BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF ORIENTAL STUDIES

AN EXAMINATION OF THE MUŠKI TRIBE: A MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACH INCLUDING PALEOGENOMICS

2025-05-23T09:54:52+00:00

The northern regions of West Asia have been home to countless ethnocultural groups throughout history. Among the most mysterious are the Muški. A multidisciplinary approach was used to examine the Muški, including utilizing genetic data for the first time, with the hope of identifying their cultural and linguistic affiliation. In the 8th century BCE, the Assyrians used “Muški” as a name for Phrygia, which led to subsequent theories suggesting the Muški must have origins in the Balkans, either as Phrygians or as a group closely related to them. However, these connections have proven to be groundless. This new evaluation supports a Muški connection to Armenians, although with a considerable update: it rejects a Balkan origin for both groups, instead opting for a migratory route from the Late Proto-Indo-European urheimat in the Pontic-Caspian steppe through the Caucasus, with the Muški establishing a homeland in the Upper Euphrates region. Alternatively, it finds a connection to the ancient Kaška people, known allies of the Bronze Age Muški, equally plausible. Additionally, an analysis of the available linguistic evidence has similarly indicated that a Muški ethnolinguistic connection to Georgian is unlikely, although a connection between the names Muški and Mtskhe is plausible.

UNITY WITHOUT POWER-SHARING: SYRIA’S STANCE ON KURDISH FEDERALISM

2025-10-02T06:46:02+00:00

Since the establishment of the Syrian Arab Republic in 1946, successive regimes have systematically denied the Kurdish population its fundamental national rights. The outbreak of the Arab Spring in 2011 sparked a renewed Kurdish political awakening, as Kurdish-majority regions in northern Syria transitioned from initial caution to assertive political and military mobilization. Rejecting President Bashar al-Assad’s (2000–2024) limited reform proposals and centralist vision, Kurdish political actors, backed by the United States, established a de facto autonomous administration in 2013, structured around three self-governing cantons. This development significantly altered the trajectory of the Syrian conflict and expanded the scope of foreign intervention, particularly by Turkey. Despite facing considerable territorial, demographic, and infrastructural losses, Kurdish-led forces, in coordination with international allies, successfully resisted existential threats, most notably from ISIS. The ousting of President al-Assad in December 2024 and the subsequent peace agreement between Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) Commander Mazloum Abdi and interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa in March 2025 further underscored the Syrian state's enduring opposition to Kurdish aspirations for de jure autonomy. This article examines how the Syrian civil war (2011–2024) reshaped the Kurdish national movement, analyzing the interplay between Kurdish political mobilization, state fragmentation, and regional constraints that limited the realization of Kurdish autonomy within Syria’s political landscape. Through historical and political analysis, the study argues that the Kurdish struggle under al-Assad’s regime laid a critical foundation for future claims to broaden national rights. The experience of de facto sovereignty, despite its limitations, provides a crucial framework for advancing Kurdish political agency within a reconfigured, post-conflict Syrian state.

FROM NEGOTIATION TO INTIFADA: UNDERSTANDING THE COLLAPSE OF THE CAMP DAVID SUMMIT 2000 AND THE AL-AQSA INTIFADA

2025-07-24T07:05:40+00:00

The year 2000 marked a turning point in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Camp David Summit, convened in July by U.S. President Bill Clinton, brought together Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat in an attempt to resolve the core issues of the conflict. This article aims to analyze the 2000 Camp David Summit and the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa Intifada in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The article examines the political and structural circumstances that hindered the peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It shows that Camp David’s failure ended the Oslo peace process and contributed to political radicalization, mistrust, and instability in Israeli-Palestinian relations. Several peace initiatives during this period aimed to advance a two-state solution through territorial compromises and security guarantees. The article analyzes their specificities and limitations, which were unacceptable both to the Palestinian and Israeli sides. The breakdown of negotiations and the absence of regulatory mechanisms deepened mistrust between the parties and creating the basis for recurring violence and instability.

αβασιλευτοι - THOSE WHO HAVE NO KING

2025-07-27T19:26:49+00:00

In the issue no. 1 (1992) of the journal Vestnik Drevnei Istorii (Journal of Ancient History) the article by R. L. Manaseryan entitled “International Relations in the Near East in the 80s–70s BCE (Tigranes II and the Troops from the Banks of the Araxes)” was published In this study, the author sought to clarify the ethnic identity of the autonomous tribes from the banks of the Araxes River who arrived at the military camp of the Armenian king Tigranes II the Great on the eve of his clash with the Romans. Manaseryan acknowledged that, given the current state of the sources, the solution he proposed was inevitably hypothetical. Through a detailed interpretation of the available evidence, he ruled out the possibility that these tribes had lived on the Armenian Highlands, specifically along the course of the Araxes River flowing into the Caspian Sea. According to Manaseryan, accepting the presence of such a tribe in Greater Armenia during the reign of Tigranes the Great would require recognition of a circumstance that he regarded as fundamentally incompatible with the political realities of the period [34:152-153]. On the basis of these considerations, R. L. Manaseryan concluded that Plutarch’s account refers not to the Armenian Araxes Rivers, but rather to the Central Asian Araxes, that is, the Amu Darya. While acknowledging a certain degree of hypothetical uncertainty in his conclusions, Manaseryan nevertheless suggested that the tribes in question were most likely the Sacaraucae. This position was reiterated without modification in the second edition of his monograph (Manaseryan Ruben. Tigran Mets. Hayastani payk‘ary Hṙomi yev Part‘evastani dem, m.t‘.a. 94–64 t‘t‘., Yerevan, 2007, 261 pp.) [35:101-107], as well as in the second book of the first volume of the recent academic edition of the History of Armenia, 2024 [19:313-314]. However, a detailed analysis of both the primary sources and the relevant scholarly literature raises certain doubts regarding the validity of Manaseryan’s conclusions and indicates possible inconsistencies with the evidence preserved in the sources. As far as I know, following Manaseryan’s publications, the question of identifying the ethnic affiliation of the autonomous (“who are not subject to kings”) tribes from the banks of the Araxes River has not been revisited in scholarly debate. Moreover, a number of aspects—textological, etymological, historical, geographical, and political—which could have substantially affected the conclusions reached, were not sufficiently taken into account by the respected scholar. These considerations make it necessary to revisit the issue and seek further clarification.