The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> why waste time with scholars.....

why waste time with scholars.....
Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Sunday, September 5 2010, 12:46:53 (UTC)
from *** - *** - Windows NT - Internet Explorer
Website:
Website title:

...when some fellow named "Freed" can enlighten you?

Many scholars confuse the terms Syria and Assyria. To offer to our readers a pertinent refutation of this confusion, which at times has political backing and targets, we re-publish integrally an excellent contribution by a young Aramaean scholar, John (Yuhannun) Messo.

Aramaeans, Syrians, Syriacs, Assyrians or Chaldaeans?

By Prof. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

What is the correct national name of the Modern Aramaeans? Why are there Aramaeans, who despite the fact that they speak Aramaic, insist on calling themselves 'Assyrians'? Why other Aramaeans stick to a third name, 'Chaldaeans'? Is it proper to use the name 'Syriac' that usually describes a late form of Aramaic language and scripture (from which Arabic derived) as national name of the Aramaeans? What is the difference between the Syriacs and the Syrians? And what is the relationship of the Syriacs and the Syrians with the modern 'Assyrians' and the Ancient Assyrians? Are the terms Assyria and Syria identical?

Before tackling key issues of the Middle Eastern puzzle, one is constrained to address all these questions. It will take a series of articles to define terms and make clarifications that are necessary to anyone concerned with, involved or just living in the Middle East. We will specify how some terms were kept alive throughout millennia, and how other terms have been recently revitalized by colonial academia seeking political impact. Before all this, it is necessary to remind everyone that it has been very common throughout History for a people, for a 'nation', to be known to most of the surrounding peoples and countries, or in modern times to the rest of the world, through a name attributed to the people / nation in question by another people. This event does not minimize in any dimension the radiation of that people's culture and civilization. It matters not! At least, it looks like that…..

We all know Finland; few heard that in Finnish Finland is called Suomi! We all say 'Greece'; few are aware that in Greek Greece is called Hellas or Hellada (d to be pronounced as th- in 'there')!

We all name the country of the Nile Delta 'Egypt'; but very few are familiar with the fact that the Egyptians call their own country 'Masr'! And whereas many have learned that the word 'Egypt' originates from the Ancient Greek term 'Aigyptos', only specialists have knowledge of the Ancient Egyptian etymology of the Ancient Greek name (from the term Ha Ka Ptah, which means 'the Abode of the 'Soul' of Ptah', an Ancient Egyptian God localized at Memphis). Not a single Modern Egyptian has a clue about the Assyrian – Babylonian origin of the Arabic name 'Masr' of Egypt; yet for thousands of years the terms Musur and Mat Masri were the usual 'international' appellations of Egypt (since Assyrian – Babylonian was the international language from around 2000 down to 400 BCE)! At those days, the Ancient Egyptians called their country 'Kemet', the 'black one', because of the Nile mud colour which is due to the geological specificities of the Abyssinian silt that is transported by the Blue Nile and the Nile's affluent Atbarah all the way down to the Mediterranean!

Basic Dictionary of Aramaean related appellations

Aramaeans: the real name of the people whose History spans over 3200 years. They were first mentioned in the Annals of the Assyrian Emperor Tiglath-pileser I. As Semitic people, the Aramaeans are closer to the Hebrews and the Phoenicians (North-Western Semitic languages) than to the Assyrians and the Babylonians (Eastern Semitic languages).

Assyrians: along with the Babylonians, they are the descendants of the Accadians, the earliest Semites who settled around Agade (Accad) and prevailed over the Sumerians, forming a large empire under Sarrukin (Sargon I) and Naram Sin around the middle of the 3rd millennium BCE. Contrarily to the Babylonians, the Assyrians had a policy of national - ethnic purity, and did not intermingle with the Aramaeans, whom they pushed away to the West (today's Western Syria) and to the Mesopotamian South (Babylonia). At the moments of its greatest power, under the Sargonids (722 – 609), Assyria controlled almost all the then known world, but the Assyrians were a tiny and ethnically pure minority within their Empire. With the collapse of Assyria (614 – 612 – 609 BCE), Assyrian ceased to be written and spoken, and no Assyrians were found anywhere in the Middle East. According to a new interpretation that gets momentum, they constituted part of the migrations from the Caucasus area to Europe (Cimmerians).

Assyria: the land belonged, as the people and the capital city did, to the Supreme God Assur, usually viewed as the Only God within monotheistic context. Assyria corresponds geographically to modern Northern Iraq, Eastern Syria, and parts of SE Turkey: this was the Assyrian nucleus, the area that was populated by Assyrians from 2150 to 620-610 BCE. When Assyria subdued the Neo-Hittites, the Urartus, the Phoenicians, the Babylonians, the Medes and other peoples in Iran, the Elamites, the Israelites and the Egyptians, Assyria – center was a small, central, part of the Assyrian Empire.

Chaldaeans: named 'Kaldu' in Assyrian – Babylonian texts, they are one of the Aramaean peoples. They intermingled extensively with the Babylonians, who finally - in later times - got assimilated with them, and were even called 'Chaldaeans' – mistakenly.

Syriacs: the modern scholarly term is formed in order to provide the corresponding term of the Ancient Greek name 'Syros' and in sheer distinction from the Syrians. Within Ancient Greek literary context, 'Syros' is the inhabitant of 'Syria', and this was the usual way for the Greeks to call the Aramaeans.

Syrians: the inhabitants of the modern state of Syria, who speak Arabic in their majority, because of the linguistic arabization that followed the gradual process of islamization.

Syria: the geographic term in Ancient Greek exists as shortening ('apokope') of the term 'Assyria'. It exists in Ancient Greek only after Assyria ceased to exist (609 BCE). It does not correspond to the term 'Assyria' in any sense. 'Syria' relates to the former Assyrian Imperial lands in the West of Mesopotamia up to the Phoenician Mediterranean coast. After being a mere geographical term that did not relate to the Mesopotamian Center – land Assyria, Syria became the Greek name of the Hellenistic kingdom that had its capital at Antioch (Antakya in Turkey). Syria as geographical term gave birth to the term 'Syros' for the native inhabitant of 'Syria' that happened to be the Aramaeans.

Many scholars confuse the terms Syria and Assyria. To offer to our readers a pertinent refutation of this confusion, which at times has political backing and targets, we re-publish integrally (along with the footnotes) an excellent contribution by a young Aramaean scholar, John (Yuhannun) Messo. The text has already been published: http://members.home.nl/midyad/

Assyria and Syria: Synonyms?*
J. Messo (2001)

1. Introduction

In 1992 there was an article published by Dr. R.N. Frye in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies (JNES, vol.51, n. 4, pp.281-285). Several years later the same article was reprinted in the Journal of the Assyrian Academic Studies (JAAS 1997, vol.11, n.2, pp.30-36) inclusive a postscript added by the same author. On April 24th 1999 the author had the honor to lecture about the subject of the published article in the JNES and in the JAAS. The article and the lecture were titled "Assyria and Syria: Synonyms".[1]

The article, respectively the title of the paper, presents a misleading, superficial and simplistic conclusion. For it appears that the author (consciously) has omitted some substantial facts in his short article. Some elements presented by the author in the paper are favored and championed within the nationalistic spheres of Syriacs who claim to be the direct descendants of the ancient Assyrians. They have sadly enough also made inroads into the general public consciousness today. The author himself claimed not to be "interested in the modern political questions which are an entirely different subject" (JAAS 1997: p. 36 of his postscript) when he wrote his article in 1992. In his reply to John Joseph in 1999 he said that he wrote his article, i.e. in the JNES 1992, "in answer to the assertion that the word Syria was an ancient Egyptian word" (JAAS 1999: 70). If this indeed would be the case, I don’t think Professor Joseph would have written a reply to his article, neither would I. Frye continues his words and says that he "did not realize the hornets’ nest of modern Assyrian disputes which arose." I actually doubt about whether or not he did realize that his paper would arouse this kind of effect. I personally believe that it is a lack of respect towards the readers when one omits facts. And I’m very sure that he must have known these untold facts, which would play a crucial role in the (spread of the) message of his paper and in the conclusion itself, as we will see.

Unfortunately, the author did only highlight some theories and omitted very important facts. Doing so, he pictured the story with the colors he preferred to use. The need of writing an article that would fill the gap of facts, which were for some peculiar reasons not mentioned in this article, has grown since recently when I noticed several attacks on Syriac people that do not believe in the mythology of Syriacs having (pure) Assyrian descent. Arguments presented by Frye are oftentimes (mis)used and proclaimed by and among (ill informed) Syriacs who, ignorantly, view themselves as ‘modern Assyrians’. My intention therefore is to provide the readers, and the persons who might get confronted with pro-Assyrian arguments in the future, such as described in Frye’s article, with solid information to refute such theories. For they can indeed be deceitful sometimes and they picture nothing but half of the whole truth.

2. General remarks concerning the article of Dr. Frye

While reading the article of Prof. Frye or other articles regarding the etymology of the word ‘Syria(n)’, the reader should consider the following observations: "Confusion has existed between the two similar words ‘Syria’ and ‘Assyria’ throughout history almost down to our own day" (Frye, 1992: 281). The title of Frye’s essay is naturally already the conclusion of the article. Note that this very difficult subject, which indeed has caused a lot of confusion even down to "our own day," is treated in nearly four or five pages. And as one may conclude from Frye’s observations, he has not given a full account regarding the origin of the word ‘Syria’ at all; neither did he, as he claimed to, tackled or, at least, focused himself on the refutation of the theory of J.A. Tvedtnes,[2] but rather on other aspects.

After I read the article of Frye, it really made me doubting if he has any knowledge about the scope of Syriac literature or that he purposely did not mention some well-known facts. For these facts would surely have contradicted his own conclusion, as will be seen. I hope the following points will support my statements regarding Frye.

a) He must have followed someone else’s transcription blindly, because he transcribed the quotation of a West-Syriac Church Father (i.e. Mor Michael, d.1199) as follows: "the names of peoples who possessed writing, among them are ’twry’ d hywn swryy’." (1992: 284) While it rather should be ’twry’ d-hnwn swryy’. Cf. the Syriac text (p.17) of the – French! – edition he quoted from.[3]

b) Frye should have known that he could not conclude from the quotation above from the chronicle of a 12th century writer, with all due respect to St./Mor Michael, the following: "This book by a learned native speaker shows the continuous equating of the terms ‘Syrian’ and ‘Assyrian’ for many Eastern Christians" (1992: 284). If he knew a little more about Syriac/Aramaic literature, he would have known that one definitely can not find a "continuous equating of the terms Syrian and Assyrian for many Eastern Christians," (at least not in the scope of Syriac literature,) but rather a continuous awareness of equating the term ‘Syrian’ with ‘Aramean’.[4] In fact, if there really would be a "continuous equating…for many Eastern Christians," then why did he merely quote three words? In other words, he quoted but one quotation from the whole of the scope of Eastern Christian literature in his article; the scope of Syriac literature itself consists out of more than hundreds of thousands pages!

c) Finally, he should have studied the context of the passage in the book he cites first, because his conclusion shows to be rather his own weak interpretation of one unstudied verse in a chronicle of at least 500 pages (assuming that the author has indeed read the verse itself and studied its context, instead of literally copying it from someone else). Furthermore, he probably has not read other verses of the same Syriac author he quoted. These attest clearly to an Aramean descent for the Syriac people; see the pages 7 and 748, to mention a few, of the Syriac Chabot-edition. If he was aware of this fact, I wonder why he ‘forgot’ to mention these pages also, because what is said by Mor Michael in these pages would surely contradict his conclusion. So the simple information I just added in this section, affirms that in "This book by a learned native speaker shows the continuous equating of the terms ‘Syrian’ and ‘Assyrian’" is not true at all.[5]

These are indeed very expensive mistakes, which someone who dares to write something about a difficult and delicate subject, cannot permit himself to make.

Interesting to ask Frye at the lecture would be: What about those Syriac Fathers who called themselves and their people Arameans (even before the 13th century!)? For in the article we do not find the author writing anything about any Aramean descent of the Syriacs whatsoever, while there are plenty of early Syriac sources for proving this. And, this can be indisputably claimed for the Syriac Fathers, the words ‘Syria(n)’ and ‘Assyria(n)’ were not synonyms, but rather the words ‘Syria(n)’ and ‘Aram(ean)’ were regarded as equivalents!

3. The etymology of the word ‘Syria(n)’

The etymological study is mainly important for the derivation of a word. We can not deal with our subject without the tool of the philology. Now, Frye’s article started with rejecting one of the at least seven theories I am aware of. However, this paper does not allow us to give a full account here concerning the origin of the word ‘Syria,’ hence in another essay, which still awaits a final completion, I’ve paid more attention to this issue and especially to the sacred theory (among ‘Assyrians’, that is) that ‘Syria’ is said to be derived from ‘Assyria’.[6]

Let me now shortly introduce the reader with the following aspects that should be kept in mind while reading the article or when dealing with such arguments advocated by Frye. In Frye’s essay we understand that the word ‘Syria’ can be traced back to the word ‘Assyria’. It cannot be emphasized enough that the reader has to remember that the etymology of the word ‘Syria(n)’ consists out of many theories. That’s why we also could read the remark in the first two lines in Frye’s article, because this issue is truly very complex and has caused a lot of confusion up to modern days. It is also important to know that the people who invented this theory were often misinterpreted (mostly by Assyrian nationalists).[7] Finally, there are also other plausible theories which trace the term ‘Syria(n)’ back to another origin than the word ‘Assyria(n)’.[8]

Some of the biggest mistakes:

Frye’s argumentation is as follows. Since the word ‘Syria(n)’ is derived from ‘Assyria(n)’, it is accordingly logical to him to suggest that also the people of today can be called ‘Assyrians’ – albeit some 2500 years that no people was known by this name –, which is in his eyes synonymous with ‘Syrians’. But note that a word can loose its meaning and acquire a new one through time due to, inter alia, the historical, cultural, social and political settings. Or, in Heinrichs’s words, "the basic identity of the names does not necessarily imply the identity of the people(s) named by them."[9] So this is a wrong presupposition of Frye, especially when he even tries to back it up with some quotations of Greek and Roman authors who allegedly had written these words interchangeably. One simply can not rely on the Greeks and the Romans in our case, because they rather out of confusion used these two words sometimes interchangeably (read further). In the JNES (1992) and in the JAAS (1999) Frye quoted the Greek historian Herodotus (fifth century B.C.; Her. 7.63) as his main source concluding, very naive though, that the current Syriacs must be (the descendants of the ancient) Assyrians.

Now, as for Herodotus’s quotation (7.63): "These people (Assyrians) were called Syrians by the Greeks, the name for them elsewhere being Assyrian" (JAAS, 1999), Macan explains us regarding the very same citation quoted by Frye that "under this term [Assyrioi, the Assyrians] Hdt. may here intend to include (a) Assyrians properly so called, (b) Babylonians, and dwellers in Mesopotamia generally, (c) Syrians (Aramaeans) properly so called [sic]."[10] And according to van Groningen the meaning of "Assyrios, Assyrion" has to be understood in first place in the general meaning of "Mesopotamians" (Cf. Hdt. 6.1. Syrion), and then, secondly, in the special meaning of "Assyrians."[11] The last conclusion one may draw from the above quotation of Herodotus, is to equate the modern Syriacs with the ancient Assyrians.

Another factor is that even though it seems plausible to state that ‘Syria’ is an abridged form of ‘Assyria’, the reader should also bear in mind the following notes. In Greek the development would be something like: Assyrioi > Syrioi. In English, for example, Assyria(n) and Syria(n) also resemble each other and one may readily agree that the words indeed are related to each other in such a way that one (i.e. Syria) would have been derived from the other (i.e. Assyria), whether this is historically correct or not. Also in many other languages such as Armenian, French, German, etc. this hypothetical development seems very reasonable due to the resemblance of the words. The reader should, however, pay attention very well to the simple fact that this development can not be maintained in the Aramaic or Hebrew language.[12]

4. The Article itself and some other noteworthy aspects

Again (cf. n. 3) I would like to ask the reader to look at Table 1 of the article. Frye’s paper attempted to prove that ‘Syria’ is derived from ‘Assyria’. After the writer comes to the conclusion that the word Syrian is developed from Assyrian – hence they are to be treated as synonyms in his assumptions – he amazingly enough also asserts that the people who previously were known as Assyrians, can be considered as the forebears of the modern Syriac (Aramean) people. In other words, the author applies the shift of the word-development also to the people its identity, that is to say, the Assyrians were about to be called ‘Syriacs’ (the shortened form for ‘Assyrians’).

I hope the reader still remembers the quotation "This book by a learned native speaker shows the continuous equating of the terms ‘Syrian’ and ‘Assyrian’ for many Eastern Christians." Like I’ve mentioned before, if this was true, then why didn’t Dr. Fye quote more examples from the scope of Syriac literature? But again here raises another interesting question.

If the ‘Syrians’ in accordance with "many Eastern Christians" would understand not only the words, but also the Syrian and the Assyrian people to be one and the same, then why did they call the "Mesopotamian area" in the Early Christian period "Beth Aramaye" (i.e. house or land of the Aramaeans!) and not ‘Beth At(h)uraye’ or perhaps even ‘Beth Sur(y)aye’ for example? Nevertheless, Frye is of the opinion that the Syrians are the descendants of the Assyrians based on a theory that claims that the term ‘Syria’ was probably derived from ‘Assyria’ a few millennia ago. Adding to this a few Greek classical writers (see also below) who regarded the words Syrian and Assyrian as synonyms, even in the early Christian era.

The "Assyrian script" (Cf. p.282 and his eighth footnote)

Professor Frye wrote further that "The use of the term ‘Assyrian’ for the Aramaic language and alphabet is even found as late as the 6th century of our era…" (282). Of course this is another area of the discussion, which we will not enter here (even though much can be said about this too). The article of R.C. Steiner and his cited literature sheds more light on this issue. Let us, nevertheless, quote some of his words. "The Egyptians were far enough away and insular enough not to feel the need to distinguish Aram from Assyria." How come? Steiner continues that this phenomenon "may well have been introduced in the sixth century [B.C.] by Egyptians who had not the foggiest notion when the Aramaic script first received official status in Mesopotamia." Steiner concludes that "it was the Egyptians who first applied the name of Assyria to Aram and the term ‘Assyrian script’ to the Aramaic script."[13] So in the same way it is also here that ignorance made people calling the Aramaic script – but not the Aramaic language (Joseph 1997: 43; emphasis Joseph’s) – incorrectly ‘Assyrian script’.

The Greeks and the Syriac/Aramaic people[14]

As we have seen above, not only was the "Aramaic language and alphabet" (JNES, Frye: 282) – script or characters, to be more precisely – mistakenly called ‘Assyrian’ by some, but due to confusion the same happened among "at least some people in the East" (283) who erroneously used the terms ‘Syria’ and ‘Assyria’ interchangeably.

In fact, "Die Griechen haben den Namen ‘Aramäer’ nie eigentlicht gekannt [except, for example, Strabo (born c. 63 B.C.), who in all probability followed Posidonius (born c. 150 B.C.), and Josephus (c. 90 A.D.), Nöldeke notifies us]…Die Griechen nannten das Volk ‘Syrer’."[15] Accordingly, and very interestingly though, Frye himself wrote in his JNES article on p.282: "The Greeks never [as I’ve shown above, some actually did knew the ‘Aramaeans’, like Frye admits several years later, see below] use the term ‘Aramaic’ or ‘Aramaean’ but only ‘Syrian’ (sic), while the ancient Hebrews did use the word Aram for Syria"!

Remarkable also are his words from 1992, because in 1999 we find him substituting very strikingly the above quoted sentence for the following verses. "The Hebrews used the word Aram for the present country of Syria, but the Greeks only used for that land the designation Syria, although, according to Strabo and other authors, they knew that Aramaeans, or people speaking Aramaic dialects, lived all over the ‘Fertile Crescent’ as well as in Cappadocia and elsewhere" (italics added by J.M.).

So not all the Greeks were familiar with the Aramaeans, and especially not the early ones. That’s why the Greeks, as well as the Romans later, often confused the Arameans (which they called ‘Syrians’; the exact reasons why they called them Syrians and why the term Syrians was in first place called into life, remains obscure to me) with the Assyrians.

Hence it is ironically, but yet contradictory, that Frye even admitted that "The Greeks never use the term ‘Aramaic’ or ‘Aramaean’ but only ‘Syrian’" (JNES, 1992: 282; cp. also his eighth footnote)! Having stated this, how can he conclude that the Syriacs, be it either in ancient times or in modern times, are ‘Assyrians’ if he himself expressed in 1992 that the Greeks knew the Aramaeans under the name Syrians?

Self perception of the Syriacs through the ages

Another remark is the following. Frye asked himself and the readers a very good question in his article, but he unfortunately did not answer it correctly. "What did the Neo-Syrian Aramaic-speaking Christians in the Near East call themselves in the Middle Ages?" (283) One thing is for sure, the Syriacs never called themselves ‘Assyrians’ in the sense of being racial descendants of the ancient Assyrians before the upcoming nationalism that was brought into the Middle East in the 19th century by Westerners. If one reads the early stories of the travelers of Mesopotamia or the writings of the early Christian missionaries in the 19th century and earlier, it becomes clear that the Syriacs (both Eastern and Western Syriacs) simply referred to themselves as ‘Suryaye/Suryoye’ (i.e. Syriacs) or ‘Suraye’ (some tribes among the East-Syriacs use this as a self-reference; in ‘Turoyo’, a modern Aramaic dialect of the Syriac-Orthodox, ‘Suroyo’ simply means ‘Christian’). According to Bar Salibi, a 12th century Syriac Father "we [i.e., Syriacs/Suryoye] are also called sometimes in the books by the name of Aramaeans [Oromoye]"![16]

‘Assyrians’ only those from Iraq and Iran?

The article reads as if all Syrians (except the Syrian Arabs, of course. For many Assyrian nationalists don’t accept nor support this) are the descendants of the ancient Assyrians. But yet Frye writes that "Some of those speakers of Neo-Syriac who live or lived in present-day Iraq or Iran prefer to call themselves Assyrians to distinguish themselves from the inhabitants of present-day Syria. They are not wrong in this designation or in claiming descent from the ancient Assyrians…" (284).

Note that "present-day Iraq or Iran" is not Turkey or Syria. So this does not correspond to the areas of modern Southeastern Turkey (Tur-‘Abdin and surroundings) and especially not to the Turkish-Syrian frontier (Edessa, Nisibin, etc.), where many West-Syriacs come from.

Finally, another question comes to mind in this context. Why didn’t he also quote an East-Syriac writer (!) to support his statement that there was a "continuous equating of the terms ‘Syrian’ and ‘Assyrian’ for many Eastern Christian" (284)? It would not ‘harm’ the article if he would have added at least one quotation extra of an East-Syriac writer, instead of only one West-Syriac Father (who is even misrepresented), would it?

Armenians and the ‘Asori’[17]

Furthermore, he wrote about the Armenians who call(ed) the classical Syriac language "the Asori language," which leads him to the conclusion that "The general terms ‘Assyrian’ and ‘Syrian’ were regarded as synonyms not only in early times" (283). In fact, ‘Asori’ does not mean ‘Assyrian, as Frye indicates, but simply ‘Syrian’.[18] Assyrian, on the other hand, means in Armenian "Asorestants’i" (Joseph 1997: 39). Last year, Dr. Joseph was still of the opinion that the "Armenian name Asori referred to the people of geographical Syria, the Aramaeans; it was the name of Aramaeans wherever they were found."[19] In other words, Arameans in the regions outside the borders of geographical Syria were also called Asori, which had (and still has) no direct implications that Syriacs are ‘Assyrians’, only because they were called ‘Asori’(i.e. Syrian) by the Armenians, their neighbours in Southeastern Turkey and Persia.

5. Conclusion

Dr. Frye began his article with objecting to a theory that tried to trace back the origins of the word ‘Syria’ (281). Then, unexpectedly, he jumps to all kinds of seeming ‘facts’ to prove an Assyrian descent for the modern Syriac people based on the hypothesis that the names ‘Syria’ and ‘Assyria’ were viewed as synonyms through time. In his short article of nearly five pages Frye has entered the ‘name-issue’ discussed by Syriacs and asserted after a few ‘evidences’, taken out of their context however, that the words ‘Syria’ and ‘Assyria’ have to be treated synonymously. In addition, he was able to quote (misrepresented as he is) but one West-Syriac church Father. Frye therefore touches a delicate subject and draws, finally, a dangerous conclusion in a pretty short article. The content of Frye’s article is thus nothing but misleading for the (ill informed) reader; he omitted more than half of the known facts.

I am fully aware that I only have tackled some arguments of the writer of the article "Assyria and Syria: Synonyms." The reader by now, hopefully, will be aware of omission of facts in the article and also of an area approached by Frye which is obviously not his field (i.e. Syriac/Aramaic studies). As indicated before, I seriously doubt his earlier quoted words where he asserted that he was not "interested in the modern political questions which are an entirely different subject." Most of the arguments I had to refute in this article had actually nothing to do with the etymology of the word ‘Syria’, but rather with deceiving arguments that can be used by Syriac nationalists who claim to be, inappropriately, Assyrians.

Finally, I hope the reader fully agrees with me by adding a question mark at the end of the title of the article of Frye (Assyria and Syria: Synonyms?). In other words, the title is changed from a conclusion to a theory that underlies a possible truth of that theory. Again I would like to recall the reader at the simple opening words of the author, to which I finally do agree with for the most part. "Confusion has existed between the two similar words ‘Syria’ and ‘Assyria’ throughout history almost down to our own day." I also fully agree when Frye concludes his article with: "history is more the record of what people believe than the mere recording of events."[20] Last, but certainly not least, I totally agree with Joseph (JAAS, 1997: 43) when he concludes that "There would have been no contradictions if Professor Frye had used Aramean and Syrian [italics Joseph] as synonyms, a usage that started over 2,000 years ago."

* This article was published in Bahro Suryoyo, No. 1-3 (2001). However, some adaptations have been made to this Internet version after a recent scan.

[1] After I’d written this article, a friend referred me to an article written by Professor John Joseph who had also written a reply to Professor Frye; ironically enough, Dr. Joseph’s article carried exactly the same title as this paper. Frye then on his turn responded at Prof. Joseph in the JAAS vol. 13, n.1, 1999 and as far as I know, Prof. Joseph did not reply to Frye again. In fact, there was no need for doing so, because he already refuted Frye’s article in a well scholarly manner and tackled – besides Frye’s two conclusions (JNES, 1992: 284), where Joseph focused himself on – some of his crucial arguments I mainly focused on in this article. While I was not aware of John Joseph’s reply, most aspects and conclusions overlap each other sometimes, even though both of us use different sources in a few cases. Finally, I’ve integrated a few of Joseph’s own remarks in this paper.

[2] John A. Tvedtnes, "The origin of the Name ‘Syria’", in JNES (1981), Vol. 40, 139-140.

[3] Cf. also his Table 1 where we read incorrectly "‘abr hhr’" while it should be "‘br nhrh" (cf. The Bible book Ezra 4:10 for example).

[4] See for this aspect, my "The voice of the Syriac Fathers: a denied and forgotten aspect." It is not published yet, and hence I hope to subdue it sooner or later to a revision for a future publication.

[5] I cannot fully agree with Prof. Joseph (JAAS 1997: 40) his explanation of the sentence of Mor Michael, which was wrongly transcribed by Frye. I’ve studied this passage of Mor Michael and hopefully time allows me to publish an article about this in the future. [Note added in 2003: this passage is elaborately discussed by D. Weltecke, Die "Beschreibung der Zeiten" von Mor Michael dem Grossen (1126-1199): eine Studie zu ihrem historischen und historiographiegeschichtlichen Kontext (Louvain: Peeters, 2003), 222-232.]

[6] "The origin of the word ‘Syria’: the hypothetical derivation from the word ‘Assyria’."

[7] For example, the works of the great Prof. Th. Nöldeke, one of the early advocates of this theory – he lived in the 19th and early 20th century – who also traced the word ‘Syria’ back to ‘Assyria’, are often misused. Read, for example, his whole article "Assyrios Syrios Syros" in Zeitschrift für Classische Philologie, Hermes 5, (Berlin, 1871). This essay ends with the words that "Seit Alexander [the Great, i.e. 331-330 B.C.], wenn nicht schon früher, hat man angefangen, den Namen der Syrer [Sur(y)aye/Suryoye in Aramaic] auf die in Συρία [Syria] vorherrschende Nationalität allein zu übertragen, und so ist dieser ursprünglich politisch-geographische Begriff zu einem ethnologischen geworden, der sich met dem einheimischen ‘Aramäer’ deckte [sic]." So basically, he ends his article saying that in earlier times the word ‘Syrian’ had a "political-geographical" meaning, whilst in later times (from approx. 330 B.C. onwards, if not earlier, according to Nöldeke) the ‘Aramaeans’ were called "ethnically" ‘Syrians’.

[8] For further study concerning the etymology of the word ‘Syria’, see for instance A. Sauma "The origin of the Word Suryoyo-Syrian," in The Harp Vol. VI, No. 3 (1993), pp. 171-197. Cf. also n. 6.

[9] W. Heinrichs: ‘The modern Assyrians – Name and Nation’, in: R. Contini, F.A. Pennachietti, M. Tosco (eds.), Semitica. Serta Philologica C. Tsereteli dicata (Torino, 1993) 103.

[10] R.W. Macan, Herodotus, the seventh, eighth & ninth books with introduction, text, apparatus, commentary, appendices, indices, maps (Macmillan and co., 1908), 87.

[11] B.A. van Groningen, Herodotus Commentaar [Herodotus Commentary], boek [book] 1-9 (1946), 58 on Hdt. I 102.2. Cf. also Hdt. I 131.3 where Herodotus calls the Babylonians mistakenly ‘Assyrians’.

[12] Cf. Heinrichs (1993), 102 ff. On p. 103 Heinrichs describes, for example, how Mor Tuma Awdo (1853-1918), the famous dictionary writer (since 1892 the Chaldean Archbishop of Urmia, Iran) "suggested that one should return to the ‘original’ name Ātōrāyē to replace Sūryāyē (Surāyē)." Naturally this idea was welcomed and favoured among the Assyrian nationalists. The issue whether or not this bishop had proposed this theory, is complex too. As a matter of fact, we are solely dependent on a secondary source (produced by an ‘Assyrian’ nationalist after Mor Tuma’s death, which therefore questions its reliability). The bishop himself left us nothing concrete in this context besides the simple fact, however, that in his dictionary we find him clearly stating – in agreement with the former scholars – that the Syriacs are Arameans; see his introduction and under "Syriac."

[13] Cf. R.C. Steiner, "Why the Aramaic script was called ‘Assyrian’ in Hebrew, Greek, and Demotic", in Orientalia (Rome: Pontificium institutum biblicium), (1989) 62, pp. 80-82.

[14] Cf. Joseph (JAAS, 1997: 37-39) where he used other sources, but yet both of us draw the same conclusions!

[15] Prof. Th. Nöldeke, "Die Namen der aramäischen Nation und Sprache", in ZDMG, p.115. Tr.: "The Greeks have actually never known the name ‘Aramaeans’…The Greek called the people [i.e. Arameans] ‘Syrians’"!

[16] A. Mingana, The work of Dionysius Bar Salibi against the Armenians, in Woodbrooke Studies, Vol.4, (Cambridge, 1931) p. 54.

[17] Cp. also Joseph in JAAS (1997), pp. 39-40.

[18] Compare for this J. Joseph, The Nestorians and their Muslim Neighbours (Princeton 1961), 15. Also consult the three Armenian (etymological) dictionaries (p. 15, n.53) – or any Armenian dictionary whatsoever – mentioned by Prof. Joseph. Cf. also Heinrichs, 107.

[19] J. Joseph, The Modern Assyrians of the Middle East Encounters with Western Christian Missions, Archaeologists, & Colonial Powers (Leiden: Brill, 2000), p. 20, n.69.

[20] See n. 4. This is actually what my article is all about, i.e. the self-consciousness of the Syriacs through the ages, which was certainly not Assyrian, but rather Aramean.



---------------------


The full topic:



***



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9