From: "DEROUBAIX YVES" <
CLYV.DEROUBAIX@...> asks:
re: Herodotus and Phrygians (and their antiquity):
I don't recall the specific story you cite, but am well aware of H's
extended arguments on the antiquity of the Phrygians..the below is tailored
from a very long post on another list in a discussion on the
mystery of Gordium (I believe it was Young, archaeologist writing in the
fifties after excavations at Gordium, very confused at finding Hittite
associated shards (undated) over Phrygian associated shards..and actually
postulating a deliberate persian attempt to confuse, by moving tons (many)
of clay to present that picture. It all boils down to a definition
of Phrygian..I think. The following cut and past from my earlier
argument..I don't type this fast:-)
My e-friend; Don Mills wrote sarcastically (in part..ane list)) 7/17/99
>In similar manner, it appears, the Phrygians scraped away Hittite strata
>before founding Gordion, which was subsequently overrun by the >Cimmerians
in 687 BCE. Then the ingenious Persians, who conquered >the Cimmerian city
in 548 BCE, subsequently scraped away all
>remains of the Cimmerians, found where the Phrygians had dumped the
>fourmeters of Hittite materials, and spread them evenly over the top of >
the Phrygian strata to a depth of four meters (13 feet) -- "carrying the >
clayover the Persian gate of the city wall" to do so, as Young
>commented. We deduce all this from the fact that four meters of
> Hittite deposits at Gordium directly underlie the Persian ones, with the >
Phrygian layers *below*the Hittite ones, and with no trace of the
> Cimmerians. Ridiculous and pointless though the Persian activity must >
have been, and "highly extravagant of labour" (Young again) -- 13 feet
> thickness of clay over a whole, admittedly small, city!
My lengthy response..cut a bit to better fit "YVES" question:
I think the "problem" is similar to a Jute/Norn/ Nordic/Viking/Dane
non-problem, some of the terms Hittite/Phrygian/Thracian/ Cimmerian/Scythian
are alternate expressions of others, and vary in use over time and
regionally.
Herodotus seems to mysteriously "overlook" the Hittite, while not only
putting Phrygia on the other side of the Halys from the Mitanni, he also
goes to great length to argue them of "greater antiquity" than the
Egyptians. Some modern histories have the (very Thracian) Phrygians
entering Anatolia as nomadic pressures forced the resettlement of Danube
area tribes south (including also the Bithyns and Moesi) during the "Great
Aegean Migration" following c.1200 BC. The Greeks then assign them
Anatolian supremacy until Lydian ascendancy. The Assyrians label them and
subordinated groups as "Mushki", while Britannica accuses the Phrygians of
"borrowing heavily" from the Hittites.
The Cimmerians add to the mystery in c.700 BC. Herodotus has them
displaced by the entry of the Scythians into the area northeast of the
Danube. If true, they were eastern tribal neighbors of the (Thracian)
Costobocs in Moldavia, of the IE tribes dominating both banks of the
Danube. Older "modern" histories have the Cimmerians moving south and
crushing the Hittites, which no longer works chronologically, and never
worked logically. (How do refugees from Scythic nomadic incursion conquer
the strongest presence in Anatolia?) Newer histories assign this crushing
of the Hittites credit to other Aegean peoples; thereby lessening the
Cimmerian impact on a post-Hittite Gordium.
Herodotus has the Cimmerians raiding south into Lydia, with little
impact beyond Sardis, and Lydia then assumes hegemony over Phrygia, and
Cimmerians disappear historically, while Greeks are finding Phrygian slaves
of artistic craft value, and adopting Cybele as their own. (The Greeks
called them Phryges, as a Thracian and European people moving into Anatolia,
and Homer allies them with Priam at Troy, while some (most) modern scholars
argue they couldn't be there, and weren't till just before the Cimmerian
influx.)
Hittites were the strongest presence in Anatolia by 1346 BC, eclipsed
finally by an unknown alliance of Aegean peoples in a sudden event (I refuse
to use the reference to Sea Peoples, because I don't think there is a
difference.) Then Phrygia arises almost instantly from the ashes, c1193-
while some authorities already have the Phrygians there, and Herodotus
implies there is no difference. The Phrygians did not borrow from the
Hittites, they were basically the same people as the original Thracian
Danubians who established Hittite power, the difference (in origin) at
greatest: only tribal and time. The real linguistic differences are
attributable to remaining autochthonous peoples in northwestern Anatolia and
periodic surges of "orbital" Aegeans, as well as easterners; under the
basically Thracian or Danubian aristocratic control in confused and
alternating Hittite and Phrygian "identities".
There was no one north of the Costobocs capable of Hittite culture,
and west of Thrace, the middle Danube was presenting only pressing Celts,
which the Hittites were not (but I will not argue that some weren't there).
Another way of stating it is that Phrygia (as the Western world defines it
in time) was the northwestern expression of Neo-Hittite states, with new
intrusive Danubian and new regional differences in isoglosses, predominantly
Aegean and of course now including Greek, differentiating them from the
eastern "expressions" of Neo Hittite States. (as Hittite itself was
influenced by Hattic,Luwian and Palaic, and later by Mitanni and Assyrian.)
Phrygian is often separated from an Anatolian subgroup of IE languages
which includes the Hittite, and I'll let the linguists sort that out, but
essentially history argues that Phrygian is a later overlay of the same
original IE Thracian (Danubian) that produced Hittite after the first
overlay. They were always Phrygian (as the Greek and Eastern world defined
them in time): expanded to become the Hittite Empire at an apex...crushed,
with new Danubian settlement contributing to the cultural definition and
linguistics of the Neo-Hittite Phrygia.
Meanwhile, back on the Danube, the Getae and the Daci with the
Costobocs to their north, expand into the voids, gain strength in defending
against incursions from the Celts and the Steppes. They absorb remnant
elements of the Thracian tribes diluted by settlement of Anatolia, and
finally unite (they were always sister tribes, these Getae and Daci,
speaking not only IE Thracian, but the same dialect.) attaining a strength
allowing them to fend off Celtic, Scythian, Illyrian, Macedonian, Greek, and
early Roman challenges as well as many variants of Steppe nomads. This
strength and solidarity, unfortunately, also identified them as the only
border threat to the Roman State after the western Danube was tamed. That
equaled persistent Roman military pressure, which eventually brought the
"Geto-Daci" and their Costoboc cousins under Roman dominance. Dacia was the
last Roman province added and the first "released"...in 271 AD....marking
the beginning of the evolution of the Romanian state AND language.
Back to the main theme: If the Cimmerians were, as I suspect, the
northeastern most tribal expression of Thrace, and we give Herodotus only a
bit of credence, the "Mystery of Gordium" begins to disappear except for a
few self inflicted linguistic puzzles. I submit that the Thracian
Cimmerians did not sack Gordium, or any significant city or site. They were
displaced, and voluntarily relocated without conflict, into Phrygia, joining
many other Thracian elements. However, they were then PURSUED by Scythians
(IAW Herodotus: defining even the route) who were responsible for sacking
Gordium to reduce any offensive threat presented by Cimmerian/Phrygian
alliance, then went about engaging other forces encountered.(for 28 years in
H. The Histories)....no Scythian nor Cimmerian strata in Gordium.
In the past two decades, scholars have begun to accept that Cimmerian
and Scythian are confused by ancient writers in many cases. More
accurately, modern interpretation has just been slow to realize that many
Cimmerian references are to the place the invaders were from, so both the
older Thracians and newer Scythians were in fact "Cimmerians" to many
chroniclers, add to the confusion that they were on the move at the same
time. The linguistic arguments are bogged in the same confusion: were the
Cimmerians linguistically Thracian or Iranian? Well, when? Before or after
the arrival of the Scythians? Similarly, the Cappadochia settlement and
Kaskan arguments can be turned over. Who were the settlers, and who were the
nomads? I would argue that elements of displaced Thracian Cimmerians,
moving south, could easily wind up settling in Cappadochia, but that the
nomadic Kaskans, based on location and lifestyle, were neo Scythians.
The apparent flip flop of Phrygian/Hittite strata is simply the visible
evidence of internal differences in dominance, rulers, relocations of
capitols and the wide difference in the physical structure and boundaries of
a Neo-Thracian state getting (at least) several bursts of Danubian influx
over vast time, and the fact that in all political forms over time, the
Phrygians and Hittites, as a group, included many ethnic elements and
significant internal differences. The Persians (and Archaeologists) would
find little changed in some areas, resurgent old Hittite over the newer
Phrygian in others, and New Phrygian displacing Hittite in yet others, as
well as fresh Phrygian settlements in previously unoccupied sites,
culturally distinct from the older levels in more ancient sites. (Without
all those Persian baskets necessary to move tons of clay just to confuse
later analysis.)
La Revedere;
Rex H. McTyeire
Bucharest, Romania
<
rexbo@...>