In the twelfth century bc, the first expansion of the Phrygians (Mushki) reached the Upper Tigris, but was pushed back by Tiglath-pileser I. From then until the beginning of the eighth century bc, the silence of the written evidence corresponds to the slow development of the material culture and socio-political organisation of Central Anatolia, which is archaeologically attested. The peak of this process was the formation of the Phrygian kingdom. The latter became a hegemonic power in Central and western Anatolia, and to some extent the heir of the Hittite kingdom, which collapsed half a millennium earlier. Around the mid-eighth century bc, evidence on the Phrygian kingdom becomes more consistent. We possess Assyrian sources from the reigns of Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II, local inscriptions, and important archaeological remains, such as the royal tumuli of Gordion (Figure 30.5). However, considering the fact that the Phrygian kingdom collapsed at the beginning of the seventh century bc at the hand of the Cimmerians, its documented history only covers the span of around fifty years.
The eastern border of the kingdom was well defined. The Upper Halys and the salt lakes separated the Phrygian kingdom from the Neo-Hittite states (and later on from the Assyrian provinces established there). The northern border reached the Pontic Mountains or even the Black Sea. Only the western border, however, cannot be defined with certainty. It appears that Lydia and the Greek cities on the Aegean coast were never conquered by the Phrygians, but remained autonomous. Similarly, it is possible that the Phrygians never controlled the populations in the south, from the Carians to the Lycians and other populations living in the Taurus area.
The kingdom’s capital was Gordion (on the Sakarya River). Further Phrygians centres extended from ‘Midas City’ (Yazilikaya, between Afyon and Eskisehir) in the west to post-Hittite Boghazkoi and Pazarli to the east (Figure 30.6). In terms of archaeology, Phrygian remains are attested over a far longer period of time than the fifty years attested in the written sources. This indicates that Phrygian culture had a formation phase and a phase following the collapse of the kingdom. In terms of diffusion, it is difficult to establish the spread of Phrygian culture. The most distinctive aspects of Phrygian culture — from its painted pottery (thus the name ‘Phrygian pottery’) to bronze objects — are attested well beyond the Phrygian borders. Therefore, local variations in style did not necessarily correspond to ethno-linguistic or political differences.
According to Greek sources, the names of the kings of Phrygia alternated between Midas and Gordion. However, the Assyrians only attest one ‘Mita of Mushki’, but it is not excluded that this ‘Mita’ combined a number of individuals. Unlike Greek sources, which were far later and more anecdotal, the Assyrian sources are contemporary to the Phrygians. They therefore provide more reliable historical and political information on the kingdom. The latter appears to have been involved in a clash of powers (the other two being Assyria and Urartu) over the control of the Neo-Hittite states, especially Tabal and Hilakku, which were the nearest of these states to Phrygia.
While the situation was unstable and an expansion was still possible, Mita tried to get involved in the affairs of the Neo-Hittite states. However, once the Assyrian provincial system was implemented in the entire area south-east of the Taurus, the Phrygian policy had to change. The kingdom tried to seal diplomatic relations with the Assyrians, and tacitly recognised Assyrian supremacy in Cilicia and the Euphrates.
Figure 30.5 The royal tumulus (attributed to Midas) in Gordion. Above: Plan of the burial chamber; Below: A selection of the metal ware found in the tumulus.
The Phrygian village on the acropolis of the old Hittite capital.
Niche with a statue of the goddess Cybele,
Buyukkale in the Phrygian period. Above: The Phrygian village on the acropolis of the old Hittite capital; Below: Niche with a statue of the goddess Cybele.
This strategy was possibly implemented in exchange of a certain degree of influence over Tabal, which remained (or returned) autonomous. Eventually, the incursions of the Cimmerians destabilised the entire political asset of the area. Having pushed back the Urartians and the Assyrians, the Cimmerians moved to the west at the beginning of the seventh century bc. Gordion fell and was destroyed, and a horde of Cimmerians farmers and soldiers reached the coast of the Aegean.
The collapse of the Phrygian kingdom did not mark the end of Phrygian culture, just like the Cimmerian invasion did not cause a significant change in the ethnic composition of Anatolia. Shortly after, around 670 bc, a new power rose to prominence. The latter was partly an heir of the legacy left by the kingdom of Phrygia, but was located further west. It was the kingdom of Lydia, whose capital was the city of Sardis. The founder of its ruling dynasty was Gyges. The latter gained control over Central and western Anatolia. Greek sources attest the existence of an earlier ‘Heraclid’ dynasty. This dynasty supposedly ruled in the phase between the ‘heroic’ age after the Trojan War and the reign of Gyges, and thus was contemporary to the Phrygian kingdom. However, this dynasty remains unattested elsewhere. Only with Gyges, both the Assyrian and Greek sources begin to be more reliable, except maybe for Herodotus’ account of Gyges’ rise to power. It appears that, following a premonitory dream, Gyges wrote to Ashurbanipal asking for support against the Cimmerians, but then sealed an alliance and supported Egypt in their fight against the Assyrians. Soon after, the Lydian king had to face another incursion of Cimmerians and Scythians, and died in 652 bc during the siege of Sardis.
According to Herodotus, his successors were Ardys, Sadyattes and Alyattes. These kings managed to consolidate the kingdom of Lydia, expel the last Cimmerians, and conquer the Greek cities in Asia Minor and other Anatolian states south and east of Lydia, reaching the borders of Tabal and Hilakku. The long reign of Alyattes probably constituted the peak of development and stability of the Lydian kingdom. Following the collapse of Assyria and Urartu, the rising Median kingdom and its expansion to the west clashed with the Lydians of Alyattes. The outcome of the war was uncertain, but the mediation of Cilicia and Babylonia eventually led to a peace between the two powers, sealed through inter-dynastic marriages. The final battle preceding this truce has been dated with precision, thanks to the solar eclipse of 585 bc, which happened on the day of the battle.
Croesus was the last king of Lydia and a legendary symbol of wealth and misfortune. Under the leadership of Cyrus, the Persians defeated the Medes and resumed expansion to the west, this time with remarkable determination. Croesus tried to form an anti-Persian coalition with all the powers threatened by the Persian expansion, from Egypt to the Greeks, Cilicia and Babylonia. However, Cyrus’ swift intervention precluded any coordination. Sardis was sieged and the Lydian kingdom was annexed to the empire.
The main Phrygian and Lydian political developments known to us concern their relations with their Near Eastern neighbours (Assyrians, Medes and Persians). However, it seems that on a cultural and commercial level interactions with the west were equally, if not more, intense. Around the eighth century bc, the Phrygians adopted an alphabet substantially similar to the one developed by the Greeks slightly earlier. Although some Phoenician inscriptions are attested in Cilicia and even close to the Phrygian border, it remains likely that the Phrygians developed their alphabet through their contacts with the Greek World. The same phenomenon would again appear with the Lydians, who would also adopt an alphabetic writing of Greek origins. Due to Lydia’s position, relations with the Greek cities of Asia Minor were even more intense. We know that Phrygian and Lydian kings left several valuable dedications in Greek sanctuaries, especially at Delphi. Moreover, it is highly significant that the kingdoms of Lydia and Phrygia were contemporary to the phase of increased oriental contacts and influences in the Greek World. Bronze cauldrons, tripods, washbowls, cups and weapons were imported to Greece for their material and symbolic value (as prizes or votive offerings) as well as their quality. They therefore acted as crucial means for the spread of Near Eastern figurative, mythical and technological elements. Naturally, other means (such as textiles and carved wooden objects) also contributed to this diffusion, but have not survived in the archaeological evidence.
At this point, it has become necessary to at least mention the presence of Greek colonies on the Anatolian coast. Mycenaean presence in the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries bc, the Ahhiyawa of Hittite texts, was re-instated through the so-called ‘Ionian migration’ around 1000 bc. This migration led to the formation of the ‘twelve’ cities of Ionia (from Miletus to Ephesus and others mainland cities, and the nearby islands of Chios and Samos). Further minor centres were the Eolic ones in the north (Lesbos and the nearby coast) and the Doric ones in the south (Rhodes and its nearby coast). These centres developed alongside the mainland kingdoms, though with variations according to their size and origins.
The beginning of the eighth century bc constituted an important change also for the Greek cities in Asia, with the introduction of the alphabet and the development of their political organisation, trade, and ‘orientalising’ craftsmanship. While Phrygia (and then Lydia) was strongly affected by the political and commercial development of these Greek cities, the more distant Assyrian empire barely took notice.
Sargon, Sennacherib and Esarhaddon mention the lonians in passing (Yaman/Yawan), after having come across them in Cyprus and occasionally in Cilicia. Greek merchants tried to found some trading colonies on the coast of Syria, such as the one of Al-Mina. These colonies were meant to avoid the Anatolian middlemen and establish direct contacts with the Neo-Hittite, Aramean and Phoenician states (which in the mid-eighth century bc were still independent), and then with the Assyrians. As we have seen, the latter eventually conquered the entire area, but to a certain extent impoverished it.
Throughout the eighth century bc, while Greek colonisation in the west was in full swing, a real colonising movement to the east was lacking. This lack was due to the different political structures of the Mediterranean and Near Eastern world. In the Mediterranean, the Greeks, just like the Phoenicians, were dealing with populations whose organisation and technology were not yet fully consolidated. Moreover, they still had virtually ‘untouched’ natural resources. The Greeks and Phoenicians therefore needed to found colonies able to manage the exploitation of the local resources and interact with the local rulers. On the contrary, in the Near East, the Greeks had to deal with kingdoms with sophisticated administrations. The latter were governed by a trained elite that did not welcome the formation of foreign colonies. These elites preferred that trade passed through the traditional intermediaries of the local ‘palace’ or the ‘port’. Therefore, Near Eastern kingdoms prevented any form of consolidation of Greek commercial presence, and examples such as the one of Al-Mina were rare and relatively modest.
Up until the seventh century bc, the Greeks only managed to settle in Ionia and Cyprus. However, towards the end of the seventh century, the Anatolian coast experienced a wave of colonisation (mainly from Miletus). The latter was relatively modest in the southern coast (Cilicia), but far more intense in the north (Sinop, Trabzun and others), in areas far from the control of the great kingdoms and empires. This wave of colonisation had two main characteristics, namely, that it was late and marginal. The lateness may indicate that this colonisation was impracticable (or unnecessary) before the collapse of the three great kingdoms of Phrygia, Urartu and Assyria, which monopolised the Near Eastern resources and markets. The marginality of the colonisation also shows that these colonies had no intention to interact with the Babylonians and the Medes. They preferred to avoid them, focusing on the areas between the mountains (Taurus and Pontus) and the sea. These areas were inhabited by mountain people that not even the Medes or the Persians could control. In these marginal areas, the Greeks sought direct access to natural resources (such as metals), avoiding imperial supervision. In this regard, the story of the Argonauts seeking the ‘Golden Fleece’ of the mythical Colchians (along the former north-western border of Urartu) constitutes the ‘foundation myth’ of these commercial networks and settlements near metal ores.
As much as the commercial and cultural interactions between the Greeks and the Anatolian kingdoms were intense and effective in influencing each other, there were still considerable differences. The latter led to the interpretation of the Phrygians and the Lydians as carriers of different economic and value systems. Some legendary motifs, based on archaic traditions (the tripod of the Seven Sages, the ring of Polycrates), formed some sort of ‘economic anthropology’ of the Greeks. Similarly, other stories, based on customs seen as ‘different’ by the Greeks, formed an ‘economic anthropology’ of the Anatolian kingdoms.
For instance, there is the renowned legend of Midas, who received from the gods the gift of turning anything he touched into gold, thus running the risk of dying of hunger. This was the sentence of what anthropologists would call the ‘upward conversion’, namely, the exchange of low value, but essential, products for high value, but unnecessary, products. The latter were destined for storage in treasuries or for opulent display. Indeed, this was the economic strategy of the Phrygian elite, at least judging from the wealth left in the funerary tumuli of Gordion, or in the Phrygian palaces, or the votive objects and gifts provided to seal diplomatic relations. This strategy was implemented at the expense of the needs of the wider population. It was therefore despised by those who did not belong to the social circle benefiting from this ideology and economic and political strategy.
The same can be said regarding the legend of Croesus, the wealthiest man in the world, destined to be punished (in a sort of compensating nemesis) by being burned alive. The story of Croesus shows many orientalising elements (according to the Babylonian Theodicy, the rich who accumulated excessive wealth would be burned alive) and intellectual complications. However, the criticism of the excessive accumulation of wealth and power, which placed someone at the top of a pyramid far too steep to last, remains. Therefore, in the eyes of the Greeks, the kingdoms of Phrygia and Lydia inspired the image of an excessive accumulation of wealth. Since they both disappeared in a couple of centuries (750—550 bc), they became an example of a strategy not worth following.
World History
