of this subgrouping is, however, uncertain. Which is basically what I'm saying, and what I think we should take care to point out. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Another issue

Both this article and the Phrygians article are quite vague and evasive about the link and/or identity between these two names/peoples. What's the position in the literature about this? The only thing we're quoting is the Herodot line that they "changed their name" from B. to Ph., but that's obviously nonsense under a modern linguistic perspective. Etymologically, this would simply be the same name (from PIE *b^h-), most likely filtered through different paths of borrowing through neighbouring languages, once with the common Balkanian outcome b- and once the Greek outcome ph-. But that's just my OR speculation. Don't we have anything more definite about that in the literature? Is it commonly accepted that they are in fact essentially the same people? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL, nice to see this flare up again and with none of the original participants involved. Brixhe in Woodard, Ancient Languages of Asia Minor (p.69) suggests that "The Phrygians must have called themselves something like Bruges" for the same reasons you cite (*bh>b in Phr. *bh>ph in Gk.). He also seems to take it sort of granted (he gives no arguments, that is) that in fact these were Phrygians left behind before the migration but I don't know how widely that position is held.

I also checked Crossland in CAH 3.1, Linguistic Problems of the Balkan Area in Late Prehistoric and Early Classical Periods (I think both those books are also available, partly, online so it should be easy to check) and he mentions that "Phrygian will be considered in view of the Greek tradition that Phrygians migrated from the Southern Balkans to Anatolia[...]" but he doesn't give any particular arguments either(he also adds "The view that it was specially closely related to Thracian is no longer widely accepted (see p. 848)" which might be of some interest to the whole "Thraco-Phrygian" debate and later on p.849 "The tradition that the Phrygians once lived in western Macedonia whence most of them migrated to Anatolia, is plausible as regards the linguistic evidence"; I assume placenames such as Edessa are seriously considered to be of Phrygian provenance) CAH features Hammond's argument as well, who as cited, believes that the Bruges and Phruges were probably related. 3rdAlcove (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Jingiby's sources

Let me be the first on record to state that this hardly constitutes an edit war regarding your sources Jingiby. In fact, I support the literature that explicitly deems the Bryges as a Thracian tribe.

Out of the four sources you provided, two of them are from the 19th century.

• A Geographical and Historical Description of Asia Minor, John Anthony Cramer - 1832, p. 1-2.
• History of Greece, Connop Thirlwall, Dionysius Lardner - 1838, p. 226.

Though these sources are decent, they constitute forms of outdated scholarship. As far as WP:RS is concerned, the Mazorov and Webber citations are perfectly fine to include in this article, because they are modern secondary sources.

• Marozov, Ivan. Ancient Gold: The Wealth of the Thracians. Harry N. Abrams, 1998, ISBN 0810919923, pp. 238-239.
• Webber, Christopher and McBride, Angus. The Thracians, 700 BC - AD 46. Osprey Publishing, 2001, ISBN 1841763292, p. 3. "The Thracians migrated to south-eastern Europe in the 7th millennium. After the 12th century they also settled in Asia Minor, especially in Bithynia and the Troad, with the Brygi becoming ancestors of the Phrygians."

After enhancing the Marozov and Webber citations, I repositioned them in the introductory paragraph in order to reinforce the topic sentence that states the Bryges were a "Thracian people". If you want to ruin my reference tweaks and any attempts made towards improving the quality of this article, then be my guest. Deucalionite (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that "outdated scholarship" is, of course, still reliable for establishing the historiography of a subject, and tracing the development of thought about it. Herodotus and Strabo may fairly be considered "outdated scholarship" for that matter - but we still reference them, to show what was thought by scholars at one time. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of writing about the "history of historiography", I absolutely agree with your points. Outside of this realm, however, Wikipedia articles need modern, reliable, verifiable, and accurate secondary sources. Granted, there are exceptions to WP:RS to which William Smith is a case example. But we cannot stretch these exceptions to the point where encyclopedia articles are inundated with potentially erroneous scholarship. This is why we as editors have to constantly take into consideration the fact that a lot has happened in academia since the 19th century. Deucalionite (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we heavily rely on the "wisdom" of the ancient authors. But this is only because they were a lot closer to whatever events occurred centuries ago. Deucalionite (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

OK! Jingby (talk) 06:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I would stress that past historiography is essential for tracing the development of thought, much as article histories are essential for tracing the development of wikipedia articles, and in the real world these things don't disappear into any memory hole. Many of our best articles tell what scholars used to think and what the consensus used to be, and readers don't like to be kept in the dark on these things. I do agree with Future Perfect, that the Phrygian connection is more relevant for the intro, but this is more in response his edit summary "rv. Early 19th-century writers? Useless for modern scholarship." We can indeed have a section on the 19th century consensus. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

bryges-berg-breg

is just another name for the macedonian tribe that lived on hills. like ezerci- lake people. or brzjaci- fast ones.79.126.230.74 (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bryges. 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/20110809064309/http://www.indoeuropean.nl/cgi-bin/startq.cgi?flags=endnnnl&root=leiden&basename=%5Cdata%5Cie%5Cpokorny to http://www.indoeuropean.nl/cgi-bin/startq.cgi?flags=endnnnl&root=leiden&basename=%5Cdata%5Cie%5Cpokorny

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) 00:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)