2/19/2010 Phrygian language, translation showing conjugation and declension patterns and vocabulary.

Assyrian Catalogue: Table of cities, leaders and lands

This table provides a cross-reference to the cities, lands and leaders listed in the records of the Assyrian kings. Our concluding remarks are at phrygian1j.html.

(Phrygian home)
Phrygian1a.htmlPhrygian1b.htmlPhrygian1c.htmlPhrygian1d.htmlPhrygian1e.htmlPhrygian1f.html
Phrygian1g.htmlPhrygian1j.htmlPhrygian1.htmlPhrygian2.htmlPhrygian3.html
Phrygian4.htmlPhrygian5.html

Notes:
4) All quotes from Assyrian texts are from "Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia," (in 2 volumes) by Daniel David Luckenbill, Ph.D., Professor of the Semitic Languages and Literatures in the University of Chicago, Histories & Mysteries of Man Ltd., London, 1989. Paragraph numbers used here refer to Luckenbill's numbering.
7) Paragraph 92 - drove out Mitâ, king of Muski; who restored the captured fortresses of Kue. This is an important passage. Earlier the Annals connected Mitâ of Mushki allied in the rebellion of the Manneans. Now we are told that Mitâ had held sovereignty over Que. If the Zincirli Relief is of Sennacherib and his dominion over Que, considering the Phrygian writing one would postulate that the Phrygians during the time of Sennacherib (704-681 B.C.) possessed the land of Que. The earlier statement in Sargon's Annals (721-705 B.C.) that Mitâ of Mushki held dominion over Que explains the reason for the Phrygian writing on a stone containing Sennacherib's name. This adds further evicence that at least one King Midas of Phrygia was subdued by Sargon. If this is the legendary King Midas it places him about 711 B.C., in the eighth year of Sargon's reign, at least circa. 721-705 B.C.

See also another reference to Mitâ whom Sargon "drove out" and in the same context says he (Sargon) restored the captured fortresses of Kue. This also is important since it suggests that Mitâ had taken the fortresses from Sargon.

In paragraph 99 another summary groups Kasku, all of Tabalu and Hilakku together, preceeding the description of driving out Mitâ, king of Mushki. The narrative then turns to another geographica area of conquest, beginning with the defeat of Egypt at Rapihu, counting together Hanno the king of Gaza and the defeat of the seven kings of Ia', a province of Iatnana (Cyprus) located a seven days' journey in the midst of the western sea. Recognizing that an earlier text refers to Mushki being part of Tabalu, we may surmize that the description reads from north to south, with Kasku probably being above the Halys river, near the Black Sea, Tabalu would be a region stretching from Que, on the Mediterranean coast, north to Kasku. South of Tabaluproper would be Hilakku, which must be Cilicia. To the west of Cilicia would be Lycia , Caria and Lydia, none of which are (so far as we can see) mentioned in the texts. Sandwiched to the east of Tabalu (Mushki) would be the wide region of Kummuhu which seems to begin near Carcamish and stretch to Melitea and Gurgum, the territory east of Tabalu and Mushki.

In paragraph 117 Cilicia is identified with Kue. The list of conquests involving Urartu (Armenia) begins as usual with the Medes, then westward, the Mannean-land, Urartu (Armenia), Kasku, Tabalum, up to the land of Mushki. This says that in order moving across Anatolia and northward (upwards) are the lands of Kasku, then Tabalum, all of which he conquered up to Mushki. The text identifies Melitea and Gurgum, so north of Melitea must be Kasku, and west of the region Kasku and the cities Melitea and Gurgum would be Tabalu, Tabalum and northwest of it would be Mushki.

Paragraph 442 carries an interesting link of the lands of Kutmuhi and Mushki, which were entered after crossing the Tigris from the mountains of Nipur and Pasate. He doesn't mention crossing the Euphrates, which makes this entry interesting, since the Mushki (Phrygians) would be presumed to be well to the west of the Euphrates, on the Halys river. If the Mushki are the Phrygians then we have a confirmation of their presence circa. 883-859 B.C. But here we may have a record of the Mushki being adjacent to (west of?) the Van area. Their presence there, near Urartu, would suggest the entry of the Phrygians into Anatolia (from Thrace) via the Caucaus region.

Paragraph 72, Introduction. This king, Adad-Nirâri I, provides several notations on his ancestors, in the context of honoring them for having either first built or later restored a specific structure in Assur. It was apparently the tradition to record the event on stones and bricks in the walls of the monuments with the basic who, what, when and where information successors to the long-lived dynasty would want to know. We are particularly interested i n the events leading up to the Trojan War era, circa. 1180 B.C. Because Adad-nirâri I was engaged in so much restorative work it appears that his time represented a period of peace and "restoration." After him there is a gap in the Assyrian historical record, probably caused by the same "invaders" that brought about the destruction of Hattusus and Troy. What happened between the reign of Assur-nâdin-apli, (1206-1203 B.C.) and Assur-resh-ishi I (1132-1115 B.C.)? We see in the historical record that Urartu and Commagene were viewed as land within the border of Assyria. The Assyrian kings were constantly conducting military campaigns in these areas and lands adjacent to them, and they record how the Mushki (Phrygians) and others would be allied with the rebels, which would have provoked campaigns against the Mushki. They claim to take their campaigns to the northern sea (Black Sea?), which would be a natural extension of a military campaign into the lands of the Mushki which they say are in the land(s) of Tabal. The power of the Mushki is noted in the record with regard to the disposition of Que or Kue, which they say was originally occupied by the Mushki and lost by them to Assyria, then reoccupied. If Que is another name for Cilicia it would imply that the Phrygians (Mushki) had conquered the Cilicians. We leave the issue as an occupation of Que, leaving the matter of occupation of Cilicia an unresolved matter. Adad-Nirâri I is important to the context of Phrygian influence in the sense that we can surmise that his time was a period of relative peace and not as consumed by defending the lands of Urartu (Armenia).

8) Tiglath-pileser III follows the convention of grouping districts and provinces adjacent to each other together. Such groupings tend to follow the sequence of campaigns, usually from the northwest, Urartu, to the southwest and southeast (to Kummuhu, Commagene and east to Carchemish. Within the groupings districts tend to be listed in the same order, as if one were listing cities while referring to a map. If the campaign began in the southeast, such as Tyre and worked westward, the listing would group Kummuu, west of Carchamish, and Kûe (Que) adjacent to this province, region, in the west, together. North of Kûe they list Gurgum , Melid (Melitea) and Tabal together. Following them in this group is Tunai, Tuhan and Ishtunda. Then the list shifts to Ashkelon, etc., which relates to the dominion from Egypt to Syria and the Hittite territory north of Tyre.

9) Because of the reference to the land of Nairî, we know that Tushha is Tushba (Van), the capital of the Urartu. With note 7, paragraph 442, we can inquire, whether the Mushki had moved into the region of the Tigris river (just west of it) and whether the Armanians, or Urartu, had not emerged at that time ~880 B.C.

email

Etruscan Glossary with Phrygian words:

Send me to Lydian.html

Click here for a spreadsheet of the words, Lydian Glossary.xls or Lydian_Glossary.html

Send me to

 Maravot Home

Launched 6.21.07
Updated: 6.22.07; 6.23.07; 6.24.07; 6.25.07; 6.26.07; 7.10.07; 2.19.10

Copyright © 2007-2010 Maravot. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2007-210 Mel Copeland. All rights reserved.