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


Is Cybele cognate with Gebal, Geba'al? Human sacrifice to Cybele is reminiscent of sacrifices to Ba'al, is there some connection?

Was the Phrygian cap worn by Mithra the Persian god (Zoroastrian, pre-Christ), or Mithras the Roman god (the Bull-Slayer, 2nd cty BC to 5th cty AD)?
Jorge Stolfi 02:53, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Since we have late Achaemenid inscriptions mentioning the Persian Mithra, who was not a god but an intermediary angelic figure, (someone-- Campbell?-- referring to Mithra as a "Zoroastrian hersey") but no identified image (that I know), the first appearance of an icon of Mithra/Mithras (the -s ending makes Persian into Greek ) is in the relief sculptures which reveal the style of the Pergamum school of sculptors, Hellenistic, that is post-Alexander, as might be expected. Google "Mithras" in the Image mode to see how unchanging the icon remains. Mithras makes his debut already wearing the "Phrygian" cap. Compare and contrast the "Iranian" tunic and trousers of Mithras with the outfit of non-Iranian Attis, the autochthonous Phrygian consort of Phrygian Cybele (Google "Attis"). Similar? Anatolia was a cultural battleground between local traditions, with an overlay ofHellenic and Persian ones for a couple of centuries, until Alexander's conquests settled it-- but only at the government level... Wetman 03:40, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) forgives all.

Aulos is not a flute[edit]

The article mentions the "aulos, or double flute", and links to the wikipedia article on the aulos. But by clicking through, you can see that that article says the aulos was a reed instrument, and that "flute" is a mistranslation. So I'm taking out the ", or double flute".

The date of the Phrygians[edit]

The Sea Peoples are roughly contemporaries of the Trojan War, ca. 1250-1150 BCE. So, there seems to be a temporal contradiction here, in that the Phrygians were allies of Troy in the Trojan War (ca. 1250 BCE), and even had a pre-Trojan War King Gordias (ca. 1275 BCE??)... yet are not supposed to have appeared in Asia Minor until the invasions of the Sea Peoples of ca. 1200 - 1150 BCE... what gives???

The present article dates the Phrygians to 1200-700 BC, which is misleading. Wikipedia articles in other languages does not conform to these dates. The Phrygian kingdom suffered from foreign incursions in the 7th century BC, but the Phrygian state and culture survived until the Persian conquest by the mid 6th century BC. The "Trojan" date of 1200 BC should be taken with extreme caution, since there are no archeological neither textual support for the Phrygian state and culture before the 9th century BC. The Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser I encountered a people he called Mushki on the Euphrates c.1100 BC. Centuries later, Mushki was the Assyrian name of the Phrygians. Assyrian ethnical and geographical names are however too vague to show Tiglath-Pileser´s Mushki were the same as the Gordian kingdom. --JFK 11:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

First, since other language wikipedias are not the basis for information that we go on, the idea that this wikipedia should be made to conform with other language wikipedia articles is a non argument. Second, there is enough continuity between the Mushki / Brugi who moved into the old Hittite area ca. 1200 BC at the time of the Sea People movements, and the Mushki / Frugi who still lived in the same place in 800 BC, and the suggestion that the Mushki of 1200 BC went away somewhere and were replaced by a different Mushki of 800 BC is pure original research. The books about the Hittites I can read (in English) give plenty of detailed sources corroborating that the Mushki were one of the main entities that filled in the Hittite vacuum, and almost immediately judging from the Assyrian sources, which are not vague. Mushki is also the name that this nation called themselves. So I think there is ample justification for moving the "start date" back to 1200 BC. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Whatever the Tiglath-Pileser I and the Neo-Assyrian Mushki are the same or not, we can't talk about a Phrygian kingdom from 1200 BC, as far as I know. It has much information but put in a confusing way and not allways accurate. It needs a good cleanup. --Amizzoni 07:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don´t know what books about the Hittites you refer to since none, except the dubious Macqueen, is given in the list of references. Please put your focus on the issue that the existence of a people (in western Anatolia from c.1200 BC) does not imply a kingdom: Phrygia was a kingdom in the west central part of the Anatolian highlands, part of modern Turkey, from ca. 1200 BC to 550 BC (Wikipedia: Phrygia article, March 18, 2006). A cultural continuity, (which I BTW stressed in my own edition, thanks for letting me keep the Knobbed Ware sentence at least), cannot postulate a Phrygian kingdom back in 1200 BC, why I think this is misleading. Without the single battle reference by Tiglath-Pileser I of the Mushki in 1100 BC there is simply no archaeological nor textual support for a Phrygian kingdom in the 12th century BC, the 11th century BC, the 10th century BC and the 9th century BC. Please don´t confuse this with the more exstensive Assyrian references of the Mushki in the time of Tiglat-Pileser III and forwards in the 8th century BC, which is also confirmed by archaeological excavations at Gordion and other Anatolian sites.

--JFK 13:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it depends how you define "kingdom". You seem to admit now there is some cultural continuity from the Phrygian / Mushki invaders of 1200 BC, and the Phrygian / Moschoi "kingdom" of 700 BC. I agree with you that the 1200 BC migrant invaders did not have a fully established Nation-state in the modern sense of the word. But if "kingdom" merely means that they had a "king" (a monarchy), then they were almost certainly a "kingdom". The Greek stories also say they were led out of the Balkans to Asia by their King, before the Trojan War. But if you have some fancier definition for "kingdom" than just "led by a king", we can probably find a different term to describe the earlier Phrygians.
I'm not sure why you call MacQueen dubious. His work is widely considered one of the foremost authorities on Iron Age Anatolia, and he didn't spend all that time at Ankara just sight-seeing! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggested changes[edit]

I suggest a change of the current first sentence in the article to:

In antiquity, Phrygia was a kingdom in the west central part of the Anatolian Highland, part of modern Turkey. The Phrygian people settled in the area from ca. 1200 BC, and established a kingdom in the 8th century BC, which lasted until the Persian conquest in 550 BC.

In addition to this I suggest a change of this long sentence in the Migration paragraph of the History section:

After the collapse of the Hittite Empire at the beginning of the 12th century BC, the political vacuum in central/western Anatolia was filled by a wave of Indo-European migrants and "Sea Peoples", including the Phrygians, who established their kingdom, with a capital eventually at Gordium. (Wikipedia: Phrygia article, March 18, 2006)

Since the Hittites and the Luwians (as discussed in the Luwian language article) who inhabited central/western Anatolia also were Indo-Europeans, it sounds strange to speak of Indo-European migrants invading Indo-European peoples. Most of them, like the Lukka (Lycians?) already lived there during the Late Bronze Age. My suggestion is:

...was filled by a wave of migrants, including the Phrygians, who eventually established their kingdom, with a capital at Gordium. --JFK 13:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

But it was Indo_European migrants invading Indo-European peoples, strange as that may sound to you. "Sea Peoples" is also correct, I don't see any case for cutting that descriptor. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


According to Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (Mish, Frederick C., Editor in Chief. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster Inc., 1985. ISBN 0-87779-508-8, ISBN 0-87779-509-6 [indexed], and ISBN 0-87779-510-X [deluxe].), Phrygia was divided about 400 B.C. into Greater Phrygia (the inland region) and Lesser Phrygia (region along the Hellespont). — Quin 04:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm no historian, but I think this article says the Phrygian civilization ended around 1200 BCE, yet began around the 8th century BCE, which as anyone would know, would mean they travel back in time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Tried to clarify by using the word "Hittite" before terminating empire. The Phrygians displaced the outgoing Hittites. Student7 (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thracia, Dacia, etc.[edit]

Instead of placing "see also" to languages and people who might be related, maybe an installation of template "Indo-European topics" might be more appropriate. No point in filling upt this section. That wheel has already been invented. Also, it seemed like "clutter" to me since no connection was made other than Midas's adoption. Student7 (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


It would be terribly informative if, in the first sentence, it said parenthetically "(modern day ....)". Is it modern day Greece? Anybody? Thanks... (talk)

The first sentence mentions "antiquity," meaning the really old days. Definitely not modern. Anatolia is a historic name for a part of what is now Turkey.
Having said that, shouldn't we say "Ionia" someplace? Student7 (talk) 02:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

is it similar[edit]

Sabazios - S(a)(v/w)az'os -Swazog ? The last one is know from 9th c ad. (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't understand that you were making a serious comment.
I only know what the article Sabazios says. Feel free to comment there!Student7 (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Turkish Name of the Phrygia[edit]

As most of the direct descendants of the Phrygians and other ancient anatolian civilizations currently speak Turkish but are mostly of ancient anatolian ancestry, the name of these civilizations should also be provided in Turkish language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lycianhittite (talkcontribs) 23:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

To name what ? Turkish people must have some mixture whit ancient anatolian nations but it does not mean ancient nations turned into turkish nations as this nations can migrate to another land and contuniue to their existence.such as many scolars and historian considers armenians are descendants of phrigians which i can find many common cultural and lingustic evidents and would share that evidence and idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Part of Greek History[edit]

I was reading the article and I was disappointed to see that Phrygia was labeled as part of Turkish history. Although it belongs (geographically) in modern Turkey, it is a part of Greek history. Please see to that. D. Leventis (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Add coordinates[edit]