From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


(1) The city's name, Pergamum is probably related to Phrygia and the Phyrigians who settled the region c. 1200 BCE around the time of the Sea Peoples. (2) The city's name, which means "hill top" or "elevation", etc, seems to be cognate with the Germanic word "Burg", "Berg" which has the same meaning, "hill top city".


The subject matter and even pictures are almost identical with Bergama. Merge? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rabid Lemur (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2006

The article must've been changed, because they don't look at all similar to me. In any case, they aren't the same city---Bergama is a newer city that happens to be located nearby. --Delirium 16:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Dead Link[edit]

"Encyclopaedia of Turkey: Ancient Pergamum" at the External Links is not working. This whole site seems to be closed.Orkunazgur 12:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is the Internet Archive link. However, you are correct: the project was canceled due to financial problems. Khoikhoi 21:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Currently, that link is also not working. — Quin 02:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent disagreements[edit]

There has been some recent disagreements in this article over the names of some places, in the hopes of preventing a edit war and the impending bans stemming from such a war, It would be nice to discus the the actual current name of pergamon here before putting it in the actual article.--Pewwer42  Talk  09:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Pergamon is an ancient Greek city in modern day Turkey, Bergama is a modern day city lying to the south of the ancient city. The two articles are split, so the one talks about the Greek city and the other the Turkish city. So the Ancient Greek city writes the name of the city in Greek which the IP user feels like removing for some reason. El Greco(talk) 15:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The IP user User talk: continues to remove the name without discuss it. El Greco(talk) 19:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I've left him a note on his IP talk page. Shall we ask for a "third party" viewpoint if it happens again? With two different articles, this editing is super-clear IMO. Student7 (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. El Greco(talk) 22:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Will the IP User please stop making the changes and discuss his/her actions?? El Greco(talk) 19:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I left a note on his discussion page. He answered by saying that "he lives there" ostensibly in both cities which he maintains are in the same place (!), the one that Turkey maintains as a historic tourist site with ruins and a entry fee, the other the modern city which is not really close by. I questioned him on that! Student7 (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
That sounds original. El Greco(talk) 01:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
IP user please discuss your reasons? El Greco(talk) 17:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break[edit]

Well, since the IP dude isn't giving a reason for the edits, I think it's safe to label them disruptive since consensus here (from what I can tell— I have no idea what the full arguments are) is that since the city doesn't officially exist as a city in Turkey, it's an ancient city of ancient Greece. The fact that three are tourist traps there probably isn't sufficient enough of a reason to label it as a city in Turkey; plus, its primary claim to fame is rooted in Greek history. So, since no other constructive edits have been originating from new/anon users recently, I feel it's safe to semi the page for a week (hopefully to stimulate discussion as opposed to the current minor edit warring). Feel free to drop a {{editprotected}} here if you're a productive anonymous/new editor and your changes can easily be implemented. Cheers =) --slakrtalk / 20:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NCGN. If an article discusses a place only during a period for which English uses another name, use that name. Compare, not far away, Byzantium; somewhat further, New Amsterdam. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, I was there a couple days ago, and geographically, Pergamon and Bergama are the same place (note the change I made to the opening section). The Pergamon acropolis is to the north of Bergama, the Red Basilica is at the north end of Bergama, and definitely within it, and the Asclepion is on the western edge of town, just off the main strip. It's incorrect to describe the modern city of Bergama as "close by" because it's the same place. Truly. Be sure you're not confusing the acropolis with the city itself. Remember 150,000 people lived there, and they sure didn't live in the acropolis. They lived on the current site of modern Bergama. That said, the Greek name should still stand because of PMAnderson's reason. --Atkinson (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


I'm not following you on the reason for your move of the article from Pergamon to Pergamum. Care to elaborate on the move? El Greco(talk) 21:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think articles should be about "correcting" English misuse of foreign names. It is still Milan, not Milano, Germany not Allemand, Austria not Oesterich or whatever, Munich not Munchen, Rome not Roma. Pergamon, however wrong, comes up several million hits on Google. Well under that for this spelling. I would like to see it revert. Student7 (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the principle; I think Pergamum is the English misuse.
How many of those hits are in English? Pergamum is the established English spelling; Pergamon is a Teutonicism, without even the usual benefit of representing the Greek. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Google book search ("Pergamum" or "Pergamon" coupled with a variety of unambiguously English words, like "from Pergamon" exact-phrase search, or "Pergamon city" collocation search) consistently gives higher counts for Pergamon. That said, I might be intuitively biased, being of course more familiar with the German usage. Fut.Perf. 10:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
In my experience the more common name in English is Pergamon. Paul August 05:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree. This page should be moved back. I find more English-language books (especially recent ones) use "Pergamon" rather than "Pergamum". The main exception seems to be books concerning the Bible - they seem to prefer "Pergamum". Singinglemon (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Two points: first, we should go with what is most commonly used in English, regardless, which is Pergamon. Second, it's not the case that one is "correct," and the other is "incorrect;" Pergamum is Latin, and Pergamon is Greek. Neither is English, and Pergamon was a Greek city. For both these reasons, if we must choose one name, it should be Pergamon. I'm in favour of moving it back. --Atkinson (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Which is the seat of Satan?[edit]

In the current text, it states that the "Seat of Satan" referred to by John of Patmos in the Book of Revelation is the Great Altar of Pergamon from the acropolis, but later in the same section, it states that it's the Red Basilica he was referring to. Only one of these is possible as the two are not the same structure at all. Can anyone verify which one is correct?

In the meantime, should this inconsistency be left standing in the main article? --Atkinson (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

There is some disagreement over which "seat" is referenced by John the Revelator. Most would view it as either the altar to Zeus (major temple throughout its middle history and the source of the current article's slant) OR the recently built (and major center of devotion) imperial cult temple OR some combination thereof (all are valid arguments and the last seems the most effective position to present as it covers everything). From Semeia,

Already in 29 BCE the city had received permission to build a temple to the “divine Augustus and the goddess Roma” which is probably referred to in Rev 3:13 by the expression “the throne of Satan.”

ed Adela Yarbro Collins, ed Adela Yarbro Collins and Society of Biblical Literature, vol. 36, Semeia. Semeia 36, "An Experimental Journal for Biblical Criticism.", Semeia (Decatur, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1986), 136.

Apart from the typo "3:13" as opposed to "2:13," this provides one scholarly example (it is a bit older, but it does represent a continuing stream and just happened to be handy). Better still:

And, as in Smyrna, “Satan” is named as the ultimate instigator of persecution. “The throne of Satan” in Pergamum is a way of referring to that city as a center of Roman government and pagan religion in the Asia Minor region. It was the first city in Asia Minor to build a temple to a Roman ruler (Augustus) and the capital of the whole area for the cult of the emperor. The city proudly referred to itself as the “temple warden” (νεωκόρος) of a temple dedicated to Caesar worship. Life in such a politico-religious center put all the more pressure on the church to pay public homage to Caesar as a deity, refusal of which meant high treason to the state.68

Furthermore, Pergamum was also a center of pagan cults of various deities. For example, the cult of Asclepius, the serpent god of healing, was prominent in Pergamum; the serpent symbol of Asclepius also became one of the emblems of the city and may have facilitated John’s reference to “the throne of Satan” (cf. 12:9; 20:2!). Zeus, Athene, Demeter, and Dionysus were also gods receiving significant cultic attention. The reference to “Satan’s throne” may also have been brought to mind because of the conical hill behind Pergamum which was the site of many temples, prominent among which was the throne-like altar of Zeus, which itself would have been sufficient to arouse the thought of the devil’s throne. 13:2 says that Satan gave the “beast” “his throne and great authority” (cf. 16:10); thus Satan works through the ungodly, earthly political power in Pergamum to persecute God’s people (see on 13:1ff.).69

G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation : A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle, Cumbria: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1999), 246.

--eleuthero (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't we need a cite on the comment that this was the seat of Satan? Less likely to be changed later by someone else IMO. Okay to change cite!  :) Student7 (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Who has called the Library the Athenaeum?[edit]

The article has The Library a.k.a. Athenaeum, but I can find no reference to the Library having been called the Athenaeum except for web pages that use this article's text. There's certainly no mention of the Library of Pergamon on the Athenaeum page. Fact check, please!

Not 260 km.[edit]

The very first sentence: Pergamon was an ancient Greek city in modern-day Turkey, in Mysia, today located 160 miles (260 km) from the Aegean Sea. Well the distance figures are incorrect. The actual distance to sea is only 1/10 th of those figures. 26 km. or 16 miles respectively. Any objections ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No objection and I coreccted the figures.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The number of miles from the sea was changed from 16 to 160 here, probably as the result of vandalism. Paul August 20:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture disagreement[edit]

I want to outlay the problem of having this image, compared to this image. First of all I would like to say they are both are god pictures, the problem lies with the modification by editing this image. I find it highly inappropriate to show a edited picture of a site to make it appear more dramatic. If this image was taken from life, during an sunset for example, then there would be no problem. This image dose not represent the site, merely Omulazimoglu's imagination of Pergamon. To give my case an example, if I were to take a picture of Istanbul for example, then modify the picture to make it more dramatic in my eye's, it would not be an accurate depiction of the city, merely my own imagination of what the city should look like. In any case it's not accurate to use this image. Seric2 (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That is what you think only. Pls do not change the image for yourself only. Wait for other comments. Thank you. MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
No, sorry I am going to have to disagree with your statement. This has nothing to do with trying 'to own the page'. If you were to provide a legitimate picture, taken from life with that background, then there would be no problem! Once more for your benefit 'during an sunset for example' as I have stated above and once more for your benefit 'say they are both are god pictures' and lies with the modification process not the picture itself. I have stated why changing the picture is 'highly inappropriate', the new picture based on your perception. I mean no disrespect at the end of the day I still think that this image is a good picture. However this image is more appropriate. Sorry, by the time I saw your reply, I had already changed the picture. Seric2 (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Omulazimoglu, please don't be impatient and weight for a consensus on the talk page before changing the picture, as you are the one who wants to change the picture. In the mean time maybe you could come up with a better reason then 'I like this image more, your wrong and I'm right'. Seric2 (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Pictures (photos) should not be enhanced by the editor. That is WP:OR. While artistic, it nevertheless detracts from the picture of the ruins. Need to focus on WP:TOPIC which is (in this case), the ruins. The enhanced photo can be used on some .com site. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Seric, please don't be impatient and weight for a consensus on the talk page before changing the picture, as you are the one who wants to change the picture. MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 07:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Omulazimoglu, I would like to pint out to you that this image, was indeed the original picture and you wish to cahnge it to this this image. Once more for your benefit please weight for a consensus, before any change is made. Thanks Student7 for your comments Seric2 (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I much prefer this image:

Bergama 20 06 07.jpg

Paul August 23:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a Galatian settlement[edit]

I cleared out the category Galatian settlements (editted in 2006) . Because Pergamon is not in Galatia. Just the reverse, the great altar is thought to be built to commemorate Pergamon victory over Galatians. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


The history portrayed in the article begins abruptly with the Attalid period, but a city existed on the same site long before, as described here: Note that I'm not claiming that we should just import this history wholesale, especially since the Phrygian stage is entirely legendary. What I know, putting on my classicist hat, is that the Attalids who ruled from Pergamon felt the need to reference a legendary Heraclid founder, Telephos, clearly indicating that the city had been there so long that they had no idea when it had come to be. It is mentioned as captured by Xenophon in 399BCE, the first definitive historical mention (Anabasis, VII, viii, 8). Depending on whether it should be identified with Teuthrania, likely the ruins about a mile away, its history is traceable considerably further with coins, etc. What I know as an Indo-Europeanist is that the Kaïkos River (modern Bakırçay River), near Pergamon, is identified with the Hittite Šeha River, whose valley is effectively identical with later early Lydian territory (see Haynal's talk None of this proves that there was a city during that period corresponding to Pergamon, but surely the article should mention that Pergamon existed by 399 BCE. We could do worse than starting with the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia entry, demoting the info about its being a titular see, of course:

A titular see, suffragan of Ephesus. This city was situated on the banks of the Selinus. It was at first a city of refuge, as its name indicates, for the people of the plain, and has been regarded as a colony of Arcadians. The Greek historians have reconstructed for it a complete history because they confused it with the distant Teuthrania. It is mentioned for the first time by Xenophon ("Anab.", VII, viii, 8; "Hellen.", III, i, 6). Captured by Xenophon in 399 and immediately recaptured by the Persians, it was severely punished in 362 after a revolt. It did not become important until Lysimachus, King of Thrace, took possession, 301 B.C. His lieutenant Philetairos enlarged the town, which in 281 he made the capital of the new kingdom which he founded. In 261 he bequeathed his possessions to his nephew Eumenius I (263-41 B.C.), who increased them greatly, leaving as heir his cousin Attalus I (241-197 B.C.).

I have put a proposal out there at the beginning of the article and in the History section--please improve it to bits! Mellsworthy (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No mention of the Madradag Aqueduct in the article[edit]

I'm curious as to why there isn't a mention of the aqueduct and siphon built and used to supply water to the citadel? As I understand it, it was and is considered to be a tremendous feat of engineering since it crossed a 200 meter deep valley, which created pressures of about 20 atmospheres within the pipes of the siphon. Why isn't there a mention of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Added More History[edit]

The history section appeared to stop at the beginning of the Roman period, so I added a thumbnails of Roman and Middle Ages history. Please feel free to correct. WaterWhite (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There's more to take from this BBC/Telegraph reference: [1]. Onanoff (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)