Meshech
Unlocking the Mystery of the Allied Brothers Meshech and Tubal
We can see in our discussion of Tubal that identifications with the Moschoi are not exactly correct. While the “Georgian”, or Iberian, identification with Meshech is not wrong, the Georgian identity itself is a much more complex merging of caucus cultures, and doesn’t exactly represent the “origin of Meshech”. Meshech is a much earlier dating, and like Tubal possibly dates back as far as the Thraco-Phrygian migrations. Assuming any associations between the Georgians, Armenians, Phrygians and even Luwians stems from post-Anatolian migrations, the next logical step is to identify a homeland.
We know that the Georgian identity only emerged in the 3rd century, however the Kingdom of Colchis is easily argued as the actual origin of “Georgia”. However, we know the Moschoi and Tibereni do not arrive in Colchis until later, making it unlikely either of these groups are “Colchian”. Similarly the Armenian connection obviously stems from the Urartian period after the 9th century, and if we are to believe Armenian legends their founder was a man named “Hayk”, who participated in a battle against a Babylonian war god named ‘Belus’. If this is to be believed, this may be a cultural retelling of the Gutian invasion of Akkad1, but since the ethnic origin of the Gutians still remains a mystery, we cannot unravel the Gutian knot. We can be sure from Armenian legends that Hayk is not the same as Tubal, or Meshech, even if some of those groups merge into the Armenian identity, like Georgian. Unlike Georgian, which is a Kartvelian language, Armenian is indeed Indo-European implying a portion of this group must be from the Yamnaya homeland. The question is how they arrived in Armenia, and where it was with the Phrygians.
If we are to believe Herodotus, who, while often unsourced, is hinting at a sort of truth in much of his writing, then the Armenians were “colonists from Phrygia”.2 As implied previously, the “Armenians” are likely the Hayasa, or Mushki in this period of Hittite and Assyrian sources respectively. There is intense debate over when the Armenians split off from other Indo-Europeans, but one possible reconstruction is that the Greco-Armenian split off from a single group. This is supported by recent genetic work showing a close link between these two groups3, implying they did split off from each other, rather than the Armenians splitting from wider Indo-Europeans as per the “Armenian Hypothesis”.4 Taking this model further we can suppose a theoretically “Paleo-Balkan” subgroup of Indo-European that looks something like the chart on the right.
Paleo-Balkan would split into the Armenian and Graco-Albanian branches, but Albanian and wider Illyric eventually splitting off from Graco-Phrygian. It’s fairly clear the Illyrian branch split between Messapics and Albanians occurs due to those that head over the Adriatic to Italy, and those that stay in Greece. “Greek” becomes what is seen as Mycenaean world, while the dead Ancient Macedonian language likely splits off from Phrygian, around Mount Bermion in Macedonia, near modern Thessaloniki. We can see then that the Armenians may represent earlier migrations across to Anatolia, while those that stayed till the 12th century, such as the Phrygians, split off at a different point with Greeks. The work of Hans J. Holm’s lexico-statistical model supports this theory.5 Looking at a map of these supposed Paleo-Balkan languages, the picture starts to become quite clear of their shared origin in Thraco-Dacia.
What can be certified is the Moschoi come from Phrygia, and while a tenuous link the capital of Phrygia was named “Mazaca”, or modern day Kayseri. This capital city of the Phrygians was in constant dispute between Cappadocian and Armenian Kings. We can presume these “Cappadocians” are Phrygian ethnically, but either way we see the heart of the Phrygian empire often traded hands to Armenians.
Further complicating this picture of who, or what the Phrygians were, is the fact our earlier identification of the Saka who “wear pointed caps”, or Massagetae, are obviously wearing pseudo-Phrygian caps. The etymological link between “Massagetae” and Moschoi is obvious, but less obvious is the “getae” linking them to the Getae tribe, or Geto-Dacians. However the Massagetae are not the only “Getae”, including among them are the Tyragetae, Thyssagetae, both clearly identified by Herodotus as Scythians from the steppe, but also the Geats and Gutes of Sweden, potentially linking all these groups to the later designation ‘Goths’.
Yet another Paleo-Balkan group named the Messapians obviously retains that root “Mes”, which, like both the Moschoi and Massagetae, comes from the Paleo-Balkan root “mŭzg”.6 This root likewise comes from the Indo-European “meu”, meaning wet, or marshy.7 Similarly, this root has cognates with Lithuanian ‘mazgoti’ and Latvian ‘mazgat’ meaning ‘to wash’, as well as the Russian ‘muzga’ which is a pool, or puddle. The Sanskrit ‘majjati’ means ‘to drown’ and the Latin ‘mergo’ is ‘to dip, or immerse’ affirming that this “mush” root is widely used in Indo-European languages. Indeed, Messapii, the tribe of Messapians, likely means “the place amid waters” referring to their location across from Illyria, with the adriatic between. Another related peoples, the Moesians, another Paleo-Balkan people, who lived in the area of Moesia near the Danube would also be linked to this same root, and possibly related to the “Mysians” of Anatolia.
As mentioned with the Russian “muzga”, this is also the origin of the term “moskva” coming from the river on which modern Moscow sits. While this is a much later designation, who, or which group founded Moscow remains unclear and may have been a related Paleo-Balkan group. What is clear is that while Moscow is currently ‘Slavic’, these founders of Moscow were not, and very well might have been a related “Mush” root tribe.
Circling back to the Phrygian link, it’s clear this “Mush” or “Mosh” or “Mash” are all meant to be ethnically similar, if not descending from the same founder, or location. If we are to believe the Phrygians were Bryges, which lines up with archeological evidence of their migrations, adaptation of Luwian-Anatolian languages, and much of Greek mythology concerning the Phrygians; then the origin of the Phrygians absolutely lies in Thrace. However, due to Thrace’s complex ethnic background which contains nearly every major group in the region at some point, and due to its current location inside of the politically charged archeology environment of Turkey, it’s unlikely we will get much supporting evidence beyond what we currently have uncovered.
Based on everything we have broken down so far regarding both Tubal and Meshech, their shared ethno-genesis and related tribal origins, and all the various splinter groups and migrations these two tribes take, it is clear they share an origin somewhere west of the original Yamnaya heartland, located roughly where the Danube terminates into the Black Sea. What is notable is that the Danube would have been nearly as hard to cross as the Aegean, being one of the wider rivers of the world, enabling long navigation all the way upstream. This often split the populations North and South, owing to many of the modern borders and ethnic differences in the area. Any group dwelling in this region for more than a few hundred year's would experience rapid shifts as neither side really integrates with the other. The added “marshy”ness of the lower Danube could be where the “Mosh” get their name from, which is the Geto-Dacian heartland, having the majority of archeological sites in the North at the terminus of the Danube. The Thracians in the south would have potentially formed a more cohesive identity with Greeks, leading to something like the Phrygians, who do reportedly come from Thrace proper. If this is to be believed, these Phrygians are not the “Moschoi”, or “Mushki”, but a related Thracian Tubal brother group to a Geto-Dacian Meshesh.
"Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying: Son of man, set your face toward Gog, [toward] the land of Magog, the prince, the head of Meshech and Tubal, and prophecy concerning him. And you shall say; So said the Lord God: Behold, I am against you, Gog, the prince, the head of Meshech and Tubal.” - Yechezkel/Ezekiel 38:1-3
Almost finished! Two more posts left for this “Book” on Japheth. Speaking of, I have self published the entirety of Japheth on Amazon under the title “Table of Nations”. The content is nearly identical to what is found in the Substack, but may offer a better reading experience for some. Others like having physical copies of the works they have read/completed, and this offers a method for those with a collector mindset to have a physical record. There is actually a paperback and hardcover edition, as well as an Ebook for those looking for quick access to the material.
Below is a preview of the Ebook, but you will see there is little difference between this, and that version. For those interested in the paperback here is a direct link: Table of Nations: Japheth
Once again thank you for reading, I wouldn’t have been able to publish this work without the support of this reading, and giving me personal feedback.
De Mieroop, Marc Van. (2004). A History of the Ancient Near East: c. 3000-323BC. (pp.67) Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing
Herodotus. The Histories. Book VII: chapters 57‑137. Loeb Classical Library. 1922. https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Herodotus/7b*.html
Lazaridis, Iosif; Alpaslan-Roodenberg, Songül; et al. (26 August 2022). "The genetic history of the Southern Arc: A bridge between West Asia and Europe". Science. 377 (6609): eabm4247. doi:10.1126/science.abm4247. PMID 36007055. S2CID 251843620
Holm, Hans J. (2008). "The Distribution of Data in Word Lists and its Impact on the Subgrouping of Languages". In Preisach, Christine; Burkhardt, Hans; Schmidt-Thieme, Lars; Decker, Reinhold (eds.). Data Analysis, Machine Learning, and Applications. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Gesellschaft für Klassifikation e.V., Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, March 7–9, 2007. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. pp. 628–636. ISBN 9783540782469.
Smolitskaya, G.P. (2002). Toponimicheskyi slovar' Tsentral'noy Rossii Топонимический словарь Центральной России (in Russian). pp. 211–2017.
Pokorny, Julius. "meu". Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Archived from the original on March 10, 2016.