Jump to content

Talk:Assyrian continuity/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Bias in Article

This is particularly for the attention of Monochrome Monitor (talk) regarding bias in the article. Certainly, there are more references in support of continuity than against, and I for one have No Objection to critics of continuity being referenced here. However, the intro to the article simply cannot be hogged by the opinion of John Joseph, and that opinion quoted as FACT, that in itself is bias, and a misrepresentation. It is simply not the case that the accepted position is that Assyrian continuity is non existent and only a 19th century creation, it is merely an opinion held by John Joseph, so stating this in the intro is utterly wrong, both in terms of accuracy and balance, and also because Joseph appears to have no accredited expertise or academic qualifications pertaining to the subject.

The intro to the article should, in the interest of fairness and balance, simply mention some of those for, against and indeed ambivalent. The opinions of Joseph, Parpola, Saggs, Fiey and others should then be mentioned in a little more detail (with references) in the relevant section of the page, for example in Historical Opinion.

More generally, the problem for those arguing against continuity is that pretty much all of the academics mentioned as being against are just that, generic academicians or theologians, sociologists and politicians, I myself even added the name of an against Sociologist quoted by Monochrome today, even though as such, he has no specialist knowledge on the subject whatsoever, in fact, his Wiki page states he lectures on Arab Cuisine! .

None of the against referenced academics are specialists upon the subject, none are Assyriologists, Iranologists, Professors of Ancient History, Orientalists, Archaeologists, Archaeogeneticists, Geneticists, Anthropologists or Linguists.

Yes, some of those for continuity referenced in the article are themselves of the same ilk, but more importantly, there are many recognised experts in the field quoted who do support continuity. Writers such as Saggs, Parpola, Brinkman, Frye etc, as specialists and experts in matters Assyrian, will naturally hold more weight than Joseph, Fiey, and indeed than pro-continuity writers such as Wigram and Soane. There is also a degree of support from accredited Anthropologists, Linguists and Geneticists.

John Joseph is certainly not an Assyriologist, he is not an Iranologist, not an Orientalist, not a Classicist, not Archaeologist, not a Geneticist, not an Anthropologist, not an Archaeogeneticist, not a Linguist, he is (according to his own Wiki page) an educator, as actually is Adam H. Becker. Fiey and Wilmshurst are theologians (and Wilmshurst a rather obscure one at that), not Assyriologists or Anthropologists. So,it is plainly wrong to give undue weight to John Joseph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.25.101 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

As Florian Blaschke (talk) put it on this page a couple of years ago, many of he arguments against Assyrian continuity are pretty weak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.25.101 (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Adam Becker is a professor of (among other things) Syriac studies. Fiey is not a theologian. He's a Syriacist as well church historian, particularly a historian of the Church of the East. As his wikipedia page notes he was "considered an undisputed authority on the historical geography of Syriac Christians". Wilmhurst is not an "obscure theologian". -He's a classicist and an Orientalist (like Saggs) and a scholar of the Church of the East. He can read Syriac. (scratch that he's way more credible than Saggs) All of the aforementioned study the history of Syriac Christians in particular. Your most ridiculous claim is that Jon Joseph is irrelevant. Firstly, he's an "Assyrian" himself. Secondly, he's a Professor Emeritus of History and has a PHD in Middle Eastern History from Princeton. Thirdly, his magnum opis "Modern Assyrians" is itself a classic, and the primary reason why scholars today reject Assyrianism.

Meanwhile, Frye is an Iranologist. He does not specialize in anything Syriac or Assyrian. The only people you mention that are scholars of relevant fields are John Brinkman, a Mesopotamian studies specialist, and Parpola, an Assyriologist. Neither are syriacists, but they do have authority. Except Parpola happens to be a joke when it comes to this specific issue. He calls the ancient persians Assyrian and claims Assyrians are the source of Greek philosophy and Jewish monotheism. All wrong. And I have not found a single reliable source giving the Brinkman quote. The current link is dead, and a google search reveals that the terms are only found in mirrors of wikipedia and assyrian nationalist groups.

The fact is the majority opinion is against continuity. Do you have a source after saying that most people agree with continuity? I have multiple sources saying most scholars dismiss it.--Monochrome_Monitor 04:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Also I can ping too.@Dbachmann:--Monochrome_Monitor 05:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Monochrome_Monitor Fiey is indeed a theologian, his field of study is Syriac Christianity, just like Philip Hitti who disagrees with his points. Becker is a generic academician too, and Syriac Studies is usually a generic a term for Syriac Christianity, though I can find nothing on Becker that puts him in the field of Assyriology, Iranology, Ancient History or Orientalism.

Please refer to what Syriac Studies actually is; An Introduction to Syriac Studies Sebastian P. Brock - second edition 2006, primarily Syriac Christianity, which is of course a branch of Theology.

Joseph has a degree, in all honesty, so what? So do I in that very field of study, that may make me more of an expert than some, but not more than accredited and eminent specialists in the field like Saggs, Frye, Parpola, Brinkman, Crome, MacDonald, Cook etc etc. Joseph is not an Assyriologist, Iranologist, Anthropologist, Archaeologist, Linguist, Geneticist or Archeogenetecist.

As for Frye, yes he does have great knowledge regarding Assyria, you do realise I hope that Assyriology and Iranology overlap, and to be an expert in one usually means you have an excellent knowledge of the other? A case in point regarding Frye vs Joseph is that Frye has been proven correct and John proven very wrong indeed regarding the Etymology of Syria. It was one of Joseph's central planks; his erroneous assertion that Syria/Syriac did not derive from Assyria/Assyrian and thus the term Syria and its derivations being used to describe Assyrians detracted from continuity claims. We know for sure that Joseph was utterly wrong on this and that Syria derives from Assyria; historically, etymologically and geographically. Not surprising, since Frye is a proven academic heavyweight, and Joseph is not.

Joseph has a degree and is from an Assyrian community, which by the way, so are many proponents of Assyrian continuity. You simply cannot use Joseph's ethnicity as having significance without attributing the same significance to Assyrians who do support continuity.

To argue Wilmshurst is 'way more relevant' than Saggs is utterly risible, and you know it! Wilmshurst is NOT a Classicist he is a (compared to Saggs, obscure) theologian who has one or two works published in the narrow field of Syriac Christianity (read Theology). In any event, Assyriology is far more relevant than Classical Studies on this issue, Classical Studies usually means the study of Classical Greece and Rome, not particularly relevant here.

Regarding Parpola, whatever YOU may think of him, he is an accredited and eminent expert in the field. As for his opinions on Monotheism, well, it is a well supported argument that monotheistic beliefs sprung from earlier polytheist belief systems, the influence is actually pretty clear on that. So trying to tear down Parpola for supporting such common and credible ideas is rather pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.25.101 (talk) 10:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Monochrome Monitor (talk) ....Seriously? You cant be SERIOUSLY trying to put someone called D Wilmshurs up there with W Saggs and co, not just up there but more relevant??? John Joseph? No way does he equate to Frye, that's ridiculous! He is more on the level of relevance with Mordechai Nisan or Fred Aprim. You are on a loser here, your PPOV is clouding your judgement, badly!

Fred Aprim is a nobody. His pathetic table "proving" continuity is one of the saddest things I've ever seen. But I'll stop scoffing. A good way of determining how impactful an author is is how many times they are cited. Joseph's nestorians and their muslim neighbors is cited a total of 96 times, and some of the works its cited by are cited thousands of times. His Modern Assyrians of the Middle East is cited 53 times, Frye's syria and assyria: synonyms is cited 42 times. Aprim's entire body of work is cited 20 times. JF Coakley's entire body of work is cited 255+ times (I stopped counting after the 4th page) Wilmshurst's body of work is cited 37 times on the first page (too lazy to check others), which isn't much but is much more than aprim. Assyriology and Iranology are different disciplines. Syriac studies is not theology. Its the history of the syriac church, the syriac language, syriac culture, and syriac people. Of course it's believed that monotheism stems from polytheism, but polytheism in this case is not assyrian polytheism, it is canaanite polytheism. Saggs has a nice amount of citations but he does not support continuity in the way the majority of people cited here support it. He's very moderate. As for parpola he's an eminent assyriologist and akkadian linguist scholar and is cited on ancient assyrian history, but his work on modern assyrians is fringe. His main work on the subject, Assyrians After Assyria, is cited 12 times- far less than the nestorians and their muslim neighbors.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Monochrome_Monitor Citations on Wikipedia are an utter red herring, simply because contributors can cite the same person over and over, sometimes citing the very same passage repeatedly. To suggest more Wiki citations is proof that the author of said citations is more relevant or qualified than an author who has less Wiki citations is naive at best.

Joseph could be cited a thousand times, but it still would not make him an Assyriologist, Archaeologist, Anthropologist or Ancient Historian, because he simply is not. A clue to his field of knowledge is in his book The Nestorians and their Muslim Neighbours......'Nestorian, an extinct religious denomination, Muslim, a follower of Islam. Joseph's field of interest and knowledge is theology, not ancient history, anthropology, archaeology, Assyriology or genetics. Joseph argued vociferously that Syria did not derive from Assyrian, and that because (or so he wrongly thought) it did not, it meant those called Syriacs, East Syrians and the like in northern Mesopotamia and its surrounds were not Assyrians. The proof, evidence and overwhelming weight of scholarly opinion on that matter goes firmly against Joseph, and without that, he really does not have much of an argument.

As for the Arab Sociologist you embedded with Joseph's reference? I gave him a separate entry in the Against continuity camp, in order to present a bit of balance. But in all honesty, the man is a Sociologist who also lectures on Middle Eastern Cuisine! Neither discipline is at all relevant, as you well know.

Saggs is pretty clear on continuity by the way, and it is foolhardy in the extreme to attempt to raise the theologian Wilmshurst above him on matters Assyrian, nobody at all will take that claim seriously.

Syriac Studies mainly, if not exclusively, deals with Syriac Christianity, it's churches, theologies, dogmas and the history of those churches, a rather narrow field of study. However, since Syriac derives etymologically, geographically and historically from Assyrian, Syriacs are actually Assyrian anyway. The name, when applied to Levantines much much later in history, is a misnomer and misapplication. And of course, the Syriac language developed in historical Assyria, but its interest to those studying Syriac Studies is primarily within a religious/theological context. There is no such race or ethnicity as Syriac People, it originally meant only Assyria and Assyrian ( please see Çineköy inscription) but has since become a catch all term referring to ANY follower of a church within the umbrella of Syriac Christianity, regardless of ethnicity, history or geography, even including people from Kerala in India.

Assyriology and Iranology overlap in quite a major way, surely you must realise this??? Because you would rather id did not overlap, it does not make it not true, and it would be unwise to try to denigrate or demote the relevance or knowledge of Richard Nelson Frye because of this mistaken and erroneous belief.

Canaanite-Aramean polytheism was heavily influenced and to a great extent (although not exclusively) a derivative of the much earlier Mesopotamian religion, which many authors (excluding Parpola) cite as being influential on both Judaism and Syriac Christianity. So an attempt to use a well supported argument to try and discredit Parpola is destined to fail, and there is nothing foolish or fringe about his claims. Perhaps you prefer literalist and historically incredulous and unverifiable interpretations of the origins of monotheism as espoused by Kenneth Kitchen instead? You would like Parpola's work to be fringe for your own self interest, but that does not mean that it is.

Your comments that Ancient Assyrians were Assholes and Fred Aprim is a nobody are not particularly non PPOV, academic, fair, helpful or enlightening either by the way.

What is Canaanite-Aramaean polytheism? I'm talking about Canaanite polytheism specifically, not northwest semitic religion. Canaanite religion has some mesop influence but most of the similarities are in the fact that they are both from proto-semitic religion. And most importantly, the monotheism part is purely a hebrew innovation. (though the zoroastrians developed it separately) And I'm not talking about citations in wikipedia. Did you click the links? The links show citations in other articles, aka how many other scholars cited the work. The statistics I provided are very, very relevant, and happen to prove my point that joseph et al are more respected in mainstream scholarship than parpola/aprim on this issue. Also, what's wrong with calling the Assyrians assholes? They boast about being assholes. "I built a pillar over against the city gate and I flayed all the chiefs who had revolted and I covered the pillar with their skins. Some I impaled upon the pillar on stakes and others I bound to stakes round the pillar. I cut the limbs off the officers who had rebelled. Many captives I burned with fire and many I took as living captives. From some I cut off their noses, their ears, and their fingers, of many I put out their eyes. I made one pillar of the living and another of heads and I bound their heads to tree trunks round about the city. Their young men and maidens I consumed with fire." (Ashurnasirpal II)--Monochrome_Monitor 22:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Well if you have read Saggs' The Might That Was Assyria you will learn that the Assyrians never committed Genocide against any people, nor wholesale ethnic cleansing, unlike for example the Israelites, who did both. Deported peoples were actually provided with food, transport and armed guards also. One important point regarding the study of Ancient History, is to study events and peoples within the context of their times. By todays standards Alexander The Great would be considered an evil tyrant, as would Napoleon, however their behaviour was not unusual for the times they lived in.

Once more, citations, be they on Wiki or elsewhere are not the issue. Joseph is not specifically qualified on the subject, and Joseph certainly is not as well qualified as Saggs, Frye, Brinkman, Parpola et al on the subject. That is not to say his opinion should not get a mention, however it certainly is not the accepted position, but merely his opinion, much of which has been taken from under him with his being clearly and decisively disproved regarding the term Syrian, Syriac which was a central plank of his argument against Assyrian continuity.

Regarding Canaanite religion, even the Wiki entry states that Canaanite religion was strongly influenced by their more powerful and populous neighbors, and shows clear influence of Mesopotamian and Egyptian religious practices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.25.101 (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

First it's citations on wikipedia. Then it's citations everywhere else. Citations matter. Qualifications are subjective, but times cited is objective. If you read any modern book about Judah and Israel, you would know that the Israelites did not commit any sort of genocide or ethnic cleansing. I have told you this before and you still use the laughable comparison to the Israelites. Assyrians in their time were infamous for their ruthlessness and brutality, it is not just a matter of modern perspective. Saggs, an Assyriophile, makes light of Assyrian warfare, but the fact is that Ancient Assyrian warfare, like Ancient Assyrian culture, was unusually violent and cruel.[1] (the source I linked, which itself rationalizes Assyrian violence, notes Saggs arguments and yet draws this final conclusion) --Monochrome_Monitor 00:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Monochrome Monitor (talk) No sorry, citations aren't the issue here, expertise is. Joseph was put down badly on the etymology of Syria already, and everything else he comes out with is supposition, assumption and opinion only. None of it is proven, none of it is backed by overwhelming evidence either. After all I wonder how Joseph explains how Mesopotamian religion was alive and well 900 years after the fsall of the Assyrian Empire? Where is his PROOF that the Assyrians were genocidally wiped off the face of the earth, deported across the globe or bred out by Arabs and Kurds etc?

The old Biblical story of ASSYRIA being left an empty and desolate land has been proven to be bullcrap, and almost no scholars accept that 'story' nowadays.

Unless Joseph can PROVE those things happened, he has no argument at all, just unsupported opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.171.225 (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

One of the real problems John Joseph and his followers have is that there is indeed a total absence of proof that Assyria and its people were utterly destroyed. Indeed, the evidence in actuality indicates the exact opposite. Consider the fact that Assyria remained extant as a geo-political entity up until the 7th century AD, that Assyrian polytheist religion was still strong in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD, and that it lingered in pockets into the 10th century AD, that the local Eastern Aramaic dialects to this day retain hundreds of Akkadian loan words and grammatical features, as opposed to Levantine Western Aramaic which contain no traces, that many Assyrian cities and towns were known without any shadow of a doubt to have survived after the fall of empire. Joseph and co simply cannot satisfactorily explain away all of these facts, let alone disprove them.

Another problem Joseph, Becker et al have is that they repeatedly attempted to use the fact that later terms Syria/Syriac/Syrian/East Syrian were used instead of or interchangeably alongside Assyria/Assyrian/Athura/Assuri was evidence that Assyrians were not Assyrians but in fact some shadowy and undefined ethnic group called Syrians/Syriacs, and that these were named after a region of Aramea.

This argument is simply not supportable and has been disproven. We now know that the Etymology of Syria is Assyria, and that Syria originally referred solely to the Assyrians and Assyria. This argument has literally been torn away from them, and instead actually supports Assyrian continuity, and not only that, it also highlights the fact that the Levant and its peoples have been misnamed. After all a Syrian today simply means a citizen of the Syrian Arab Republic, a multi-ethnic state which has a majority Arab population, and also includes Assyrians, Kurds, Arameans, Armenians, Greeks and Turcomans. Syriac today is the name of an Assyrian originating dialect of Eastern Aramaic on the one hand, and on the other a catch all theological term for followers of various Eastern Rite Christian Churches. Neither have any meaning as a description of a specific ethnic group. However, both Syrian and Syriac do have meaning in reference to Assyrians, as they derive from it etymologically, and were used originally only in reference to the geographical, historic and ethnic Assyria and Assyrians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.25.101 (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


It's funny how you return to the same two arguments used by assyrian nationalists. 1. Syria comes from Assyria. This is fallacious. Briton comes from Briton, but the English aren't Celts. And anyway, native Semites NEVER conflated the terms Syrian and Assyrian. In Aramaic they are distinct. This "proof" rests solely on the bastardization of the terms by foreigners 2. "No proof assyrians were wiped out, all the people who say this are arguing from the bible." That is bs and a straw man. NO ONE EVER SAID ASSYRIA WAS DESTROYED, not even the Bible. (which correctly noted that Ninevah was destroyed) Joseph and others say that Assyrians gradually assimilated into larger neighboring populations. As for the evidence, it's basic anthropology. Their culture ceased to exist. Even before Ninevah fell Assyrian was a national identity and not an ethnic one. Ethnicities do not survive without cultures to them, and in the miraculous case that they do, it is impossible to know this. As for Assyrian religion, Assyria was an Empire and other peoples within adopted its religions. Does the fact that Nicene Christianity thrives today mean the Romans are with us? Face it, you are on the wrong side of scholarship. Even citations don't matter to you, only your debunked talking points. Plenty of reliable sources say Assyrian continuity is a fringe theory, you can't produce one saying its mainstream among modern historians. And you will never find one. Because the evidence of continuity amounts to a pathetic timeline of a dozen mentions, all of them dubious. You will realize this the day you are honest with yourself.--Monochrome_Monitor 08:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

.--Monochrome_Monitor 08:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

1. Actually Syria DOES come from Assyria; etymologically, historically, geographically, now that is majority mainstream academic opinion, but because it does not support your rather obsessive and irrational position, it becomes fallacious and debunked! 2. No, there is NO PROOF the Assyrians were wiped out or assimilated into larger populations, none whatsoever. The larger populations surrounding them are Iranians, Arabs, Turks and Kurds - The Assyrians are none of those, and their language, culture and recorded presence in the region predates all of those peoples. Again, supposition, wild guesswork and wishful thinking; no evidence, no facts, no proof. In fact we know that Assyrian religion, names and even a degree of independence endured into the 3rd and 4th centuries AD, and a number of Ancient Historians support this. The Church Historians and generic academics you quote are hardly expert in Ancient History.

In addition to Assyrian culture surviving and then fading into Christianity, yes ethnicities DO survive after a change of culture. The English today are culturally a world apart from old Anglo-Saxon pagan culture. Does this mean they are not English? I can quote literally dozens of peoples whose cultures have changed or been replaced wholesale. So that argument is risible nonsense.

Tom Holland (author) is a modern source, and a little more relevant than the likes of Joseph, as is Saggs, Parpola, Brinkman, Biggs, Crone, MacDonald, Cook among others. None of those writers are fringe, to you personally they are, or you convince yourself they are, simply because they do not endorse your PPOV, which shows you are not being honest with yourself.

Your arguments are dishonest, biased and motivated by something other than innocent academic debate; they are motivated purely by a PPOV that I am guessing is based on ethno-religious identity you hold. Why are you so obsessed by the poor Assyrians? Is it because you see yourself as an Aramean or maybe you are a Kurd, Arab, Turk etc....I do not know why and what is causing your obsession to be honest, but your attacks are dishonest, unfair, unbalanced, mean spirited, blatantly biased and most importantly inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.25.101 (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

.--Monochrome_Monitor - When you have Georges Roux, Saggs, Frye, Parpola, Oppenheim, Brinkman, Rollinger, Encyclopedia Americana and a whole host of others, not to mention the Cinekoy inscriptions all clearly stating Syria/Syrians derives from Assyria/Assyrians it is hardly a fringe theory. The idea that the term Syria came from an obscure tribe living on the slopes of Mount Syrion is utterly fantastical and wholly unrealistic. They would have had to have been a very powerful polity to have come to dominate the entire Levant, northern Mesopotamia and south eastern Anatolia in order to have given their name to this vast region. And yet, they were not. Instead we find from 2500 BC through to 300 BC that region referred to as Amurru, Aram and Eber Nari while the term Syria was in existence from the 9th century BC and in reference to where? Answer; Assyria. Why did the levantines call their states Aram-Damascus, Aram Sobah, Aram Rehob, Bet Agushi etc etc, they never called themselves Syrian until the Greco-Roman period.

And you are correct, the English (and the Scots too) are not Britons in the strict historical or ethnic sense of the word. But it is an unfortunate analogy for you to have raised, because by doing so you contradict your own argument. The reason being it is a good example of a later people adopting the name originally given to an earlier and different people, and a name which did not originally refer to them. The term Briton (and Prettani) dates ack to the 4th century BC and referred solely to Brittonic speaking Celts inhabiting the Island of Great Britain and various island groups off shore, and by the late Middle Ages these Britons were confined to Conwall, Wales and Brittany. Only after the Act of Union in 1707 did the term also come to encompass the English, Scots and to some degree Irish. That is just like the way Levantine peoples were much later given the name Syrian, a name etymologically derived from Assyrian and which was clearly originally used by Indo-Anatolian peoples in specific and sole reference to Assyria and its people. Syrian meant only Assyrian until Hellenic times, and after that it still meant Assyrian, and also meant Levantines, and it is a historical, etymological and geographical misnomer when applied to the Levant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brython99 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is a complete joke and provides no historical insight, just politically driven Assyrian ideology.Sr 76 (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Assyrian continuity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assyrian_continuity/Archive_2&oldid=1162282201"