Talk:Assyrian people/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

The Aramization of Assyria

I added this section to deal with the population dominance of the Arameans that lead to Aramaic being imposed as the language of the empire. This was not covered on the page. The impact of the Aramization of Assyrian was mainly linguistic. The CAUSE was demographic.
Some of the sources make mention of the population of the Neo-Assyrian Empire and the region of Assyria Proper being dominated by the Arameans, some refer to the cultural influence or fusion. While other sources refer to the Aramean dominance of the population after the fall of the Assyrian Empire.

Sources:
R.Zadok, "The Ethno-Linguistic Character of the Jezireh and Adjacent Regions in the 9th-7th centuries (Assyria Proper vs Periphery),"(1995) page 281. "[The Assyrians] were capable of constant Assyrianization of the foreigners only in their core country, namely Assyria proper and certain adjacent regions...whereas in the periphery...the West-Semitic (practically Aramean) majority prevailed and even increased in the last generation of the Assyrian empire...There is no doubt that after the fall of teh Assyrian empire Assyria proper has been completely Aramaicized within a few decades"

E. von Dassow "Text and Artifact, A comprehensive History of the Arameans" (1999) page 250 "Assyrianization so suffused Aramean societies, while more and more Arameans were absorbed into Assyrian society, that the result was a cultural fusion: that which was Assyrian was made Aramean as Assyria herself was Aramaized"

K. Lawson Younger, Jr. (Deerfield, IL), “War and Peace” in the Origins of the Arameans Page 865 From roughly the end of the reign of Ashur-bel-kala to Aššur-dan II the Assyrian monarchy was characterized by political and military weakness. Little direct information is available, but it is easy to deduce that the Arameans were now the superior power and occupied much of what had once been regarded as Assyrian territory. Various Aramean penetrations led to the abandonment of Assyrian farmland with parts of the population taking refuge in other regions, e.g. Šubria or abruri. Thus during the Iron I, a considerable change took place in the Jezireh so that by the 9th century much of the population was now Aramean in areas formerly under the control of Assyria

page 866 To sum up, Assyria began to lose its hegemony over the Jezireh sometime after the reign of Ashur-narari III (1193-1188 BC). The actual Aramean Landnahme took place rapidly (van Driel 2005, 8). Some of the Aramean groups that penetrated the Jezireh created political entities (e.g. Bit Baiani and Bit Zamani – and possibly Bet Sullel/Azallu and Bali). Others appear as confederations of various sedentary political groups (e.g. the Laqeans – including Bit alupe, and the Temanites). Still others are confederations of nonsedentary tribal affiliations (e.g. the atallu – composed of the Sarugu, Lu uaya, and Amatu clans).

HAYIM TADMOR, THE ARAMAIZATION OF ASSYRIA: ASPECTS OF WESTERN IMPACT page 9 An attempt has been made in this paper to outline the evidence for the impact of the West on the Assyrian Empire, predominantly that of the Arameans and the Aramaic language, initiated by annexing the lands west of the Khabur and the Euphrates and by mass deportations. In time the Arameans gradually transformed the cultural face of the Empire and were to outlive Assyria by serving as the link with the succeeding Chaldean and Achaemenid Empires. The Assyrians, vastly outnumbered by their captives, forced them to participate in the building and maintaining of their state and inevitably, if therefore, absorbed much linguistically and culturally from the West. That this was not a one-way process, but rather a highly complex symbiotic relationship between the Assyrians and the Arameans, can no longer be doubted

H.W.F. Saggs, The Might the was Assyria "It was, in fact, the cities of Assyria [the direct region of ashur not the broader empire] which were the destinations of a majority of unknown deportations. Assyrian cities thus became cosmopolitan and polyglot, with the possibility that within them people of actual ancient Assyrian descent were a minority"

David Danzig, Harvey Weiss (2013) The Socio-economic Structure of the Neo-Assyrian Empire: Resource Extraction and Redistribution – The Imperial Engine Archaeologies of Empire page 6 "As part of the imperializing project, there was a significant emphasis on belongingness to the empire. This operated on two planes, the ideal and real. Ideally, people living in the Heartland adopted at least an ostensive ethnicity of Assyrian, naturally held by all native Assyrians. Provincialized territories had their citizens become imperial Assyrians, more of a political designation, than necessarily an ethnic one. Vassal states maintained their “national” ethnic identities, but on some superficial level were also included into the notion of all people of the empire being Assyrians." "However, in practicality, an increasing proportion of people living in the Heartland were of various ethnic identities due to the continuous import of foreigners in the mass transplantations of population. This led to a mixing of ethnicities, cultures, and languages. For instance, this period saw the spread of Aramaic through much of Assyria and Mesopotamia, which is largely indicative of this ethnic melting pot. The newly inter-cultural nature of society was also operant on the elite level, in which western, Syrian and Levantine, styles were increasingly valued. As they were incorporated into the styles of the many luxurious appurtenances of the wealthy Assyrians, they slowly helped form a new hybrid Assyrian identity. Outside of the Heartland, there were varying degrees of ethnic integration. Provinces brought in some Assyrians for administration and military protection, thereby bringing locals into contact with Assyrians and vice versa. Religiously, the destruction of many cultic locations and the imposition of Assyrian rites, certainly had some effects, although the response of locals could vary. Naturally, the import of outside population could mitigate this effect and aid in the low level Assyrianization of the provinces. On the other hand, vassal peoples certainly kept their identities. Nevertheless, the somewhat regular contact that had been initiated with them, either politically, militarily, or via trade, impacted the vassal states by making their inhabitants somewhat more worldly and global.”

G.Roux, Ancient Iraq page 423 "[the Assyrians] could not withstand the profound ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural changes that were introduced by successive waves of invaders in northern Mesopotamia - Persians, Greeks, Arameans,pre-Islamic Arabs - who could be neither kept at bay or assimilated"

G.Roux, Ancient Iraq. page 308 "The deportees were not slaves: distributed through the empire as needs arose, they the had no special status and were simply 'counted among the people of Assyria', which means that they had the same duties and rights as original Assyrians. This policy of deportation - mainly from Aramaic-speaking areas - was pursued by Tiglathpileser's successors, and the number of persons forcibly removed from their home during three centuries had been estimated at four and a half million. It has largely contributed to the 'Aramaization' of Assyria, a slow but almost continuous process which, together with the internationalization of the army, probably played a role in the collapse of the empire"

"the revived settlements had very little in common with their Assyrian or Babylonian precursors"...."a nation [Assyria] that forgets it's language forgets its past and soon loses its identity"

Fiey, "ASSYRIANS? OR ARAMEANS?" page 4 "In the mean time, the racial entities were well-blurred. The Syrians, that is the Christians of the north and the south of Iraq, and notably the Athorians of the region of Nineveh, were not only of the Aramaean stock, but offered a mixture of all races. Medes, Persians, Parthians, Jews, Kurds, and not excluding the descendants of the ancient Assyrians, all melted inside the great Syrian Church. From 424 A.D., this church is split in the western and eastern churches, and the Christological heresies, like the wars between the Persians and Romans, quickly upset the borders between the two rites and caused a further soldering of the races."...."The only point that can be put forward with certainty is that, for historians of religions and the liturgists, the Aramaeans of the south and the inhabitants of Athor in the north are Syrians, of the east or of the west. From the point of view of faith, they are Nestorians or Monophysites."

Sr 76 (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of personal opinions, not sources

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Their is absolutely no evidence of this you are only mixing up everything together with your so called "sources" that proves nothing and you are taking certain thing out of context, assyrians became aramaic speakers like everyone else in Mesopotamia, the reason why you are wrong and without even showing you sources is because their are several kingdoms after the Assyrian empire with heavy assyrian influence like Urhoy, Adiabane, Hatra etc and remember after 700 BC the aramean identity vanished for good they became all assyrianized when the Assyrian empire qonquered the whole Levant and made aramaic their language, if you want to read more about this part.. Source: Sebastian Brock "The Hidden Pearl" volume 1 page 8

By the way I can also show you over 20 sources which contradict everything you wrote now, you are only in Wikipedia for one reason to show your anti-Assyrian propaganda nothing else --Suryoye85 (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

SR 76 you show some sources what about adding the sources that show heavy Assyrian influence after the fall of the empire? we don't see any aramean influence only Assyrian and by the way why are you using Saggs as a source? didn't you remove him when we talked about the Assyrian identity? funny right, now its oke to use him as a source fitting your propaganda --SuryoyeGBG (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Suryoye85 excellent, then I'll wait for you to stop arguing and display your references about the population of the Assyrians.

@SuryoyeGBG the section was added for the purpose of demonstrating an Aramean POPULATION dominance over the Assyrians in the broader empire and in Assyria proper. Some of the source sited already refer to the cultural fusion (that includes an Assyrian influence on the Arameans). So far as Saggs is concerned I did not remove him as a valid source, I removed the single cherry picked quote that was used to demonstrate a hypothesis that completely took what Saggs wrote out of context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people#Saggs_taken_out_of_context — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr 76 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Suryoye85 "Sebastian Brock is talking about the disappearance of a SPECIFIC ethnic Aramean race, which is true, but he didn't say that the mixed race descendants from the Arameans with other nations didn't call or consider themselves as Arameans. How many nations on this earth are actually of pure race? The same thing happened, when the Arab Muslims invaded the Levant, Mesopotamia and North Africa and intermingled with the local nations, e.g. Berbers, Jews, Arameans, Black people, Copts etc.. After several hundreds of years the Arabs were no longer able to distinguish between pure Arabs and mixed race Arabs. However, their descendants are linguistic and cultural Arabs or do modern Egyptians, Syrians, Tunisians,... don't consider themselves as ethnic Arabs? Are the modern Turks a specific ethnic race? An ethnicity is not only based on genes, if this is that what you mean!... ."

BTW you should also mention what Sebastian Brock has else written in the hidden pearl. Brock also wrote that the words Aramean and Syrian are interchangeable and the word Aramean would apply to pagans while Syriac/Syrian means Christian, but he didn't mention Assyrian! And this is exactly what even my parents and grandparents always told me about the meaning of Suryoyo. The Christian and Muslim Arameans near Damascus are another great example, because all three villages Ma'loula, Jubb'adin and Bakhah were original Christian (Melkite) and they call their Aramaic dialect "Siryon" or "Loghtha Siryanoytha" as well. This clearly shows the Greek-Christian influence on the Arameans in the Levant and Mesopotamia, because in Ma'loula are remains of early Christianity and Greek writings. See 3:35 min and 6:30 min, where they say "Siryon" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFaZ6YiBPWc or this page http://www.ethnologue.com/search/search_by_page/western%20aramaic.

SuryoyeGBG has removed the whole content from the Aramean identity section, where the patriarchs of the Syriac-Orhodox Church said in their OWN words that the Syrians/Suryoye are descendants of the Arameans/Oromoye or they were previously called Arameans and these citations goes hundreds of years back before the nationalism among the Western and Eastern Syrian Christians actually started. However, I couldn't find any citations from Nestorian Christians (in their OWN words of course!) BEFORE the 19th century, where they endorse an Assyrian ethnic identity. So, how do you guys can say then that there is no Aramean continuity or the Aramean ethnic identiy disappeared, but an Assyrian continuity still exists?

--Suryoyo124 (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Suryoyo124: they are drawing their conclusions from a falsified reference. The words have been changed in a couple of areas to misrepresent what Brock was intending. I found a couple of these misquotations floating around the internet recently.Sr 76 (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sr 76, the Aramization of Assyria, which was mainly linguistical, is described here on Wikipedia. I recommend you to read Parpola's publication regarding this and the Assyrian identity in ancient times, I think the link somewhere above. I'm not sure if that is why started this thread, if not, please explain. As for the Brock discussion; as I earlier mentioned it's not really NPOV, Brock has been working together with the Syriac Orthodox Church on a several project and been paid for those (e.g. The Hidden Pearl). Shmayo (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Shmayo And what are you trying to express by saying "...and been paid for those..."? Do you think your Assyrian Superstars such as Simo Parpola are not getting paid by Assyrian organizations and they work just for Fun or they pay the trips to Syria or Iraq out of their own pocket? Are you kidding? Simo Parpola claims in one of his interviews that the Assyrian identity has been better preserved by the Nestorians. Where are the chronicles, writings, literature etc. of the Eastern Suraye BEFORE the 19th century and in their OWN words, which underlines his claim and say Syrian=Assyrian? I am waiting. Ironically, the Church of the East was renamed into Assyrian Church of the East in the 19th century. In reality the opposite is the case, whereas the Western Suryoye have better preserved the Aramean identity than the Eastern Suraye after Christianization and this can be seen in the rich history of the Syriac-Orthodox Church.--Suryoyo124 (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Shmayo:, the impact of the Aramization of Assyrian was mainly linguistic. The CAUSE was demographic, I added this section to deal with the population dominance of the Arameans that lead to Aramaic being imposed as the language of the empire. This was not covered on the page.

I would suggest if you really want to understand the history of your people you need to get over this fixation with Parpola, he derived his Assyrian theories to support his Christalogical Theories. They are wrong, and he has come under much criticism by his fellow scholars for this. He is the only one that thinks this way.

Most importantly do not in any way question the integrity of Dr Sebastian Brock, he has been the most respected academic in the field of Syriac studies for decades. Getting paid to do work is normal, the difference between Parpola and Brock is: Brock's work doesn't fall under criticism from his fellow scholars for his work, because he does not stray from the truth. I challenge you to find any criticisms of Brock's work, considering the number of books and papers he has published over the decades it should be easy for you if he is not NPOV, as you say.Sr 76 (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

There were many reasons to use Aramaic instead of Akkadian, a language with more than 400 symbol. As for Parpola, let's not get into that discussion again, the same person that criticized him for a specific theory wrote, in the very same publication, that he was one of the best Assyriologist. Your quotes were listed for no other reason than to remove some of Parpolas theories, not having anything to do with the actual criticism. Of course many more are paid for works, but you know very well Brock is in close relation with the Syriac Orthodox Church of today, I remember that there were a interesting discussion regarding this topic here back in 2008. The difference between Parpola and Brock is that Brock's knowledge is much limited to Christianity. Shmayo (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

THIS IS AMAZING. It was you and your fellow Assyrians that were quoting Brock, saying he wrote that the term Aramean really meant Aramean speaker. As soon as I suggested that you were misquoting Brock (i didn't even bother to present the quote), you turn on Brock and start questioning his credentials......?????....seriouslySr 76 (talk) 06:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2015

This edit request to Assyrian people has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Would like to add the term "Ashurites" which is a more accurate term for Assyrians, as it states that they are both the inhabitants of Ashur and the sons of the Biblical Ashur. Ordo de Essentia (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mlpearc (open channel) 04:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Chaldean people redirect

If you are going to redirect the Chaldean people page to this page you must include Chaldean information here as well. If not then you must revert this redirection. Figure it out --Lawrencegoriel (talk) 05:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Lawrencegoriel: this entire page is idiotic, the redirection was put in place, the excuse at the time being "Content Fork". It's quite clear the content fork didn't really exist. Because all they did was remove the Syriac-Aramean and Chaldean pages without modifying the content of the existing page to accommodate the others. Typical Assyrian properganda. This was done by means contrary to the conventions of Wikipedia, see the links below:
http://www.assyrianvoice.net/forum/index.php?topic=16628.95;wap2
http://www.assyrianvoice.net/forum/index.php?topic=16628.100;wap2

This has been done with the clear intention of violating the Canvassing rules, clearly vote-stacking and Stealth Canvassing. This is why the content of the Assyrian People page is the way that it is. Sr 76 (talk) 05:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sr 76: I am acutely aware of the situation you are mentioning, as I have attended some Assyrian functions where they have boasted their accomplishments on deleting Chaldean history as well as other Near East Christian identities. It is sad that they have gotten as far as they have without anyone offering any kind of sufficient resistance. --Lawrencegoriel (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a naming issue more than anything else. As Sebastian Brock, arguably the most authoritative scholar of Syriac Christianity, explains the naming conflict briefly here, while the term "Assyrian" is the most popular to describe the ethnic identity of Syriac Christians, it remains problematic and not universally accepted. Forking content to Chaldean and Syriac people will create more problems, I'm in the opinion of using a complex term, it is officially used in Iraq, US and Sweden, so why not also in Wikipedia.--Kathovo talk 19:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kathovo:In the Iraqi Constitution, Chaldeans and Assyrians are named separately. They simply are not the same people. I have many many sources I can cite if you're interested. --Lawrencegoriel (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a complex issue as I said, you are probably referring to article 125 which states:

يضمن هذا الدستور الحقوق الادارية والسياسية والثقافية والتعليمية للقوميات المختلفة كالتركمان، والكلدان والآشوريين، وسائر المكونات الاخرى، وينظم ذلك بقانون.‎

Literally: "Constitution guarantees rights ... of Turkmen, Chaldeans and Assyrians, and other groups..." Notice the commas, also nowhere it suggests Chaldeans and Syriacs are separate, if you want to delve into why they were mentioned this way and why Syriacs were omitted I suggest you read this interview with Yonadam Kanna.[1] The status qua on the ground is that Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs compete on the same reserved political positions in central and KRG parliaments as well as municipal councils' elections. Usually it's Assyrian political parties that win most seats by popular votes, despite the fact that what you would describe as "non-Assyrians" form the majority of voters.--Kathovo talk 07:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Background info Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac) -- Moxy (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kathovo: Your editing on the English version of Wikipedia, please post using English, thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hes quoting The Iraqi Constitution - looks like Article 121 to me - I think its something to do with commas...however in the translation to English they seem to put comma. -- Moxy (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kathovo I'm not sure what you mean by content fork, there is very little evidence of this on the page. With the exception of the first line. The page is almost exclusively Assyrian content, or content setup to "prove" Assyrian continuity.Sr 76 (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I realise just as you do that this article is flawed, you made several suggestions to improve its contents by removing POV references and making it more open to unrepresented views. I don't see what content you can fit in "Chaldean people" but not in "Assyrian people".--Kathovo talk 20:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Kathovo, I appreciate what you are saying. It's true, the time period between the Chaldeans and Assyrians receiving these appellations is not great, what ever facts exists about the Chaldeans we have during those few centuries, is valid enough for them to presented under the name Chaldean and hence treating today's Chaldeans with dignity. There is nothing dignified with the way Wikipeadia is setup at the moment. Sr 76 (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Syrius777 (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)I personally don't like this redirect. Chaldean's have a long history and there is a lot to be written about. The redirect to Assyrian looks like its more a political move in which i am not happy about. I also dont believe that Assyrians and Chaldean's are the same People. For instance look at the Babylonian and the Assyrian historical war or the old Aramaic of the letters in Babylon and even in Assyria, such proving also that today Assyrian's are rather Aramaic.

good storyIphoneonderdeel (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Syrian/Syriac synonyms with Aramean

another thread veering off into exchange of personal ideological talking points.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Before anyone tries to "prove" how wrong I am on this read the whole section, especially the 7 Key notes at the bottom.

DEFINITION "etymology": a chronological account of the birth and development of a particular word or element of a word, often delineating its spread from one language to another and its evolving changes in form and meaning.
I added the above dictionary definition of the word etemology, because people like to throw this word around and dont really consider its impact. So when historians talk about the etymology of the word Syriac, they are referring to how the word originated only, this covers the words evolution from one meaning to another.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/etymology?s=t

ORIGINS OF THE WORD SYRIAN (pre-reading before we deal with the Synonym issue)

I have provided some sources from academics subscribing to the view that the word Syrian was derived from Assyrian, this etymological relationship between the two words was that they referred to the same people same AT FIRST, hence the derivation. This includes Robert Rollinger that has been the main protagonist in arguing the for the theory for the past few decades, where he also claims that he has settled the question of where the name Syrian/Syriac come from "once and for all". The word Syrian and Assyrian were synonyms and stipulate that this was reflected at only a given period during the inception of the word Syrian from Assyrian.

Guy Bunnens - Essays on Syria in the iron age: Syria in the iron age - problems of definition
page 4
"The term 'Syria', inseprable from the adjective 'Syrian', is therefore synonymous, at least originally, with 'Assyria'."
....
page 6
Bunnens then question the logic of using a purely Symantec definition of 'Syria': "the Aramean invasion of the area and the foundation of the foundation of powerful and flourishing states in the Iron Age. Alt's great merit is to underline continuities in Syria's history and to have to show that apparent obstacles did not hamper the country's development as an autonomous entity. His enquiry impaired by the fact that he did not demonstrate the existence of any kind of internal logic within whatever notion is covered by the term 'Syria', that would explain the continuities he observed."

ROBERT ROLLINGER, Journal of Near Eastern Studies: THE TERMS “ASSYRIA” AND “SYRIA” AGAIN
page 283
"Since antiquity there has been a debate about whether there is a linguistic connection between the words 'Assyria' and 'Syria.' In 1617 John Selden suggested that the name 'Syria' is simply a corruption of 'Assyria'. Konrad Nöldeke restated this assumption in 1881 in a meticulous reexamination of the question. The results of Nöldeke’s study were generally received as authoritative. The debate, however, was kept alive in the following century. Eduard Schwartz examined some of the Classical authors’ statements in greater detail. and agreed with Nöldeke’s conclusions. Payton Helm, in his 1980 survey of the current state of the debate, reafirmed the conclusions of Nöldeke and Schwartz."

page 284
"There were also slight differences concerning the original meaning of the terms “Assyria” and “Syria” in the Greek sources."

page 287
"It also seems that these Greeks encountered “Sura/i” and “Asura/i” (by now the fully evolved equivalents for one and the same region) and rendered them in Greek as “Syria” and “Assyria.” These terms were used in subsequent centuries as interchangeable toponyms, although both terms also began to carry special connotations as was demonstrated by Nöldeke, Schwartz, and others. Since antiquity, scholars have both doubted and emphasized this relationship. It is the contention of this paper that the Çineköy inscription settles the problem once and for all."

NOTE: Not only does Rollinger claim to have proven that the name 'Syrian' came from 'Assyrian' once and for all, he also claims they were used interchangeably with one another for a short period. Just like the statements by Brunnes. He then goes on to acknowledge and confirm Nöldeke and Schwartz: "From the time the Greeks came to have a more intimate acquaintance with Asia, they designated by the name "Syrians" the people who called themselves "Arameans".

The main academic (Rollinger) arguing for the theory that the word Syrian was derived from Assyrian, suggests that the names were synonyms in ORIGIN (first couple of centuries) and then CONCURS WITH the idea (Nöldeke and Schwartz) that the name Syrian took on a different meaning, and BECAME A SYNONYM OF ARAMEAN. Keep in mind these are referring to a time prior to the Christian period and only from the European perspective, the Arameans themselves were still called themselves Arameans at that time.

In other words just because the word Syrian/Syriac came from the word Assyrian, does not suggest the two words meant the same thing through out history

ACADEMICS CONFIRMING THE SYNONYMITY OF SYRIAN AND ARAMEAN

Theodor Noldeke, Compendious Syriac Grammar
Page iv
"From the time the Greeks came to have a more intimate acquaintance with Asia, they designated by the name 'Syrians' the people who called themselves 'Arameans'."

Theodor Nöldeke, Assyrios Syrios Syros, in Zeitschrift für klassische Philologie, Hermes 5, Berlin 1871
page 460
"The main body of the population of all these wide landscapes from the Mediterranean Sea to beyond the Tigris belonged to a certain nationality, that of the Arameans."
page 461
"It is well understandable that people have started to transfer the name of the country to the most important nationality and so the name 'syrian' was apprehended ethnological and was equated with 'aramaic'."
page 468
"Since the times of Alexander [the Great], if not already somewhat earlier, people have started to transfer the name of the Syrians exclusively over the prevailing in Syria nationality, and in this way this originally political-geographical term became an ethnological one that was identified with the local Arameans."

Theodor Noldeke, Die Namen der aramäischen Nation und Sprache,” in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 25 (1871) page 131
"Regarding the name of this nation and its language is the original 'Aramean’ in essence also the only one, that for the employment of the present-day scholarship as yet strongly fits.”

Karl Eduard Sachau, Verzeichnis der Syrischen Handschriften der königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin von Eduard Sachau 1. Abteilung, Berlin 1899
Page i
"The nation of the Arameans: This national name later, mainly in consequence of Jewish-Christian literature influences, gave way to the Greek designation Syrians."

Prof. Dietrich Hermann Hegewisch, Die Aramäer oder Syrer; ein kleiner Beitrag zur allgemeinen Weltgeschichte, Berlinische Monatschrift, 2, 1794
page 193
"Do not the Syrians, as they are usually called, or the Arameans, as they in fact are termed, deserve more attention in world history than they are usually given?"
page 197
"The names Syria, Assyria, Mesopotamia, Babylon, etc. stem from the Greeks, who were not familiar with the true geography of these lands when the names first started to be used. Later, partly because of continuing ignorance and partly because of convenience despite having accurate knowledge, they persisted in using them since it would have required something of an effort to give up the old, familiar names and divisions of the countries and switch to the new ones, even if they were more accurate. The old, true, and single name of these lands is Aram; it is mentioned numerous times in the Bible of the Old Testament, and Greek scholars were also familiar with it and probably described the population of these areas as Arameans, though seldom, as they usually continued to use the term Syrian, which had been familiar to the Greeks."
page 307
"The Syrians or Arameans were not merely a numerous and large people, they were also a much cultivated people."

Theodor Mommsen, The History of Rome, written between 1854 and 1856, Leipzig, by Theodor Mommsen, Book First
Chapter One
"the Arameans defended their nationality with the weapons of intellect as well as with their blood against all the allurements of Greek civilization and all the coercive measures of eastern and western despots, and that with an obstinacy which no Indo- Germanic people has ever equalled, and which to us who are Occidentals seems to be sometimes more, sometimes less, than human."

S.P.Brock and J.F.Coakley, Syriac Heritage Encylopedic Dictionary
page 31
"In many Syriac writers Aramoyo[Aramean] and Suryoyo [Syriac] are synonyms; normally this refers to the language, but on occasion they are used as alternate ethnic terms"

Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
http://www.afroarticles.com/article-dashboard/Article/Aram-Nahrin--the-Aramaeans--the-Bible--Christianity--and-the-West/27211
"The Semitic Arameans ('not to be confused with "Armenians") underwent a change of name after they had embraced Christianity and were then called "Syrians", in order to be distinguished from the Arameans who were not converted. However, this should not be confused with the present-day Syrian Arabs."

R.Zadok, "The Ethno-Linguistic Character of the Jezireh and Adjacent Regions in the 9th-7th centuries (Assyria Proper vs Periphery),"(1995)
page 280
"These Arameans were presumably the forerunners of the sizable Syriac-speaking population of this region during the Byzantine and later periods"

John Joseph, Assyria and Syria: Synonyms?
page 37
"FIRST: WESTERN USAGE OF 'SYRIA' AND 'ASSYRIA': There was a time when the West [the Greeks], not fully familiar with the Near East, did not differentiate between Syria and Assyria, especially when the Assyrians were still in power. But as early as the fifth century B.C., about two centuries after the fall of Nineveh, Herodotus very clearly differentiated between the two terms and regions. Randolph Helm’s researches show that Herodotus “conscientiously” and “consistently” distinguished the names Syria and Assyria and used them independently of each other."

page 38
"page he even speaks of “the long-accepted statement of Herodotus (7.63) that the Greeks called Assyrians by the name Syrian without initial a-.” On the following page he notes that Herodotus “may represent a turning point” in the separation of the two terms."
.....
"When the Greeks became better acquainted with the Near East, especially after Alexander the Great overthrew the Achaemenian empire in the 4th century B.C., and then the Greeks and Romans ruled the region for centuries, they restricted the name Syria to the lands west of the Euphrates. During the 3rd century B.C., when the Hebrew bible was translated into the Greek Septuagint for the use of the Hellenized Jews of Alexandria, the terms Aramean and Aramaic of the Hebrew Bible were translated into 'Syrian' and 'the Syrian tongue' respectively."

SYRIAC ARAMAIC EXAMPLES

S.P.Brock and J.F.Coakley, Syriac Heritage Encylopedic Dictionary
page 31
"Bardaisan is described as Suryoyo [Syrian] and Aramoyo [Aramean]"
"Ya'qub of Edessa, in his 'Encheiridion' and elsewhere, speaks of 'we are Suryoye [Syriacs], or Aramoye [Arameans]'."
"This equation [Syriac = Aramean] is further elaborated in Appendix II to Michael Rabo's [Michael the Syrians] Chronicle."
(see the Dorothea Weltecke below for the actual Michael the Syrian's quote)

Crone Cook, Hagarism
page 196
"they [Nestorians or Eastern Syriacs] quite frequently speak of themselves and their language as Aramean"

Dorothea Weltecke,Religious Origins of Nations?: The Christian Communities of the Middle East
Page: 119
"Things become less clear when we try to decide his position concerning secular and ethnic identity. It is obvious that for Michael the ancient Near East had a very special importance. The ancient Near East recurred in the Chronicle. In the heading of his Appendix II Michael states: 'With the help of God we write down the memory of the kingdoms which belong in the past to our Aramean people, that is, sons of Aram, who are called Suryoye [Syriacs], this people from Syria'....This statement seems to be straightforward enough. But compared to other phrases, some contradictions arise. Following the work by Flavius Josephus (37-after 100 CE) through intermediaries, Michael explains the change of the name of ancient Near Eastern people end empires through the changes by the Greeks 'The Arameans were called Syrians by the Greeks and Oturoye were called Assyrians.' This statement is in accordance with the sentence just quoted."

KEY NOTES FROM THE ABOVE:

The significance of Syrian/Syriac synonymity to the word Aramean as opposed to the initial derivation of the word Syrian from Assyrian, is based on a number of fronts -

1) There will be people that will argue that the synonymity between the word Syrian and Aramean only applied to the Roman provence of Syria, as is currently stated on the 'Assyrian People' Wikipedia page, and that this does not implicate Mesopotamia. However this is just wishful thinking by the modern-Assyrians and is incorrect because as we have seen, from the above sources there has been examples directly from Mesopotamiaand as Noldeke has stated that it may have been used as geographical synonym it also became an ethnic synonym, completely eliminating that argument. We also see from the Septuagint (sources above) that the Hellenic Jews replaced location names like Aram-Nahrin (northern Mesopotamia) with Syria-Nahrin. Demonstrating that word Aramean was substituted for the word Syrian everywhere not just the Roman provence of Syria but also in Mesopotamia.

2) The initial Assyrian synonymitity was a Greek usage and at a time the Greeks were not familiar with the near-east.

3) This initial usage CHANGED shortly after the Greeks became familiar with the region. This usage ceased to exist.

4) The word Assyrian continued to be used in Greek and even when the word Syrian replaced the word Aramean. The word Assyrian stayed the same. For example: the word Assyrian was NOT replaced by the word Syrian in the Septigint and other Greek texts, only the word Aramean was.

5) The two words Syrian and Assyrian continued to coexist in the European languages for over 2500 years, despite sounding and being spelled almost identical to one another. The reason why both names coexisted is because they had two different meanings, if the two names referred to the same people one name would have absorbed the other, but they didn't.

6) The Arameans took on the name Syrian for themselves, during the Christian period, at a time when the name Syrian was used exclusively to refer to the Arameans. This is because of the Greek influences by closer political, cultural and religious relationships through the Christian churches. The Arameans knew the Greeks called them Syrians, and took on the word Suryoyo, which is the Aramaic form of the Greek word Syrian.

7) The Syrians/Syriacs themselves, during the Christian period, continually refer to their Aramean heritage and the synonymity between the words Syrian and Aramean.

- Point 6 - is very important

FIRST PARTY SOURCES OF SYNONYMITY BETWEEN THE WORDS SYRIAN AND ARAMEAN

I have included these to supplement the academic views above, for the purposes of this discussion (and I guess not for use on the page). I don't have time to find an academic reference to each of these.

SYRIAC ARAMAIC EXAMPLES

Paul Bedjan - Ecclesiastic History "Bar Daisan the Syrian".... "Bar Daisan the Aramean"
Notice Bar Daisan is both Syrian and Aramean, NOT Assyrian. FYI Bar Daisan still sits on the Assyrian People page.

St Jacob of Sruj (521AD), refering to St Ephram the Syriac:
"became a crown of Glory for all the Aramean nation"
Today St Ephram is called "the crown of the Syriacs", because of the synonymity between the words Syrian and Aramean

Dionysius Jacob Bar Salibi 12th AD
"As to us Syriacs we descend racially from Shem, and our father is Kemuel son of Aram, and from this name of Aram we are also called sometimes in the Books by the name of "Arameans." We are called "Syriacs" after the name of "Syrus," who built Antioch with its banlieue; and the country was called after him, "Syria".
"The name Syriac [Suryoyo] is derived from Syrus who ruled in Antioch, and Syria was named after him. We are the sons of Aram we were called Arameans"

St Ephrem the Syrian 306AD - 373AD
"Aram-Nahrin our country"
"From Hebrews and Arameans, and also from the Watchers: to You be praise and through You to Your Father, be also glory!"
"The Arameans praised him with their branches"
"But the Philosopher of the Arameans (i.e. Bardaisan) made himself a laughing-stock among Arameans and Greeks"
thought to be St Ephram
"and from Adam until the present time they were all of one speech and one language. They all spake this language, that is to say Syriac, which is Aramaic, and this language is the king of all languages. Now, ancient writers have erred in that they said that Hebrew was the first [language], and in this matter they have mingled an ignorant mistake in their writing. For all the languages that are in the world are derived from Syriac, and all the languages in books are mingled with it."

Severious of Antioch 465AD - 538AD
"It is in this way we the Arameans, that is to say Syriacs..."

Chronicle of Zuqnin 504AD-505AD
"As for the people who married (Syriac) women, sired Syriac children, and mixed with the Syriacs, and whom no one was able to distinguish from the Arameans, he quickly found out about them."

Gregorios Bar Hebraeus born 1226AD - 1286AD
"You have not corrupted me in the barbaric, pagan astrology, but [instead] You have brought me to the eloquent Aramean-Syriac nation."
"From Aram, that is Syria, we are saying Aramean [...], that is to say Syriac and from Aram, which is Harran, the city of the pagans, we are saying pagan"

Eastern Writers
Yeshudad Bishop of Hadeetha 835AD
"The Greek translation calls all Aram and Arameans 'Syrians'. Consequently Aram becomes the father of the Syriacs. For this reason, those living in Mesopotamia were called Arameans"

ANCIENT GREEK EXAMPLES

Strabo 63DC - 24AD
"the people which the Greeks call Syrians call themselves Arameans"

Poseidonios from Apamea (ca. 135 BC - 51 BC)
"The people we Greek call Syriacs, they call themselves Arameans"

Xenophon 430BC - 354BC
"The king of the Assyrians subjected the Syrians [refering to the Arameans]"

JEWISH EXAMPLES

The Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament):
With very few exceptions the word Aram was replaced with the word Syria, and the word Aramean was replaced with the word Syrian/Syriac. The name Assyrian was not changed

Flavius Josephus (37AD – 100 AD)
"Aram had the Arameans, which the Greeks called Syriacs."

Eusebius of Caesarea (275AD – 339AD)
"and from Aram the Arameans, which are also called Syriacs"

ARAB EXAMPLES
Abu Al-husayn 895AD - 957AD
"Tur Abdin is the mountain where remnants of the Aramean Syriacs still survive."

Hasan Bar Bahlul 963AD
"Surus killed his brother and ruled in Mesopotamia, and his country was called Syria, in early times, we were called Arameans but when Surus ruled, the inhabitants of the country began to be called Suryoye (Syriacs)"

Sr 76 (talk) 02:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@Suryoyo124: you may be able to add a few more examples.Sr 76 (talk) 02:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

These are rather controversial conclusion, Sr 76. Both Rollinger and Bunnens confirm them as synonyms. Your interpretation of "centuries" as "a short period" is kind of strange. Where is the so called switch explained? "Syrians" was used for Assyrians, Arameans - and others too. In Richard N. Frye's "Assyria and Syria: Synonyms", he mentions several examples of "Assyrian" and "Syrians" as synonyms;

"The use of both terms, with and without a-. is found in writings of authors living to the west of the Euphrates. In the 2nd century A.D., the satirist Lucian of Samosata reputedly wrote a book in Greek De Syria Dea [The Syrian goddess], which has survived. It contains interesting passages relevant to the usage of the terms "Syrian" and "Assyrian." The author says (par. 1): "I who write (this) am Assyrian." Later (par.11), he says, "he calls the people of Syria by the term Assyrian," and (par. 15), "he came to Syria, but the people beyond the Euphrates did not receive him" (cf. also pars. 23 and 59)"

"Macrobius, a writer of the 5th century and a pagan, wrote a book called Saturnalia which recalled antiquity and themes of Virgil in reaction against the Christian spirit of his day. In this book (1.23.14-16), he speaks of the cult in which the Assyrii (i.e., Syrians) dedicated offerings to the sun in the village of Heliopolis (modern Baalbek). This off-hand usage of Assyrian for Syrian by Macrobius indicates that the two forms, with and without a-, were in use, even for inhabitants of the baqaC Valley in modern Lebanon."

"The Carmelites in Iran, much later in the 17th century, were also not consistent in their usage of the terms "Syrian" and "Assyrian." We find in their writings the terms "Jacobite Syrian," "Eastern Assyrian," "Chaldaean," "Syrian," and Assyrian.l4 One may say that the words were used almost interchangeably, and the assertion by some that the word "Assyrian" was a creation of Westerners in the eighteenth or 19th century is surely incorrect.l5"

Regarding the later Greek distinguishing between "Assyria" and "Syria" that you mention, he writes this:

"At some point, however, the Greeks began to distinguish between Syria=the Levant and Assyria=Mesopotamia, and Herodotus may represent a turning point in this separation. After him, the separate designations continued in use until the time of the Romans and to the present in the West. The Romans made a Roman province of Syria with its capital at Antioch under Pompey in 62 B.C. By Byzantine times, the use of the word "Syrian" had expanded such that in writings of western Europe before the Arab conquests the subjects of the entire Byzantine Empire were, at times, called Syrians."

In Parpola's "Assyrian Identity in Ancient Times and Today" Table II (based on Nöldeke 1871) shows how some authors used Assyria(ns) and Syria(ns) as synonyms during the centuries. Parpola has some views on this too, but what does it matter when you dismiss his works as nonsense every time (even though people as Hayim Tadmor, frequently quoted by you, worked together and used many of Parpolas work).

I have a question here too, when Nöldeke is talking about "this nation", isn't he refering to the ancient Arameans, which I guess "Die Namen der aramäischen Nation und Sprache" is about?

I would like to add that the so called "Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis" is nothing but a self-proclaimed scholar. Shmayo (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @Shmayo, As I wrote numerous times, both Rollinger and Bunnens with others considered the terms Syrian and Assyrian as synonyms, initially. They also acknowledge this changed. This change is mentioned in the sources i provided a number of times, including Rollinger.

Actually the views above are NOT controversial , they are the concunsus. It is Richard Frye's views that are controversial and he has been criticized for it in academic works including J.Joseph's.

Richard Frye the Iranialogist that married a modern-Assyrian Eden Nebbi, he has a tenancy to dissect certain bits of information and feed this to the modern-Assyrians as support. Unlike Parpola, Frye has not gone as far as to write that the modern-Assyrians are the descendants of the ancient-Assyrians, he simply throws them a tid-bits here and there to allow the modern-Assyrians to form their own far-fetched conclusions. For example, In Frye's paper "Assyria and Syria: Synonyms":

1) He started "the Assyrians ATTEMPTED to assimulate the Arameans...". However made no mention of the fact that the Assyrians were not successful in their attempt to assimilate the Arameans. Til this day modern-Assyrians incorrectly claim the Assyrians assimilated the Arameans.

2) He writes that the Armenians (not to be confused with Arameans) called the Syriacs, "Asori". But leaves out the part that Armenian word for Assyrian is "Asorestants’i" and hence defining the "Asori" different to "Asorestants’i". Til this day modern-Assyrian incorrectly claim the Armenian word "Asori" means Assyrian.

3) Macrobius, we have already dealt with the issues of the Greek and Roman usage during the Christian period.

4) The Carmelites??? Some obscure tribe in Iran? Your ancestors started calling themselves Suryoye (Syriac) because of centuries of Greek/Roman political, religious and cultural influence. If the Carmelites "One may say that the words were used almost interchangeably", does that define you? Frye is not even committing to it: "One may say". Are the indigenous nations of North America, Indian? No, but the person that called them Indians had a cultural influence and that created an insensitive incorrect synonymity. The Carmelites didn't have a cultural influence, hence no Synonym.

So far as Herodotus is concerned: Yes, Helm identified him as having distinction with the terms Syria and Assyria. This is mentioned in the sources I provided.

Think about it @Shmayo, If Parpola is familiar with Nöldeke's work and still came up with the conclusion "the Arameans stopped calling themselves Arameans", then it is all the more reason why YOU should start dismissing Parpola's works.

Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis is an Associate Professor at the Somali International University (SIU) – Mogadishu Sr 76 (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's not the consensus, it's nothing but your own conclusions. Pro-Aramean Joesph's reply to Frye does not make it controversial. The reason for this publication was, as Frye writes in his reply, "in answer to the assertion that the word Syria was anancient Egyptian word and did not realize the hornets’ nest of modern Assyriandisputes which arose. I do stand by the last sentences of my article, with theadded observation that disputes over the use of the word Syrian/Assyrian remindsone of the disputes by Western Christian theologians in the Middle Ages over thenumber of angels who could dance on a pin point". Here is his reply, if you have not read it already. The above quotes by Frye proves the already obvious, that Syrian and Assyrian have been used as synonyms. The four points above are your own thoughts. And yes, this have changed, a multiple of times too. Frye did describe this too, see the last quote above. Just as Syria(n) refer to something different today. To claim that it was used "exclusively to refer to the Arameans" (which was the switch I was asking for above) is absurd. As Frye wrote: "By Byzantine times, the use of the word "Syrian" had expanded such that in writings of western Europe before the Arab conquests the subjects of the entire Byzantine Empire were, at times, called Syrians". Shmayo (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You're not being realistic, it's like you are arguing for the sake of arguing. I provided 16 references from 8 different academics. You provided 1, with his biases.

Not only do my sources refer to the consensus between one another, that Syriac is a synonym for Aramean.
They also refer to the consensus among ancient Syriac writers that Syriac is a synonym for Aramean.

Further more, from the sources:
- The Greeks derived the name Syriac
- They then applied it exclusively to the people that called themselves Arameans
- Your ancestors knew the Greeks called them Syriacs
- Your ancestors then took this Greek term Syriac and applied to themselves
- Your ancestors continually referred to the Synonymity of the word Syriac and Aramean

Then comes your reference:
- some 1500 years later in the 17th century AD, some little know tribe from Iran called the Carmelites with no influence, MAY have used the term Syriac and Assyrian interchangeably.

Your ancestors took the name Syriac from the Greeks some time in the early centuries of Christianity, NOT the Carmelites in the 17th century AD. So even if Frye is correct, it has nothing to do with you and your ancestors.

If you have a problem with the use of the term "exclusively", that's fine. Because that was only the perspective of the Greeks, the Romans, the Jews, the Syriac Arameans and pretty much everyone else that mattered. You can have the Carmelites in the 17thC A.D. Sr 76 (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Reworked: Just Quotes from academics: