Talk:Meshech

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Meshwesh[edit]

I removed this: 

 They likely made up a major component of the Sea Peoples, going by names in Egyptian records such as Meshwesh.

Egyptian texts consistently refer to the Meshwesh as coming from Libya and being associated with clearly Libyan (i.e., Berber) tribes. Some Meshwesh individuals are also stated to be Libyan in ancient Egyptian. —Nefertum17 20:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian records first speak of the Sea Peoples as overrunning Anatolia with the collapse of the Hittites. (see the article) This would seem to refer to the Mushki, who were known to have overrun this same area at this time. The Sea Peoples must have included the Mushki and other Anatolians like the Tyrsenoi. Then they dominated the Eastern half of the Mediterranean in the 12th C BC, and it seems some of them, known as Meshwesh to the Egyptians (probably cognate with Mushki), did acquire a base in Cyrenaica alongside the Berbers (Lebu). I will try to make this clearer next time I update the article. Codex Sinaiticus 21:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the "Egyptian records" (specifically the texts of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu) refer to the Sea Peoples over running Anatolia. That doesn't mean a priori that the Sea Peoples included any group known as "Mushki" or "Meshech". Furthermore, there is no reason to connect "Mushki" or "Meshech" with "Meshwesh", a term known in Egypt since at least the 18th Dynasty when they are refered to as being from Libya (as well as having cattle that the Egyptians were importing). The Meshwesh are consistently described as coming from Libya, and not outside Africa (as they did do with the Sea Peoples). Most importantly, they are represented since the 18th Dynasty in a manner identical to other Libyan groups, including the Libu, even at Medinet Habu. Conversely, the Sea Peoples are all represented in clearly different manners; no objective viewer is going to confuse a Sea Person with a Libyan in Egyptian iconography though they would very well have a problem picking out Meshwesh from Libu. So basically for this supposed "Meshech"/"Muski" and "Meshwesh" connection to work you have to assume 1) the Meshwesh were Anatolians; 2) they moved to Libya by the mid-18th Dynasty; 3) they immediately adopted Libyan dress and customs (cattle rearing); 4) the Egyptians were unaware of all this. Furthermore you have to assume there is a legitimate linguistic connection between "Meshech" and "Muski" and "Meshwesh" beyond a common /m-s(h)/, explaining the interchange between /s/ and /š/ as well as between /k/ (or /χ/) and Egyptian /-wš/.
Furthermore there is a text from Egypt dating to Dynasty 22, a period when the Meshwesh were in fact ruling Egypt. This text gives a long genealogy of Great Chiefs of the Meshwesh running back to "Buyuwawa the Tjehenu" (i.e., the Libyan), who, on generational counts lived in early Dynasty 20 or late Dynasty 19, precisely when Ramesses III says the Meshwesh were invading Egypt. You will need to explain this.
Quite frankly, your claim is quite a lot to ask. I have the feeling that this is a folk etymology. "Meshech"/"Muski" both vaguely sound/look like "Meshwesh" → the "Meshech"/"Muski" come (apparently) from Anatolia → the Sea Peoples invaded Anatolia → the Sea Peoples invaded Egypt → the Egyptians say that the Meshwesh tried to invade Egypt with the Sea Peoples → THEREFORE the words "Meshech"/"Muski" must be "Meshwesh" in Egyptian and they are one in the same. With all due respect, like I said, it is a lot to ask. —Nefertum17 04:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that is some fascinating and detailed research, and you make a very good case that they were not the Mushki, although they still probably had a connection to the Sea Peoples, like the Tyrsenoi (Tursha). To research more about the Meshwesh myself, can I find the genealogy you spoke of as going to "Buyuwaya"? I would find that highly interesting as well. Codex Sinaiticus 05:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bates, Oric. 1914. The Eastern Libyans: An Essay. Cass Library of African Studies 87. London: Frank Cass and Company Limited. ISBN 0-7146-1634-6
  • Haring, Bernardus Johannes Jozef. 1992. "Libyans in the Late Twentieth Dynasty". In Village Voices: Proceedings of the Symposium ‘Texts from Deir el-Medîna and Their Interpretation,’ Leiden, May 31–June 1, 1991, edited by Robert Johannes Demarée, and Arno Egberts. Centre of Non-Western Studies Publications 13. Leiden: Centre of Non-Western Studes, Leiden University. 71–80
  • ———. 1993. "Libyans in the Theban Region, 20th Dynasty". In Sesto congresso internazionale de egittologia: Atti, edited by Gian Maria Zaccone, and Tomaso Ricardi di Netro.Vol. 2. Torino: Italgas. 159–165
  • Kitchen, Kenneth Anderson. [1996]. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 BC). 3rd ed. Warminster: Aris & Phillips Limited
  • Leahy, M. Anthony. 1985. "The Libyan Period in Egypt: An Essay in Interpretation." Libyan Studies 16:51–65.
  • ———, ed. 1990. Libya and Egypt c1300–750 BC. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, Centre of Near and Middle Eastern Studies, and The Society for Libyan Studies
  • Osing, Jürgen. 1980. "Libyen, Libyer". In Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Vol. 3. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. 1015–1033
  • Vittmann, Günther. 2003. Ägypten und die Fremden im ersten vorchristlichen Jahrtausend. Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 97. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern
  • Wainwright, Geoffrey Avery. 1962. "The Meshwesh." Journal of Egyptian Archæology 48:89–99.

Enjoy! Nefertum17 22:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here is one page dedicated to the Sea Peoples, that equates the MSWS of Egyptian records with the Moschoi:[1]

Codex Sinaiticus 03:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Meshwesh weren't the only component of the sea peoples. There were 8 other tribes. ~~~~ 15:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
N.b. Nefertum's linguistic counter-argument isn't really a fair one, as it is easy to equate ridiculously different names. E.g. Xerxes is actually the Greek spelling of Khshayārsha, even though they look quite different.

Is this article accurate at all?[edit]

This article claims the Mushki were present from the 3rd millenium BC, and spoke a language that was non-Indo-European. This contradicts everything else I have read; the Wikipedia article on the Hittites mentions the Mushki as arriving around 1200 BC from the Balkans, and being related the the "Bryges," or Phrygians, which would suggest an Indo-European origin. Additionally, I have been reading In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology, and Myth, by JP Mallory. In the section on Anatolia, he too connects the Mushki, Phrygians, and Armenians as representing an intrusion of IE peoples from the Balkans, which itself was part of a larger migration period going on in Southern Europe at this time (the same migration period that produced the Sea Peoples).--Rob117 05:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your claims are backed up by factual evidence, Rob117. The Greek records distinguished the Moschoi from the Phrygians. There is no credible evidence that the Moschoi were Balkan in origin, or that they spoke an Indo-European language. Furthermore, the original people referred to by the Assyrians as the Mushki were the eastern Mushki and are most likely to be identified with the proto-Georgian Meshkhi. The western Mushkhi were mentioned only later, and if an Indo-European language is to be identified with them, it was probably by assimilation from an invading tribe (like the Indo-European 'Hittites' whose name is derived from the indigenous non-Indo-European Hattians that were dominated by an Indo-European ruling class, or like the Mitanni whose indigenous non-Indo-European Hurrian population were were ruled by kings with Indo-European names).
The weight of evidence would appear to suggest that the Mushki were originally a non-Indo-European tribe from eastern Anatolia (Urartu) or the Caucasus region, speaking a Caucasian language related to old Georgian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the material you are commenting on here was long ago removed to Mushki, where your comments might be more appropriate; especially if they can be backed up by an WP:RS. Regards, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical Meshech has NOTHING to do with Moscow.[edit]

Enough of this repeated, worn out lie trumpeted by firebrand preachers. It was an Asia Minor tribe with no connection to Russia or Moscow. Wikipedia is fast becoming a discredited laughing stock by laundering such spurious information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many people might agree with you that Biblical Meshech has nothing to do with Moscow, and you may even be right. However, as a neutral encyclopedia, we try to include all povs that can be sourced and referenced, and the foundation legend of Moscow is such a pov. Even if it is totally concocted hogwash as some might say, it is a significant and relevant pov so we have to report it neutrally and not suppress the fact that it exists. By the same token, we cannot state that this IS the correct identification of Meshech. All we do is collect what the various identifications are, and who made them, and let the reader decide for himself what to think. For that matter, do you have any reliable source we could use as a reference that explicitly DISPUTES the Russian account? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can, and it comes from the Wikipedia article on Moscow itself. Moscow was not originally the name of a city, tribe, or individual:
"The city is named after the river (old Russian: гра́д Моско́в, literally "the city by the Moskva River"). The origin of the name is unknown, although several theories exist.[3] One theory suggests that the source of the name is an ancient Finnic language, in which it means “dark” and “turbid”. The first Russian reference to Moscow dates from 1147 when Yuri Dolgoruki called upon the prince of the Novgorod Republic to “come to me, brother, to Moscow.”[4]" ---—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Three points - first, we generally cannot use an open-source website as an RS, although the article in this case does seem to give external sources, so that point may be minor. Second, per WP:SYNT, we would need a source that specifically disputes the idea that Moscow was founded by Meshech, to show the disagreement on this page; we shouldn't use sources on this page that do not mention the relevant subject at all (ie, Meshech). Thirdly, may I encourage you to create a free account, instead of editing through an IP machine number; there are many benefits to having a user name, such as putting your favorite articles on a watchlist. Even if you don't care to join, you can still make a signature at the end of your comments and avoid the SineBot, just by using four tildes! (~~~~) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it is interesting and relevant, but the section needs to be put on its feet. This idea originates in Renaissance scholarship and was later adopted in Russian legend. So please let us present it in this way. The theory is that the Muscovites were the descendants of Meshech. Compare British Israelism etc. Needless to say, this doesn't have any credibility, but it is nevertheless interesting in the context of the "Japhetites" ideas of the time. --dab (𒁳) 19:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any source for your POV? Or is it just your POV? I do not understand why you repeatedly blank out cited historiographic data. None of this is being presented as anything other than historiographic data, why are you blanking it out simply because you personally disagree with it? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
but it has. meshech, moski, muzaka, mijaki, mushka, meshketi, muscovy. known as macedonians. mavro orbini says that muscovites (russians) speak the same language as alexander the great. it does. much it does. it's just not convinient.89.205.59.137 (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Meshech. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meshech&oldid=1206345026"