Talk:Mushki

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Turkey High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Armenia Mushki is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Assyria High‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.AssyriaWikipedia:WikiProject AssyriaTemplate:WikiProject AssyriaAssyrian High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is hacked together from a websearch, we need references. Kurkjian seems to favour an origin in the Caucasus, and his text is all over the internet on Armenian nationalist sites, but I find it impossible to decide whether this is uncontroversial or rather a nationalist pov. Kurkjian refers to Hecataeus placing them in Colchis, which would be interesting, so maybe a proper Hecataeus reference would help here. dab (ᛏ) 15:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just got back from the library with the excellent and fascinating source I had before, and will begin by putting a couple relevant brief excerpts on this page. The book is JG Macqueen, The Hittites and their contemporaries in Asia Minor, 1986 edition, ISBN 0-500-02108-2.

From section "The fall of the Hittite Empire", p. 51:

"...When the final blow came, it was not Assyria which delivered it. Far to the north-west a great migration was beginning which was to be stopped only at the borders of Egypt. The reasons for this movement and the identity of the peoples who took part in it have been much discussed without any certain conclusions being reached, but it is evident that by the time the invasions reached Egypt (c. 1186) both Aegean and Anatolian peoples were involved in it... The north-western trade-route was the first to be cut. Arzawa, the great rival of the Hittites for its use, could not take advantage of the situation, for she too was swept away as the invaders moved down the Aegean coast and along the Mediterranean shore. Cilicia fell to them, then Cyprus, and the great copper-source had gone. Finally the invaders reached and ravaged north Syria, causing the Hittites' second life-line to be severed. What happened afterwards at Hattusas is by no means clear. Certainly no Aegean seafarers came sailing up the Halys, but the centre of the empire was so weakened by the loss of the trade-routes that it could no longer resist the attacks of the ever-present Gasga-people and their neighbours to the north and east. The land of Hatti was destroyed, and its capital was burnt to the ground."

And, from Chapter 9: Epilogue: Anatolia after the fall of the Hittite Empire p. 154 ff.:

"The first indication of the new state of affairs is to be found in the records of Assyria. About 1160 BC the Assyrian provinces of Alzi and Puruhuzzi... were invaded by a great army of Muski from central Anatolia, and fifty years later an Assyrian counter-attack, led by Tiglath-Pileser I, had to deal not only with Muski but with Gasga as well... In the central area itself the archaeological evidence suggests a number of small principalities characterized by petty chieftains' castles and by the use of a new painted pottery known as 'Phrygian'...

...In 1110 Tiglath Pileser I reached the Malatya region and encountered a kingdom called Milid which he refers to as Hatti. On another campaign he had contact with another king of Hatti, probably at Carchemish... Inscriptions from these states show that their language was a Luwian dialect written in 'Anatolian Hieroglyphs', and it may be assumed that their population was a combination of local peoples and Luwian-speaking groups driven from the plateau by the advance of the Gasga and the Muski...

...it was not until after 900 BC that Assyrian armies again reached northern Syria and began to penetrate the mountains of Anatolia... On the Anatolian plateau the Muski were still active in the areas overlooking the Syrian plain, but in the background we can begin to see what must have been the principal power of central Anatolia -- the land of Tabal. This state, Luwian-speaking and centred probably on the region of modern Kayseri, was to play an increasing part in the struggle for the trade-routes. Its relation to the producers of the painted 'Phrygian' pottery is still problematical, but to call this pottery 'Tabalian' is less likely to be wrong than to use the name 'Phrygian' for it.

...by 718 there was further trouble in Tabal, and a new anti-Assyrian coalition had been formed consisting of Tabal itself, the Muski under their ruler Mita, and even the king of Carchemish. Assyrian reaction was inevitable. Carchemish was captured while Mita was still trying to fight his way toward Que, then Mita was driven back and defeated in his own province, and finally Hulli of Tabal was replaced by his son Ambaris, who was diplomatically married to an Assyrian princess and given the province of Hilakku, probably round modern Karaman, as a dowry. Finally in 713 Ambaris too was deposed and Tabal became an Assyrian province.

The fall of the most important kingdom of central Anatolia meant that Mita of Muski, defeated but unconqured, was the only survivor of the original alliance... when he next emerges, it is as a friend of the Assyrian king, for when in 709 Urikki, the presumably exiled ex-king of Que, despatched emissaries to make contact with Urartu... to stir up trouble for the Assyrians, they were intercepted on their way through Mita's territory and generously handed over to the Assyrians. The motives which lay behind Mita's sudden change of heart are obscure, but it may well have been prompted by events beyond his control further to the north and east. In 714 the Cimmerians... broke through the Caucasus and descended on Urartu. From there they turned west along the south shore of the Black Sea, set up a base in the vicinity of Sinope, and moved south towards Tabal... ...In 705 an Assyrian army, possibly including the forces of Mita, was heavily defeated somewhere in central Anatolia, the Assyrian king was killed in action, and Mita of Muski disappears from our records. What happened to him is unknown, but it is at least possible that he and his forces... fled from centralAnatolia along the route to the west. Thus Mita of Muski may have vanished from the Assyrian border-lands and emerged on the periphery of the Greek world as Midas of Phrygia.

...The 'standard' reconstruction, based on the accounts preserved by Greek folk-memory, assumes that the Bryges or Phrygians crossed into Anatolia from south-eastern Europe shortly before the Trojan War. The presence of Muski about 1150 on the upper Tigris and Euphrates can then be seen as evidence of this furthest penetration of this European people."

Well, as you can see the entire book is a gold mine of valuable info about Anatolian history, I don't want to (and can't) type the whole book in here, but tried to give a few snippets relevant to the Mushki and neighbours. I highly recommend it if you can find it. I haven't even touched on what he says regarding the writing systems (introduction of the alphabet), but he has a bit on that too. Regards, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, this is much appreciated. By all means work this stuff into the article. So do we conclude that the claim that the Mushki came from the Caucasus is popular among Armenians in particular, but not really current? dab (ᛏ) 19:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well just from what I can tell, it seems the confusion arises from the fact that they likely ended up in the Caucasus, since both Georgians and Armenians claims Mushki as among their ancestors... It doesn't seem 100% clear what direction they came from, so I suppose there is some room for doubt, and they could well have moved back and forth a number of times. One interesting thing about the Mushki / Phrygians though, is that all their kings were alternately named either Midas or Gordius for practically their entire history, which fact also easily lends itself to confusion... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armenians don't really claim descent from these elusive Mushki. Western historians connect the Mushki to the Armenians on the basis that the Mushki=Phrygians, which in itself is a far fetched hypothesis. --Eupator 20:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it a far fetched hypothesis? I still haven't seen any source whatsoever contradicting that Mushki = Phrygians, and I've seen numerous sources that do equate the two. Without even one source (so far anyway) to the contrary, your assertion doesn't seem supported. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually referring to Armenians=Phrygians. In the case of Mushki, etymologically it makes no sense to me.--Eupator 01:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I'm not really sure what the underlying basis for the Armenians=Phrygians hypothesis is, so I can't vouch for that one... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of cognantes and other linguistic similarities (which are also shared with Ancient Greek) in addition to the claims made by Herodotus that the Armenians were Phrygian colonists and that when both Phrygians and Armenians served in the army of Xerxes (invasion of Greece) they were both dressed in the same manner.--Eupator 04:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have Herodotus' word for Armenians=Phrygians, that's at least something (see also Graeco-Armenian, which builds on the hypothesis). But what is the basis of the Phrygians=Muski hypothesis? From what I've seen, the historical Muski were Cappadocians, not Phrygians, who entered a political alliance with the neighboring Phrygians, far from an identity hypothesis, this actually presupposes non-identity, since you can hardly ally yourself with yourself. dab (ᛏ) 09:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Greek sources are the ones that identify the Moschoi with the Phrygians. I don't believe the term "Phrygian" even appears in any Assyrian sources. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that's the point. The Assyrians call everyone "Mushki", while the Greeks distinguish "Moschoi" and "Phryges". dab (ᛏ) 16:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But as it stands now, this article reads: Assyrian sources identify the Western Mushki with the Phrygians, while Greek sources clearly distinguish between Phrygians and Moschoi. That can't be the case, because no Assyrian sources use the term Phrygians. And the article Phrygia states correctly, According to Greek mythographers [2], the first Phrygian Midas had been king of the Moschi (Mushki), also known as Bryges (Brigi) in the western part of archaic Thrace... So this article's into seems a little backwards, it should probably read instead, Greek sources identify the Moschoi with the Phrygians, while Assyrian sources refer only to the Mushku". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Codex, read it again. The point is not that the Assyrians are saying "The Phrygians are really the Mushki", they just use a single term for both, thereby identifying them, whereas the Greeks have two terms, thus making a distinction. To the Greeks, they are two groups, I haven't seen reference to any Greek saying "the Phryges are really the Moschoi", the Phrygians are in Phrygia, and the Moschoi are in Cappadocia. dab (ᛏ) 11:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should be clarified for accuracy, because as it reads now, it could easily be misinterpreted as meaning that the Assyrians called one people by both names, when they never even used one of those names... By the way, I looked them up in two compendiums of World History I have from somewhat earlier in the 20th C. than MacQueen, and they both treat the Mushki and the Phrygians as one people, and both also state that Midas = Mita (they don't say "maybe", they say he was...) so it's hardly a theory that MacQueen came up with himself...! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Codex, I appreciate your scrutiny, but try to read and understand the text more closely. Biblical Meshech is a person, an individual, the grandson of Noah. The Moschoi are a tribe. Josephus cannot have said that the Moschoi are really the grandson of Noah. What I imagine you mean is that he said they are the descendants of the grandson of Noah, which is what we had in the article before your change. Genesis may not mention Gog and Magog, but Ezekiel, when he speaks of the same descendants of Meshech, makes them part of Gog and Magog. dab (ᛏ) 11:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This too should be clarified for accuracy, because if you are quoting Josephus, you can't put words in his mouth he didn't say... I don't believe he mentions that Gog and Magog are connected with Meshech in his listing of the nations; he treats Magog as ancestor of the Scythians, and he treats his brother Meshech as ancestor of the "Cappadocians", and he treats his brother Gomer (via Thrugramma)as ancestor of the Phrygians; and he treats his brother Tobal as ancestor of the THobelites... four distinct brothers... Care should be taken when quoting Josephus to ensure he isn't misquoted; the "Gog and Magog" stuff comes out of Ezekiel but not Josephus... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now found a 2002 dissertation devoted entirely to the "Mushki and Phrygians" question. The author explicitly denies an identity of Mushki and Phrygians. The Mushki of "New Mushku" (p.177) just happened to settle next to the Phrygians. dab (ᛏ) 18:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote 2002 here, but 2004 on the ref. section... Either way it's pretty recent, and seems to contradict all the older books, but I'd still be interested to see is she turned up any solid facts about the Mushki, since they are one the subjects I am most keenly interested in... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the dissertation was handed in in 2002, and it appeared as a printed book in 2004. That's an usual delay. I haven't seen a claim identifying the Mushki and the Phrygians so far. I'll have a closer look at Wittkers stuff soon. In a nutshell, she concludes more or less what I surmised above, the Mushki immigrated to central Anatolia from the North-East in the 9th-8th c. dab (ᛏ) 18:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of courtesy, we should always place a copy of disputed material that someone wants removed, here on the talk page for further discussion. The assertion of DBachmann is apparently that this reference is irrelevant to the "Mushki" article:

The Armenians according to Diakonoff, are then an amalgam of the Hurrian (and Urartians), Luvians and the Proto-Armenian Mushki who carried their IE language eastwards across Anatolia. After arriving in its historical territory, Proto-Armenian would appear to have undergone massive influence on part the languages it eventually replaced. Armenian phonology, for instance, appears to have been greatly affected by Urartian, which may suggest a long period of bilingualism.<ref> “Armenians” in Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture or EIEC, edited by J. P. Mallory and Douglas Q. Adams, published in 1997 by Fitzroy Dearborn. </ref>

Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed the quote to make it more relevant and fit it into the context better. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making the same edit repeatedly. a) much of the information is out of place b) much of the information is already stated and c) poorly written/grammatically incorrect. This is not the article to discuss the Armenian language or Proto-Indo European.--Preservedmoose (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Preservedmoose: You have reverted[1][2][3] my edits with the summary "If Mushki were Phrygians (as this article discusses), and Armenian is not connected to Phrygian (as this source discusses), Armenians=/=Mushki". This a classic case of WP:synthesis: one source says A, other sources say B, therefore C. We need sources that specifically disucss both connections; a source which rejects the Armenian-Phrygian connection, but does not discuss the the proposed Mushki-Phrygian connection, cannot be cited as a source which refutes the Armenian-Mushki connection. Assuming good faith, I had retained the actual statement and the Czech source which is not available for me. If the Czech source also turns out only to refute the Armenian-Phrygian connection, the complete statement will have to be removed as WP:OR. –Austronesier (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's stupid, but okay. According to Wikipedia 2+x=/=4.Preservedmoose (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Preservedmoose: No, it's not. If that's the way how feel about it, are you sure you're here? –Austronesier (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The disbelief in algebra is actually exactly what the situation is. If Phrygians are not Armenians, but Mushki are Phrygians, as the Wikipedia article discusses, then Armenians cannot be Mushki. Simple syllogism. There was also information that countered this in the article, too. Anyway, I have rephrased to make the sources fit appropriately to your guidelines. Take care.Preservedmoose (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Preservedmoose: These are your guidelines as well, because you cannot claim the priviledge of being exempted from the basic rules of our common project called Wikipedia: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article." –Austronesier (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I understood it the first time. Hence why I said "according to Wikipedia" and not "according to Austronesier." I have a right to say that it is stupid though. Not much is known about the Mushki. There are many peoples that may or may have been connected to them. Perhaps you should just delete 90% of the article? Or the whole thing? Preservedmoose (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If 90% of the article is composed of unsourced claims, unrelated trivia and OR falsely based on a source that doesn't say what's claimed here, sure, it's tag, fix or delete. You might go ahead as well. –Austronesier (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have more free time than me and a hunger to power trip, so I'll leave it to you, my friend.Preservedmoose (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this wikipedia, not reddit. 99.27.106.23 (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]