Talk:Meshech

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Meshwesh

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)

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)

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)
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)
  • 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)

  • 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)

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.

[edit] Is this article accurate at all?

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/s/Talk%7EMeshech_1e34.html"