Talk:Assyrian continuity/Archive 1

Why Does this topic even exist? Is it racist?
I cant understand why Assyrian people have to prove their existence any more than any other people. The very fat that there's a Wiki topic about this issue is more than a little bit racist!

There isnt a topic about Greek, Persian, Armenian, Kurdish, Turkish, Nordic, Arab or Italian continuity, so why on earth should there be one about Assyrians???

Those people picking holes in the Assyrians seem pretty pathetic to me. Surely the fact that these guys are pre Arab people from ancient Mesopotamia and seem to have a distinct genetic profile and speak a distinct language with a distinct history is enough?

Everyone has their right to their history without it being nitpicked, but it looks like the Assyrians are singled out for some reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.24.65 (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the negativity seems unfair and pretty blinkered. Having the article is fine, but if we do then to be fair we should have continuity articles about every other existing race on earth too, why indeed is it just Assyrians that have to prove themselves?. Where are the Wiki entries on Greek continuity or Armenian continuity? To my mind, if there's evidence to support it, and there obviously is, that should be enough. Obviously though, we cant have articles on Hittite, Phrygian or Chaldean continuity, as there's nothing at all that supports them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.230.41 (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

When we consider the myriad of continuity claims across the world's continents that are known to be baseless, and the even larger number that have no evidential, historic or academic support, it does seem more than a tad hypocritical and unfair to have an Assyrian continuity page. More so, because the vast majority of these claims go unchallenged on Wikipedia. The Assyrian continuity claim is certainly much stronger and more realistic than many unquestioned or accepted claims.

Another problem here is that most of the naysayers seem to be experts or have interest in primarily ecclesiastical matters, rather than expertise Ancient History, Assyriology, Anthropology, Archaeology, Etymology, Genetics, Linguistics, Archaeogenetics or Ethnology. This tends to mean their arguments against are naïve, spurious, complete red herrings or borne out of religious ideals. The other camp of naysayers seem to be Levantine Christians, who resent the appellation Assyrian, but illogically and hypocritically accept the appellations Syriac or Syrian, even though these labels descend from Assyrian and for many centuries meant just Assyrian. Their issues are largely political and PPOV rather than academic and evidential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.25.101 (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

These people attacking the Assyrians are fools. I am Greek, we are from the old Greeks, do these people want to say we lie too? The Assyrians today the same! Where are the proofs the Assyrians were destroyed then? We Greeka gave the name Syrian to mean the Assyrians which = the same. We gave it to Aramia too later on.....a big mistake because now they stupidly call themselves Syrian and Syriak as if this is a new race, but a real Syrian is Assyrian!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.103.30.157 (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, perhaps this article should be a candidate for deletion then? I personally thought prior to reading it that it discussed the troubled state of Assyria and the theory of If it could survive any longer- but instead it is apparently just an entire, and albeit very poorly written article questioning their entire culture and ethnicities existence. Honestly, it doesn't really make sense- but considering the Assyrians had their history stolen from them and were devastated and driven into the ground by war and genocide since the 1400s due to Tamerlane and the Muslims of the region, it is understandable that there is at least slight doubt over whether Ancient Assyrians and Modern Assyrians are the same because of the long period of disconnect since the fall of Assur and the constant breaking up and division of the Assyrian Church structure, In addition to separate Chaldean and Syriac ethnic nationalism which compromises the claim of Assyrians-being Assyrian, as not all Assyrians claim to be such, therefore causing this topic to exist. It would be like Pontic Greeks claiming they are not Greek but instead "Ponts", or certain subgroups of Italians like Calabrians and Milanese claiming that specific ethnic identity, or if Italians started identifying as Romans. In fact, it is exactly like that! Assyrians claiming to be Assyrian would be like Italians claiming to be Roman. There is doubt over it due to a long period of disconnect with Ancient Rome, and due to separate identities which have been formed since than by those who would otherwise claim to be Roman.Cirflow (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Cirflow (talk) Well, the vast majority of Chaldeans do accept they are Assyrians, and that in modern parlance Chaldean is a solely religious term, much like Maronite or Baptist. Also there is no evidence of a Chaldean continuation, and the link to Assyria and Assyrians is pretty clear. Levantine populations have been shown to be linguistically and genetically distinct from Assyrian populations, as well as geographically so. Highly likely that these are Arameans anyway, and few have ever claimed to be Assyrian. The term Syrian (as well as Syriacs) do not really detract from Assyrian identity, because etymologically, historically and geographically they mean one and the same, so it is something of a red herring only when applied to Levantine Syriacs, as the term was only much later applied to these populations also. But the Seleucid misapplication has caused a host of problems, as Syrian and Syriac have become catch-alls that apply to more than one people. Ironically, the persecutions, and driving o ground have more than likely helped preserve the Assyrians, whereas a process of Islamification or absorption into Arab/Mongol/Turkic/Iranic populations would have surely destroyed them. Italians often do claim to be descendants of the Romans, which at root I suppose they are, being Latin speakers of the Italian Peninsula, which is what the Romans were. Similarly, the Greeks vis a vis Ancient Greece. Obviously, a racial purity in any of these examples is unrealistic, but a root heritage and ancestry is entirely reasonable. And the Assyrian case is at least as strong as Coptic Egyptian-Ancient Egyptian, Modern Italian-Roman, Modern Greek-Ancient Greek claims.....and yet there are no articles on these on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.25.101 (talk) 07:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The whole denial issue is more than a bit hypocritical, particularly in light of a whole host of continuity and ancestral claims around the world with a lot less evidence to support them. Why is there no Scottish continuity page dealing with the modern Scots' connection to the ancient Scoti tribe for example? Bear in mind folks, the Scoti were a specific tribe who gave their name to Scotland as a whole. They were from Ireland to boot. The Kingdom of Strathclyde and the Pictish east were different people, Brythonic Celts. Eventually they intermingled. Add Norse, Danish and English input, plus further migrations from Ireland, and of course the Normans. Then take the virtual extinction of Scots Gaelic, apart from in a few isolated regions, its replacement with English, together with a certain input of English and Biblical personal names. Add a conversion to Christianity and the death of native Gaelic Celt religion, customs and culture. Throw in a scarcity of local and native literature, in fact a total absence until the 6th or 7th centuries AD. Where is the continuity? See just how easy it is to be a naysayer and pedant should you be of a mind to? Personally, Scots are Scots, and have every right under the sun to call themselves Scots. So, why are these negative, pedantic and nit-picking arguments thrown at Assyrians on Wikipedia, and not the Scottish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.31.78 (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC) This section is so ridiculous it's hilarious.--Monochrome _ Monitor  05:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

David Wilmshurst
David Wilmshurst and his opinions are in my view grossly over represented in this article. Whole swathes of it are given up to block quotations from him. His opinion has a right to be in the article, however, he should not be block quoted, as no other refferenced source is. It creates an imbalance, as it would if Simo Parpola for example, was block quoted.

I propose that Wilmshurst's views be paraphrased, and a link provided to his comments.

In addition, as well as his opinion seeming rather venemous and contemptuous, he is at odds with many more established Assyriologists and Orientalists, which is unsurprising, as he is more of a Theologian than Ancient Historian.

Some people are forgetting that the Assyrian National God Ashur was STILL worshipped well into the Christian Era, at the least as late as the 3rd Century AD. This is pretty significant as Ashur was a particularly Assyrian god. In addition, Assyria did indeed exist as a distinct Geo-Political entity until the end of the Sassanid Period, and its inhabitants were known as Assyrians. The term Syrian and Syriac derive from Assyrian, this is pretty much accepted these days.

David Wilmshurst's comments regarding Nestorianism, are a nonsense, considering that Christianity, and indeed the Church of The East existed from the 1st Century AD in Assyria-Assuristan, centuries before Nestorianism. It is both older, and Doctrinally Distinct from Nestorianism. And in any case, Assyrians are Multi-Denominational.

Wilmshurst makes Claims of Assyrians today include Greeks, Latins and Levantines among their mix, and yet Genetic Studies conducted by Cavalli-Sforza show that Assyrians have no commonality with these peoples Genetically, and are in fact even distinct from other Syriac Christians in the Levant.

Wilmshurst also forgets or ignores the fact that the peoples surrounding the Assyrians, knew of them as Assyrians both before, during and after the Nestorian Schism, and that the earliest Western travellers to the region encountered people with distinctly East Semitic Names, who were referred to as and referred to themselves as Assyrians, BEFORE the major Archeological discoveries of the mid to late 19th Centuries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.116.120 (talk) 06:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Wilmshurst's comments that Assyrians are descended from Kurds to some degree is a clear nonsense, considering it is beyond doubt that Assyrians predate Kurds in the region by many Centuries. He also forgets that Muslim peoples did not convert to Christianity and start speaking East Aramaic!

Wilmshurst also ignores the fact that the Assyrian People speak and write distinct dialects of East Aramaic, which is more in keeping with an ethnic group, rather than a Religious Sect. Furthermore these dialects have a structural affiliation with Akkadian, as well as containing many loan words.

Nestorianism was also a Catch All term, now largely obsolete, that described all and any eastern Christians in the 19th Century. Assyrian Christians are hardly related to Indian, Mongol or Chinese Nestorians are they? So to describe a people from a specific region, who speak a specific language, have a long established specific culture and identity, and a specific Genetic Profile as a Multi-Ethnic religious sect, using the vague, obsolete and inaccurate 19th Century term Nestorian is utterly wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.116.120 (talk) 07:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think (sorry if i'm wrong here) that the contributor who mass posted David Wilmshurst's ideas is actually David Wilmshurst himself! If thats so, its WRONG. Wiki Articles shouldnt be used to push your own ideas, and Wilmshurst is way over represented here!

I'd also say that a lot of what he writes seems to come straight out of the 19th century. Nestorian as a description is only theological anyhow. You cant describe Assyrians from Iraq, Iran, Northeast Syria and Southeast Turkey as Nestorians. Theyve their own language, tribal names, family names, genetic profile and so forth. Now as far as I know, there arent any Christian groups that can boast that!

Saying Assyrians are mixed up with Jews, Greeks, Syrians, Kurds and Arabs which means that they arent Assyrians is totally incorrect. Its not likely that all those people would have adopted the Assyrians language, names and so forth, and Assyrian DNA doesnt match up with Syrian or Greek DNA at all. Its more likely that some of the Arabs and Kurds in Iraq were originally Assyrians too. I mean, Kurds never even existed in Iraq 'till quite recently.

Also Mr Wilmshurst talks about names like Dinkha, Odishu, Ramsin and so forth. Now, which other race of people have those names?? Arabs? Jews? Kurds? Greeks? Also names like Ashur, Hadad, Shamash and so forth never died out, and one of the major Assyrian tribes is Bit Shamash, another is Bit Eshtazin, these are ancient tribes with naming links back to Mesopotamia.

Another point is First we see names like Nestorian and Chaldean...errm, no we DONT. The name Assyria existed long before either of those, and was being used to describe a place and a people. Even the so called Chaldean Church was originally called The Church of Assyria and Mosul.

As has been said already, Church of East doesnt = Nestorian, it was before and is different. So what if some Nestorians migrated into the Mesopotamian heartland of The Church of The East, where the native people were already Christian? How does that make Assyrians not Assyrians? Does Algerian migration to France make French people not French?

Mr Wilmshurst also uses Athora as a so called 'Syriac' term for Assyria. Now here again, most scholars now accept totally that Syriac means Assyrian. And Syriac actually comes from Assyria, and was there before Nestorianism. For sure, when we use Syriac or Syrian to describe the East Aramaic speaking Semitic Christians in Mesopotamia, we dont mean Syriacs or Syrians from most of Syria. After all, the second group spoke a different dialect of Aramaic, one that wasnt influenced by Akkadian, and they have different DNA.

Sorry, but Mr Wilmshurst seems to really have 'A Boner' about Assyrians, and it shows in the way he writes. Using comments like 'Preposterous', 'Fiction', 'Lies', 'Fake'' and so forth is not neutral language and shows a POV attitude.

The only person to have actually studied Assyrians from the fall of Assyria to the present day is Simo Parpola. Mr Wilmshurst isnt an expert on Assyrians as he claims, he is a writer on the Eastern Church, NOT the same thing!

Mr Wilmshurst ignores Historical Record, Language, DNA, Culture, Written Testimony, and others opinions and just drives off on his own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 11:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that Mr Wilmshurst tries to use the fact that no Bishops are called Tiglath-Peleser or Ashurbanipal to justify that Assyrians are not Assyrians. Eh?? This is crazy and weak, how many Greek Bishops are called Hercules or Ullyses or Zeus? How many modern Germans are called Alaric, or Englishmen called Aethelred or Frenchmen called Charlemagne? Its a facile argument, 'specially as Assyrian names ARE attested, just not among Bishops!

He also criticizes The Assyrian Church of the East for being called such. This doesnt make any sense either, the Church of The East was founded where? Answer; In Assyria (Assuristan). The Church of the East exists only where and among whom today? Answer, in and around Iraq and among Assyrians.

Another point is his totally off the wall claim that the name Chaldean existed before, no it didnt. It died out in the 5th century BC as a description for a race, where Assyrian did not, it has continued to be used. Chaldean was revived by Rome in the 16th Century AD.


 * I believe that David Wilmshurst as published expert in the history of the Church of the East is a most authoritative source regarding the history of the modern Assyrians. On the other hand I would like to see a reliable reference to support claims you made like: "the Assyrian National God Ashur was STILL worshipped well into the Christian Era".--  R a f y  talk 14:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, check out Georges Roux book Ancient Iraq, he describes temples being erected to Ashur as well as other dieties during the 3rd century AD, Parpola goes further, saying some worship survived into the middle ages. I can give you the page number re Roux too if you like? Also, Mr Wilmshurst makes a hell of a lot of supposition about the Georgian references. Its only his OPINION that the king of Georgia wouldnt have known where Mosul was, and that he was any more likely to have known where Assyria was. Its also only his opinion that the Assyrians called themselves Assyrians to the Georgians for that particular reason. Where is David Wilmshurst's evidence or proof to back that claim up?

Sorry, but he's second guessing for his own reasons, he has studied the subject from a theological standpoint, but regardless of that he does have a clear opinion on it and one that i'd say is prejudiced against Assyrian Identity, he even tries to deny Greek and Iranian identification with Ancient Greece and Ancient Persia, which to be fair is totally crazy. His argument seems to be that because time has gone by, and because other ethnic and cultural input has happened then, Kaput, youre gone! Lets face it EVERYONE has a mix of different ethnic, genetic and cultural input ejected at some time....so should that mean, nobody can claim their heritage is 'At Root this or that? Also, many other experts dont agree with him, same with Linguists, Genetics and Written record.

Mr Wilmshurst also totally contradicts himself, at one point he says that Assyrians only identified as Assyrians in Sassanid t imes because the Bible told them that Assyrians had existed where they lived (even though they still spoke Mesopotamian Aramaic dialects descendant of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, and even though Ashur for example was still worshipped). Later, he says that they call themselves Assyrians in Medieval times because their neighbours wouldnt know who Nestorians were or where a major trading city like Mosul was, then later on again, he says Assyrians call themselves Assyrians after Archaeological Discoveries and because Western Missionaries told them they were Assyrians (they must have forgot who they were in between the Georgian period and the 19th century?)....he cant have it ALL OF those ways!

....MAYBE, and here is an idea that David Wilmshurst just IGNORES, Assyrians were called Assyrians by Achaemenids, Romans, Armenians, Sassanids, Parthians, Georgians and early Arabs, as well as their selves...because they WERE/ARE Assyrians, they were at root the same people who had lived there since the time of the Assyrian Empire. He seems to want to believe any and all kinds of ideas except that one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.18.199 (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Bottom line here is that David Wilmshurst probably hates the idea of Nationalism, Race etc, its an Anathema to him, so he seems to squirm this way and that to make his argument fit, problem is it doesnt, and he just cant PROVE his points, its just his opinion.

Realistically, no one can claim Oh i'm a PURE Assyrian or PURE Greek, PURE French obviously! I'd agree there, that is stupid! But my point is that Assyrians are at ROOT Mesopotamian-Assyrian-Akkadian, thats where the history and identity of Modern Assyrians comes from, they have a right to claim that, they are the last in line of that culture. Sure they mixed with Arameans during the Assyrian Empire, they probably mixed with Sumerians, Hurrians, Amorites etc too, sure some Nestorians migrated to Assyria (many of those Nestorians might have been Assyrian anyway, and we dont know how many overall did)....but does that make them NOT Assyrian, does that mean they cant claim that is their roots? If it does, we may as well delete EVERY article about ALL Ethnic groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.18.199 (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, where is the Proof that Assyrians and Mesopotamians in general were wiped out, no evidence of Genocide, a Holocaust, Mass Deportation, nothing. And also the East Aramaic dialects, which are EXCLUSIVE to Mesopotamia, have survived there for 3000 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.18.199 (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking through all this, David Wilmshurst clearly does contradict himself when talking about when the name Assyria was used. I mean, it just cant have been brought back into use when talking to Georgian and Armenian officials in the Middle Ages, then by the same token only been brought back into use in the late 19th century. Either one or the other or neither must be true, obviously both cant be. He also ignores the by now well accepted fact that Syrian meant Assyrian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.230.41 (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

He also seems to be pretty obsessed with theological terms like Nestorians, Jacobites, Syriac Christians and Chaldean Catholics, probably because he is a theologian rather than a historian, orientalist, ethnologist, anthropologist, linguist, archaeologist or Assyriologist. It's probably important to remember that it was Europeans, and particularly theologians, who muddied the waters in the first place by sticking all these religious based labels on the Assyrians and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.230.41 (talk) 10:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Reading through various Assyrian Talk Pages, it is crystal clear David Wilmshurst has a very clear, narrow and rigid PPOV; Bogus, Lies, Fake, Myth, Vandalism are some of the PPOV and somewhat inflammatory and insensitive words he used on Assyrian-related Talk Pages, and he pops up on many (I wonder why?), including pages like this one, which have nothing to do with the Church of the East (of which he has written a book upon). These terms are ridiculous considering the historical, evidential and academic support there is for continuity. Now, if we are to be concerned about Assyrianist PPOV (and we should be if it is unreferenced), then surely what is good for the goose is good for the gander? At one point this page was dominated by block quotes from Wilmshurst, which unbelievably he had narcissistically inserted himself! If that is not pushing a PPOV, I am not sure what is!

The major issue with the above is one of unsupported and unreferenced PPOV's. People can deny continuity all they wish, but if they do so; (1) They should provide accurate references to credible academic opinion which supports their position. (2) They cannot also simply deny a continuity without then offering a credible and well supported alternative. If arguments are put forth supporting a heritage and ancestry, those denying it cannot just put forth a default denial without an alternative and supported explanation of who these people are. In this case, who actually the Assyrians are if not Assyrians? And, who actually are Levantine Syriacs are if not Arameans? (3)They should at least be open minded enough to consider the other side of the argument. Often any evidence put forth in support of continuity is by default ignored, discredited, denied or has other meanings attributed to it, often by personal assumptions based on an entrenched mind set. In other words, some people have already made up their minds, and nothing will change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.25.101 (talk) 09:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Sennacherib
Sennacherib and Mar Behnam. Interesting, and a local king called Sennacherib also features in the sixth-century Nestorian legend of Mar Qardagh. But surely the inventors of the Mar Behnam and Mar Qardagh legends simply got the name Sennacherib from the Bible? It doesn't prove much either way for a sense of Assyrian continuity.

Djwilms (talk) 07:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There are a number of local legends mixing Assyrian kings and other figures such as Alexander with biblical accounts. The stories might have little or no historicity as the locals used those legends to provide reasons behind their conversion and at the same time to explain the presence of ancient mounds on their region.
 * It's interesting that there are several ancient Assyrian names that were used well before the rise of modern nationalism in the late 19th century. Some examples are Sargon (usually connected with st. Sergius), and Shammiram (a female saint who was martyred with her nine children, very similar to the story of saint Miskinta).--  R a f y  talk 19:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, Rafy. As you probably know, I'm fairly sceptical about the Assyrian identity.  My viewpoint can be conveniently summed up in the following paragraph from The Martyred Church (p. 414):


 * The claim to descent from the ancient Assyrians was first seriously made at the end of the nineteenth century. The Christians living around Mosul always knew that they were living in what had once been Assyria, because the Bible (particularly the Book of Jonah) told them so.  For several centuries there had been a Nestorian diocese of Nineveh, and the Nestorian metropolitans of Mosul styled themselves metropolitans of ‘Athor’, the Syriac name for Assyria.  The anonymous sixth-century author of the fictitious Acts of Mar Qardagh, who obviously knew his Old Testament, ingeniously exploited this Assyrian connection by claiming his upper-class hero as a descendant of the Assyrian king Sennacherib.  But it did not occur to any Nestorian Christian before the end of the nineteenth century to regard himself as an Assyrian.


 * Having said that, though, I am sure that there were genuine cases of Assyrian continuity in the Mosul region, and your references to Sargon and Semiramis are most interesting. Remind me, does the Bible mention either of them?  Not as far as I can remember, and I can't imagine that there would have been many Nestorian monks who had read Herodotus in the original Greek ...


 * Djwilms (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand that the claims of continuity are important for the myth-making of ethnic nationalism in the late 19th century, as similar legends were employed to glorify other nationalist movements in that era. However, one cannot completely deny that the inhabitants of those region are partially of ancient Assyrian descent.
 * I believe that neither Sargon nor Samiramis are mentioned in the bible but some ancient Assyrian names might have propagated through local legends. Semiramis for instance is featured in Armenian and Greek legends.--  R a f y  talk 09:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I just came across J. T. Walker's The Legend of Mar Qardagh. The author here makes an interesting claim that the saint's legend is a continuation of an ancient Assyrian religious cult that was transformed into a Christian one.--  R a f y  talk 12:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Rafi. I've put my own views, as stated in The Martyred Church, on record in this article.  I see your own attempts to spread sweetness and light in the article Assyrian People are running into difficulty ...  No doubt I can expect the same kind of treatment.  Oh well, one day truth will prevail.


 * Djwilms (talk) 08:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand your frustration with the Assyrian people article. It certainly has a nationalist tone like other Assyrian related articles, I have also raised concerns about this issue many times. Wikipedia is a mainly the work of volunteers who are often driven by political, religious, or nationalist motives. The Assyrian people page is certainly no exception, as you will find hundreds of articles with similar nationalist POV pushing.
 * I have proposed to write the history section of of that article and I will start with this during the summer vacation, hopefully. The user who filled the talk page was arguing that the page should be deleted altogether, I asked him to nominated it for deletion but he kept on spamming until he got bored I guess.
 * Regarding the continuity issue, we, modern Assyrians live literally on ancient Assyrian ruins, we speak a language that was adopted by the Assyrians, but still maintain several lexical features of Akkadian and even Sumerian, something cannot be said about any other living ethnic group. Certainly there have been Arabs, Persians, Greeks, Armenians, etc. who were in time "Assyrianised" or "Aramised". The same can be said about every single ethnic group in the region. How many Turks are descendants of Greeks, Cappadocians, Phrygians or even Syrians who were in most cases forcibly converted? Certainly the "real Turks" of Transoxiana will only form a minority within modern Turks of we are to investigate that. How many modern Greeks are actually Goths and Slavs immigrants? Does that mean that Turks and Greeks are "shamelessly rewriting history"?
 * By the way the idea of Assyrian continuity was not the sole work of "Nestorians nationalists", there were many instances where Chaldean, Syriac Orthodox, and Syriac Catholic intellectuals supported this idea before the fall of the Ottoman Empire. I also believe that Syriac Christian always knew that the Assyrians were part of their own heritage. How can we otherwise explain all the religious legends involving ancient Assyrians? Another interesting point is the Syriac Christians interpretation of the book of Jonah as a personal message from God. An occasion we celebrate every year during the Fast of Nineveh. As for personal names you can take a look at this paper by Simo Parpola which contains an extensive list of Ancient Assyrian names that persisted until the 3rd century A.D.
 * My point is: If modern Iranians are entitled to claim continuity with Cyrus the Great and modern Greeks are considered the sons and daughters of Leonidas and Socrates despite all the population shifts and cultural, linguistic and religious transformations. Why is it such a crazy idea for modern Assyrians to look up to Sennacherib and Ahiqar as their forefathers? After all there are no other living ethnic group that can make such a claim.--  R a f y  talk 11:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Rafy,
 * I've only just seen your post. I am sure you are right that the Christians of the Mosul region have always been aware that they were living in biblical Assyria (hence the Nestorian metropolitan province of Assyria and the diocese of Nineveh), but I don't think that awareness necessarily entails a claim to be descended from the Assyrians.  What I think is needed is a neutral, scholarly study of the use of terms such as 'Syrian' and 'Assyrian' during the past twenty centuries.  The name Assyria has meant different things at different times.
 * For example, I was struck recently by a reference in the Ecclesiastical History of Bar Hebraeus (ii. 354)to a twelfth-century Jacobite embassy from the Mosul region to the king of Iberia (Georgia). The envoys said they were from 'Assyria' (Athor).  Wow, I thought, evidence for Assyrian consciousness in the twelfth century!  But of course they said they were from Assyria because the Georgian king would know, from his familiarity with the Bible, where that was.  Mosul probably wouldn't have worked so well.
 * Here's the passage in question:
 * In those times King George of Iberia depopulated and devastated the realm of the Arabs with fierce violence, and a great number of Arabs were bound in chains in his presence. Then the vizier Jamal al-Din of Mosul, a just and very merciful man, who had built hospitals for the sick in many regions of Assyria and Persia, as far as India, and had abundantly stocked them with all they needed, decided to ransom the Arab captives from the hands of the Iberians, and because he knew that the maphrian was a very capable man in both word and deed, he chose him and sent him with several other Arabs he had selected, who went to George to plead their cause in the year 1472 [AD 1161].  When they had travelled into Iberia, the king was told that envoys had come from Assyria, including the archbishop of that region with two of his bishops, and several Arabs.  The king marvelled at this novelty, and went out in person to meet the maphrian and his companions, and brought them into his palace and treated them with honour.  He also gave them a number of houses and churches, so that they could celebrate their sacrifices and mark their festivals, as they arrived there shortly before the festival of Epiphany.  He granted the maphrian’s petition and set free most of the captives, and those that were left were ransomed for gold by the vizier’s envoys.  Then George sent them back, accompanied by his own envoys, who bore gifts for the governor of Mosul.  They returned with great joy to Mosul, and the envoys of the Iberians displayed their crosses on the heads of their lances; which was a comfort to all the Christians.


 * An interesting passage at first sight, but in fact it proves nothing except that Assyria (Athor) was used as the name of a geographical region at this period, which we knew already.
 * The Greeks, Turks and Iranians do indeed falsify their past, as you point out; so do the Armenians, the Americans, the British, the French, and so on. I wish they didn't, and I would be just as critical of Greek, Turkish and Iranian nationalist myths if that happened to be my area of expertise.  As it is, I don't think scholars should surrender their judgement in the face of deliberate attempts to falsify the past.


 * Djwilms (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have realised this reference to geographical Assyria. I remember once reading a passage from Michael the Syrian (or was it Bar Hebraeus?) where he mentions how during the Zangid recapture of Edessa "the king of Athor crushed the heads of sons of Aram like melons" I guess there is some play on biblical allegory there as well.--  R a f y  talk 11:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Some people are forgetting that the Assyrian National God Ashur was STILL worshipped well into the Christian Era, at the least as late as the 3rd Century AD. This is pretty significant as Ashur was a particularly Assyrian god.

In addition, Assyria did indeed exist as a distinct Geo-Political entity until the end of the Sassanid Period, and its inhabitants were known as Assyrians.

The term Syrian and Syriac derive from Assyrian, this is pretty much accepted these days.

David Wilmshurst's comments regarding Nestorianism, are a nonsense, considering that Christianity, and indeed the Church of The East existed from the 1st Century AD in Assyria-Assuristan, centuries before Nestorianism. It is both older, and Doctrinally Distinct from Nestorianism. And in any case, Assyrians are Multi-Denominational.

Wilmshurst makes Claims of Assyrians today including Greeks, Latins and Levantines among their mix, and yet Genetic Studies conducted by Cavalli-Sforza show that Assyrians have no commonality with these peoples Genetically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.116.120 (talk) 06:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not accept that Assyrians gained their identity from the Bible. Assyrian identity very clearly predates Christianity. Assyria was named Assyria both before and after the advent of Christianity, and so of course were its inhabitants known as Assyrians. The continuous existance of the Mesopotamian Aramaic language and indeed native religion both before, during and after Christianity was introduced show that Assyrian identity, culture and ethnicity was alive and well. Shapur sacked Assur in 256 AD, and at that point it was still a flourishing center of Ashurism, as were a number of other towns in Assyria, Assyria still pointedly remaining named Assyria also. Christianity merely eventually changed Assyrian Culture, as it did with many other ancient peoples who converted. It neither destroyed their ethnic identity nor removed them from whence they had lived for thousands of years.

Peoples such as Persians, Greeks, Armenians and Romans have had very little Genetic input into the Assyrian Population, as can very obviously be seen by Genetic Profiling, the same applies to Language. As for linkage to Kurds, that is a clear nonsense. Kurds are a relatively recent addition to the population of Iraq-Mesopotamia. They may have Kurdified some Assyrians by force, but the idea that Kurds were Assyrianized is clear nonsense, and there is no historical, genetic or linguistic evidence whatsoever that Indo-European peoples such as Kurds, Armenians, Iranians, Greeks and Romans became Semiticized or Assyrianized, adopting distinct Mesopotamian Aramaic Dialects, Names, Culture and Identity. I would be most interested to see David Wilmshurst prove his assertions in the face of a total lack of Written Historical Record, a total lack of Genetic evidence, and a complete lack of Linguistic input.

This is also true of his 'guesswork' regarding the Assyrians relations with the Georgians. Again, there is no evidence, let alone proof, that Assyrians were simply Nestorians who used the term Assyrian simply so as to not confuse the king of Georgia. A king who would have no idea who Nestorians were, and who Wilmshurst assumes to have also been utterly ignorant of Geography, not knowing where Mosul was.

The Nestorian term itself is also an archaic misnomer. Those that Wilmshurst refers to as merely Nestorians were and are members of a very distinct ethnic and linguistic group. A people with their own language, written scrpt, distinct given, personal, family and tribal names, a distinct Genetic Profile,a distinct culture, and with a distinct identity. In addition, not all were members of the Church of The East in any case. The Church of the East in addition is actually not Nestorian.

The Georgian king was liaising with a very particular group of people, he was not communicating with Chinese, Indian, Armenian, Greek or Central Asian Eastern Rite Christians or 'Nestorians', he was communicating with Assyrians, which is why of course both he and they referred to the Assyrians as Assyrians.

David Wilmshurst has a clear and very obvious Anti-Assyrian attitude in my opinion, one which is actually racist. I would wager that he certainly would not make such comments about Assyrians if they were for example a Black ethnic group. He appears to look for any explanation other than the most obvious one, often on pure supposition, with no proof or material evidence. That most obvious explanation is that Assyrians are simply Assyrians.


 * The notion of modern nations didn't start until the 19th century, before that people were mainly identified by their religious affiliation, at least in the Middle East. The idea is that membership of the Church of the East was composed of Assyrians, Persians and Arabs, maybe even proto-Kurds. Those groups were all assimilated within the East Syrian (Nestorian) "proto-Nation" which evolved later to "Assyrian". Honestly, after hearing your arguments I can imagine how scholars like Wilmshurst get frustrated and fed up with Assyrian nationalists.--  R a f y  talk 13:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That is just not correct, nation states have existed as nation states for thousands of years. The Middle East was different only in that much of it was in the posession of various empires, and independent states were uncommon throughout large periods of its history. True, the Ottoman Millet system tended to break groups down by their ethno-religious definition.

Yes, the Church of The East contained many ethnic groups, but so does the Catholic Church, that does not mean that Spaniards are firstly merely catholics and not a specific race of people who happen to be catholic.

Assyrians are not defined by membership of the Church of the East, nor Nestorianism. From the 17th century, many were for example Catholic, others were Orthodox, some were converts to Judaism and Gnosticism, and others still followed native Mesopotamian Religion at the very least into the 3rd Century AD.

The Assyrians as they are do not speak Kurdish, Farsi or Arabic, certainly not until recent times. And any Kurds, Arabs or Persians who happened to follow the Church of the East would not have assimilated linguistically, that is just not something that happens with Christianity. Early English people when they converted to Catholicism for example, did not all convert to speaking latin.

Wilmshurst sees Assyrians as a religious denomination who adopted an ethniic identity. An identity that he contradictorily asserts arose at different times and for different reasons. This is simply not the case. Written Historical evidence, ethnology, genetics and linguistics simply do not support his idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.116.120 (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems fairly clear really that the modern Assyrians are pretty distinct when you consider Language, Geography and Genetic Profiling, and written record does seem to support the claims of descent from old Assyria as well. Perhaps some people ought to be a little less intransigent and narrow minded on this issue. David Wilmshurs is actually performing a shuck and jive with his denials by contradicting himself and moving the goalposts when he's caught out. There are a lot of experts in the field who disagree with him, and he seems to be a theologian not a historian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.19.250 (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The Georgian example highlights the problem with naysayers; wherever Assyrian crops up, any reason for the use of the name will be given by them apart from that it may refer to and mean Assyrians, simply because the naysayers refuse by default to accept any evidence. Wilmshurst's denials are pure PPOV, he has provided no evidence for his assumptions; he is just reiterating his default PPOV on all matters Assyrian.

This even extends to the Etymology of Syria when applied to Upper Mesopotamian Christians (read Assyrians); although the origins and historical and original application of the term are now known to derive from Assyrian, naysayers put forth a usual default denial of the meaning of Syrian, Syriac and East Syrian when used in conjunction with Assyrian. This has evolved to such an extent that they tell themselves that there is an ethnic group called Syrians or Syriacs, and that such an ethnic group has no relation to Assyrians And yet, they have been unable to define this imaginary ethnic group or race; Do they mean a citizen of the Syrian Arab Republic? Do they mean Levantine Syriac Christians, who in actuality hold to an Aramean identity and heritage? Because Syria as a modern nation is misnamed historically and geographically, and its inhabitants are of varying ethnicities. Levantine Syriacs are equally misnamed, they are Aramean after all, and proud to be so.

The idea that Assyrians are a religious group is clear nonsense; Assyrians under the Parthians and Sassanids are recorded as following Mesopotamian religion, Church of the East and Orthodox Christianity, Gnosticism and even included converts to Judaism. Where is the evidence for a strong Arab, Kurdish and Iranian ethnic, genetic, cultural or linguistic input into the Assyrian population circa the 7th century AD for example? There is none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.25.101 (talk) 07:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Michael the Syrian's views on Assyrian continuity
Can somebody please give a correct page reference to the quotation from Michael the Syrian. I have searched for this passage in vain in Chabot's three-volume edition of Michael's Chronicle. (None of the three volumes goes up to the page range cited). I am pretty sure that the passage as quoted has been distorted by an Assyrian nationalist, possibly by Addai Scher himself, and I would be interested in reading it in the original Syriac and verifying its accuracy.

Djwilms (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * According to this it is Chabot Vol. 4, p. 17, trans. Vol. 1, p. 32.--  R a f y  talk 12:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Rafy. I will consult the passages cited, and see whether Michael the Syrian says anything that can unsefully contribute to the debate on Assyrian continuity.  My first impression is that he is merely discussing the various names (Assyrians, Arameans, Chaldeans) that were assigned by biblical commentators to the Old Testament kingdoms of Babylonia and Assyria, and says nothing that indicates that the 'Syrians' of his day thought that they were descended from the ancient Assyrians.  However, we shall see.
 * Djwilms (talk) 01:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, Michael the Syrian would have called himself a Syrian or an Aramean, and seems to have regarded the Chaldeans and the Assyrians (in biblical times) as subsets of the Aramean people. The relevant proof text is as follows:


 * 'With the aid of God we discuss the memory of the empires which were established in antiquity by our Aramean race, that is to say the descendants of Aram, who were called Suryaye or people of Syria.' (Chabot, translation, iii. 442).


 * He also says that that no memory of these ancient kingdoms has survived, because the relevant books were burned when these peoples became Christians (this is merely an inference from an incident recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, where converting pagans burned their books at the feet of the apostles). Here is the text in question:


 * 'These primitive kingdoms [viz. Chaldea and Assyria] were annihilated by the kingdom of the Persians, which began with Cyrus and finished with the Darius who was killed by Alexander. The Persian Empire lasted for 231 years, and during this space of time every people throughout Asia was subdued and brought under Persian rule. After Alexander, we should also include the period of the descendants of Seleucus and Antiochus, who were styled 'kings of the Syrians'.  Their dominion lasted for 220 years, until the Roman Empire began with Gaius and Augustus.  At this period there appeared the Saviour of the Universe, Christ, the Son of God. So our people were without kings for 550 years.  But when the lifegiving teaching of the Gospel appeared, this people adhered to it and professed it enthusiastically; and then they neglected and completely despised the other books, which contained stories about their ancient kings.  In their ardent zeal for their faith, they burned all the books which contained the stories of their ancient kings, because the names of these kings and the series of their reigns were intermingled with the diabolical stories of their paganism.  For this reason they turned their faces away from all these books, as though from a foul smell, and they burned them so that their memory should not be preserved by their children and by following generations.  The book of the Acts of the Apostles alludes to this, when it says, "Those who believed brought the books of their fathers and burned them at the feet of the apostles, books whose value was estimated at a high price."'  (Chabot, translation, iii. 446-7.)


 * Apart from noticing Michael's inability to add up (231 plus 220 does not make 550), I was struck principally by the fact that this passage demonstrates that, at least in the twelfth century, there was NO Assyrian continuity worth speaking of. The only people who knew or cared anything about the ancient Assyrians were educated men like Michael, who gathered what they knew about the Assyrians from the Bible and from learned commentaries on the Bible.  Michael has to guess why no trace of these ancient empires has survived, and infers (he cannot know, since there is no surviving evidence) that the records had been burned.


 * It is certainly interesting to find Michael reacting angrily against Greek provocation by claiming that the Arameans/Syrians had a proud past, but I think it would be eccentric to read into him the idea that there was an Assyrian consciousness in the twelfth century. If we accept Michael's views, modern Assyrians should instead adopt an 'Aramean' identity and forge links with their fellow Arameans in the Syrian Orthodox Church.  No, only joking ...


 * Djwilms (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * While I agree that not only Michael but all his East and West Syrian contemporaries would indeed identify as Aramaeans and Syrians, it is interesting to note that he mentions that that among the descendants of sons of Shem there are: "Othuroye, who are the Suryoye". A possible explanation of this specific identification with the Assyrians among all other sons of Shem in Michael the Syrian's work can be found here.--  R a f y  talk 22:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I was searching for something in Michael the Syrian recently, and was struck by his use of 'Assyrian' as a pejorative adjective. Talking about the fall of Edessa in 1144, he describes the Turks as being as cruel as the 'Assyrian boar'.  Not just any old savage boar, note, but an Assyrian one.  Put that together with the standard Christian view of Assyrians as brutal thugs (derived from the graphic description in the Old Testament of Sennacherib's siege of Jerusalem), and it seems to me highly unlikely that any Jacobite or Nestorian Christian in the 12th and 13th centuries would have self-identified with such ghastly Old Testament fascists.


 * Djwilms (talk) 08:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think he also called Zingi an "Assyrian swine", by Assyrian he undoubtedly meant native of Mosul. BTW an editor argued that the citation in question was falsified by Addai Scher.--  K a t h o v o  talk 12:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Djwilms: Why "only joking"? I thought the continuity from early Christian Arameans/Syrians to modern Christian Assyrians at least were uncontroversial. The crucial break I understand to be either Christianisation or rather the language shift from a language on the eastern branch of Semitic to one from the western.
 * I still don't get the problem. How do you guys define "continuity"? Denying any continuity from the ancient Assyrians to modern Christian Assyrians is to me like denying any continuity from the early medieval Vikings/Norsemen to modern Shetlanders, just because they aren't pagan anymore but Christian and don't speak a North Germanic language anymore. And the Vikings weren't particularly peaceful either, nor even particularly sophisticated or advanced, so you could equally question why modern Shetlanders are so keen on their Viking connection and like to identify with them. Ethnic self-identification isn't generally a particularly logical exercise.
 * It just occurred me that not only are there loanwords going as far back as Sumerian in modern languages of the whole region, there is also a certain Akkadian substratum in Neo-Aramaic, and the language was written (if not actively spoken) as late as the Christian period, in the late first century or even the third. So it is reasonable to suspect that a general awareness of the pagan Assyrian culture did persist among the Christian Assyrians/Arameans, at least among the educated elites, independently of the biblical tradition. After all, the general population and even the scribes seem to have been natively Aramaic-speaking already prior to the Achaemenids. (Tellingly, the name of Assyria persisted too.) When should the break have happened, then? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My point is simply that there was no significant continuity. Syriac-speaking Christians in the Middle East discovered the advantages of rebranding themselves as Assyrians only in the second half of the 19th century, as a result of the high profile given to all things Assyrian in the West following the discovery in 1845 by Layard of the ruins of Nineveh.  It was a way of winning recognition in Europe.  They had higher visibility as 'Assyrians' than as Nestorians, Jacobites, Papal Syrians, Chaldeans etc.  Before the excavations at Nineveh, all these Christian minorities called themselves, and thought of themselves, as 'Syrians'.  The wilder fringe of the Assyrian nationalist movement refuses to accept the late and contingent nature of Assyrian identity, and makes claims for Assyrian continuity that are simply not supported by the historical record.  If I had enough time and energy to take on the legions of Assyrian trolls out there, I would propose that this article be retitled 'The Myth of Assyrian Continuity'.  As it is, someone else can try to sort this deeply flawed article out.  Life's too short ...
 * The claim that Addai Scher falsified a derogatory reference to Assyrians in the Chronicle of Michael the Syrian is typical of the tendentious arguments put forward by the nationalists.  It's so easy, isn't it?  You find a sentence that you don't like, because it destroys your argument, so you claim that somebody forged it.
 * Djwilms (talk) 06:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I didn't make myself clear enough. I was referring to the the earlier claim which you suspected to have been falsified by Scher. It is the underlined passage here I believe.--  K a t h o v o  talk 08:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Djwilms With all due respect, the flaw in your argument is twofold. Firstly, the name Assyria existed to describe the land and its people until the 7th century AD, well into the Christian period. As did Assyrian personal and family names, and pretty distinct dialects which retained Akkadian grammatical structure and loan words. Secondly Syrian and Syriac actually meant Assyrian originally. Assyrians had been used to the name since the 9th century BC. The name Syrian when taken out of that Assyrian context is actually just a meaningless catch all term, as the much later Greeks just applied it wholesale to Semites stretching from northern Jordan to southeastern Turkey south to north, and from western Iran to the east Meditteranean coasts of Lebanon from east to west. So saying the Assyrians used the name Syrian, really means they were using the name Assyrian. In addition to that, using that name does not prejudice their actual historic, geographic or ethnic continuity, in fact it supports it. Further to that, the name Assyria and its clear derivatives predate religious terms such as Nestorians, Jacobites and Chaldeans by many centuries, these are just names of church denominations and have nothing to do with ethnicity, historcical continuity or even geography. Nestorian came about only in the 5th or 6th century AD and was solely a theological term applied to all sorts of people from all sorts of locations, ethnicities and churches, and wasnt even strictly accurate when applied to the Church of the East. Jacobite appeared only in the Middle Ages and seems to have been used to describe both local Orthodox and Church of the East Christians, again, just a western theological term. Chaldean is even more ridiculous, it seems to have only been applied to north Iraqi converts from the Assyrian Church of the East and Syriac Orthodox Church in the late 17th century AD, being completely absent for 22 centuries before that, and even geographically it is totally inaccurate, as it was founded in the far north of Iraq and not in the far south east of Iraq where Chaldea and the Chaldeans had lived and disappeared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.230.41 (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. The arguments against continuity are red herrings in my opinion. As I pointed out myself, Syria and Assyria are etymologically identical, and both names remained in use in Ancient Greek and Latin even well into the Christian period, as shown by the name of the 2nd century Roman province (most probably) in northern Mesopotamia and therefore neighbouring Syria. Herodotus' testimony certainly helped retaining awareness of their equivalence as well. Compare the sources at Terms for Syriac Christians.
 * The language shift from Akkadian to Aramaic was effectively a very long and protracted process that lasted virtually throughout the 1st millennium BC, no sharp break at any point in time. If the Akkadian substrate in Aramaic is supported by good sources, this would be an excellent point to add to the article.
 * Given that so many relevant authorities (H. W. F. Saggs, as a leading Assyriologist, probably being the least arguable example) support continuity, the position emphatically endorsed by Djwilms that continuity is merely a "myth" is not supported by a strong scholarly consensus at all (to put it mildly!).
 * While I frequently battle nationalists pushing exaggerated (and sometimes outright ridiculous) continuity claims, I also acknowledge the fact that when continuity is favoured by nationalists, it does not automatically make it a myth; sometimes the notion is indeed reasonable (even if perhaps only supportable by circumstantial evidence rather than any rock-solid argument or evidence). It's just that when there is continuity of language and ethnic self-designation, as in the case of the Greeks and Persians, almost nobody even thinks of challenging claims of continuity, even though in principle it is possible that continuity was seriously disturbed at some point. Again, the basis for Assyrian–Mesopotamian Christian continuity is comparable to that for Ancient Egyptian–Coptic continuity. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the Assyrians used the term Syrians, HOWEVER, as we all know Syrians is derivative and Synonymous with Assyrians. In an ethnic sense Syrians means absolutely nothing unless applied to the Assyrians. Prrhaps Djwilms could explain his definition of a Syrian? Where did the name come from? Where did it originally apply to? What ethnicity are Syrians? What does it mean in a modern sense? Syrian used to mean just Assyrian, it was the Greeks that turned it into a blanket term. Syrian means nothing if applied to an Arab, Armenian, Kurd, Iranian, Turk does it? Perhaps Djwilms could also explain what a Nestorian, Jacobite and Chaldean catholic are in terms of ethnicity? These are religious terms of which Djwilms is wholly obsessed. They are utterly irrelevant when discussing the Eastern Aramaic speaking Christians ancestral, linguistic, cultural, ethnic and historical connection to the population of Assyria-Athura-Assuristan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 06:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The modern English don't call their country Anglaland but England', but quite obviously this does not detract from the fact that modern English are of largely Anglo-Saxon heritage. It is the same with Assyrian to Syrian. Etymologically they are one and the same thing, and the appellation certainly originally only referred to Assyria and not The Levant, this is indisputable. So this terminology in actuality supports Assyrian continuity rather than prejudices it. At the same time Syrian is technically a misnomer when applied to The Levant, as it was only bestowed upon that region by 3rd century BCE Greek Seleucids. (talk) and others are correct in this, whilst (talk) seems to wish to ignore or dismiss it, flying in the face of accepted academic opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.25.101 (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Syrian = Assyrian but long time after we Greeks gave this name to the Aramians also, now they use this as if it is not same as Assyrian and use it against the people the name is from....this is crazy and has no truths at all!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.103.30.157 (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Structure
I think that this article has the potential to become quite an interesting read, but at present it is a mess structurally. I think it should best be arranged as follows: (a) a section that enumerates the supporters and opponents of the continuity hypothesis, and briefly summarises their views; and (b) another section, divided into several subsections, that discusses the main areas of conflict, e.g. absence of Assyrian names, and fairly states the arguments on both sides. I have made a tentative start with the names issue, citing Fiey and Joseph besides myself, but it is going to take some work to bring the article up to scratch. One of the problems is that it is seriously unbalanced at present, as it gives far more space to supporters of the continuity hypothesis than to its opponents. Another problem is its tendentious citations from authors such as Michael the Syrian, who does NOT say some of the things that are ascribed to him. If I were cut some slack, I could probably knock this article into shape, giving equal weight to both sides of the argument, but I am not going to take this on if my edits are automatically reverted by foaming Assyrian nationalists.

Djwilms (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think reversion and vandalism is an issue here. Many users including myself have this page in their watchlist, any substantial editing will be easily noticed.
 * There are many arguments against Assyrian continuity, probably the most notable is the lack of identification as Assyrians prior to the 19th century. However, I don't think that absence of Assyrian names is an issue. Obviously the widespread usage of biblical names do not extend to pre-Christian era. Parpola (Assyrian Identity in Ancient Times and Today pp. 16-17) produced an extensive list of pagan Assyrian names attested from the 1st to 3rd centuries AD. Even after Christianity some pagan names still seep through like in Sharbel and a certain Sarguna of Baghdad mentioned ironically by Fiey in the EOI vol.7 p.971.--  K a t h o v o  talk 20:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It's actually rather bizarre that Wikipedia has such an article in the first instance. Why is there not one for Kurds, Greeks, Iranians/Persians, Arabs, Italians and so forth? This has already been said, I note, but it is rather valid. Why are some people so obsessively bent on picking out Assyrians in particular in this way?

Regarding the naming issue, it's hardly likely that many Assyrians in Roman or Seleucid Syria would have Assyrian names, these areas were never inhabited by Assyrians in the first place, and few Assyrians would claim they were.

In addition, names such as Tiglath-Pileser, Sargon/Sharrukin, Sennacherib etc were often Throne Names, bestowed upon kings and other highly important people. Many actually were born with different names, so the whole point is rendered meaningless.

Despite that, a number of these types of names are recorded throughout Mesopotamia even after the Arab Islamic Conquests, and indeed by early European travellers in the early pre Archaeological discovery period.

It is equally unrealistic to expect Christian priests and bishops to have names that are very clearly linked to and glorifying polytheistic gods! You will find few Anglo-Saxon period priests with names glorifying Woden, Tyr or Thor, or early Greek priests called Apollo or Zeus for example.

Again, despite this, many Assyrian surnames (not given first names) today, such as Ashur, Atour, Shamash, Hadad, Shinu/Shinoo, Sargon, Eshtazin, Tyareh, Kasran, Khoshaba among many others, including the common ending shu and sho have clear Assyrian/Mesopotamian connotations.

Christianisation often meant the marginalising of original ethnic names. Just look at how very few Anglo-Saxon/English first names are used today, in comparison with alien Semitic or Greco-Roman names in England. Only a handful such as Alfred and Edward are still to some degree common, most are utterly extinct. Far more Englishmen are called Daniel, Thomas, Jake, Zack, Peter, Paul, David, Mark etc than they are named Athelstan, Wolfric, Oswy, Dunstan or Ceolwolf. So does this fact in any way detract from English lineage or identity? Does this mean Englishmen are in fact a collection of Hebrews, Arameans, Greeks and Italians? Of course not, not any more or less than it indicates Assyrians are not Assyrians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ironically, the case for Assyrian continuity is actually better than that for most other continuities that are taken seriously, such as those you've named. The reason is that as a marginalised group since the Arab Conquest, who have never been able to expand into any direction, the Assyrian Christians are much more likely to have preserved their ethnic and biological identity than a dominant group like the Persians, who have assimilated lots of outsiders (e. g., the Sogdians). Even the case of the Jews is more complicated than that (there was certainly a lot of admixture given that Jewish identity is matrilineally inherited only). The history of Mesopotamia and Syria since antiquity is well-documented, which makes it all the more puzzling that claims that are blatantly coloured by nationalistic bias and motivations such as "Greek purity" from antiquity to modern times or Indo-Aryan continuity in South Asia, Turkic continuity in the Pontic–Kazakh steppes, continuity of specific ethnic groups in the Americas, Australia, Asia, etc., even Europe, since deep prehistory, are accepted much more willingly and without question, sometimes even by academics. Also, Assyrians, like Armenians, are a typical native minority group who was victim of a massive genocide, not a dominant, colonial ethnos, so even from a superficial political perspective one would expect much more sympathy with them and take their claims of millennia-old autochthony much more seriously, just like in the case of the Mi'kmaq, Lakota or Hopi (where long continuity is highly doubtful) or the Inuit in Northern Canada (or even the Navajo) – where the lack of continuity is known to modern science –, where activists and other specialists will naively hold the claims of long continuity of the local native ethnic group to be correct (leading to absurdities such as reburial of the Kennewick Man, even though an ethnic continuity of the Umatilla on their current territory spanning 9000–10,000 years, despite their oral histories, is completely implausible, as it is for any modern ethnic group), purely out of an anti-colonialist mindset, coupled with a "noble savage" undercurrent that implicitly denies the possibility of ethnic strife and assimilation in pre-Columbian times (reinforced by a common anti-migrationist bias in archaeology, which taken to extremes results in the fringy if not outright pseudoscientific Paleolithic Continuity Theory), or the possibility that native tribes may glorify their history and exaggerate its depth (that many Native American groups deny that their ancestors ever immigrated to the New World, if taken by face value, would entail that Homo sapiens evolved in the Americas rather than Africa, after all!). The acceptance of long-continuity claims is too much dependent on politics and recent history and too little on genuine scholarship (such as history and linguistics). An ethnic group may be marginalised now, but that does not mean that they have always been marginalised; indeed they can have been, like the Navajo or Aztecs, quite expansive in not-so-distant prehistory or even documented history, and not at all present on their ancestral territories "since the dawn of time". I like to call this naive acceptance of long-continuity claims the "Anglo-Saxon cavemen" fallacy. Claims that there has been ethnic continuity in Britain from the early medieval period until now, or in Northern Mesopotamia, Egypt or Lebanon (or Pakistan and northern India, for that matter), from classical antiquity to modern times, are quite different from continuity claims that look back to distant times six or more millennia ago. Again, I do not understand why such absurd, outrageous claims are taken seriously and the much more moderate – in comparison – Assyrian continuity hypothesis (which is, after all, quite analogous to the quite reasonable idea of Coptic identity that Copts are directly descended from Ancient Egyptians) is frequently rejected tout court, as if it were obvious nonsense. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I have restructured this article. Hopefully it reads better, but if not, feel free to tweak it. I am also aware that there are more references supporting continuity than questioning it or denying it. So, a few opposing views could be added, provided there is a balance. In addition it might be good to have some references from academics who have ambivalent views on the subject, to create more balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 13:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Linguistic continuity?
The article is about Assyrian continuity claim of direct ethnic descent. Although descent of languages does not necessarily mean descent of people speaking them, at least it would be some kind of indirect argument.

Only one kind of continuity would be somewhat relevant here - a direct descent. But Assyrian Neo-Aramaic is not a descendant of Akkadian. They belong to different branches of semitic languages.

The article pretends to "prove" something about direct ethnic descent but in reality talks about a narrow set of substratum elements. This kind of "continuity" is quite irrelevant. Blacks speaking Haitian Creole have a significant Amerindian substrate in their language. Does it prove or even suggest their Amerindian descent? This is ridiculous.

Why do we let Assyrian nationalists run amok destroying the credibility of Wikipedia? Could some people with higher authority interfere and stop this circus? I have been watching it for quite some time and it makes me sick. Omnitempore (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This objection is not particularly strong. The shift from Akkadian to Aramaic happened already in the 1st millennium BC. Are you saying the Assyrians as an ethnic group disappeared as soon as they gave up their original East Semitic language?
 * Of course, Arabic-speaking Iraqis and Syrians are also highly likely to largely descend from the same original population of the Near East. However, there is an additional shift of both language and religion involved to make the relationship more distant and the continuity less obvious.
 * Ultimately, the same objections as against Assyrian continuity could be advanced against any kind of ethnic continuity from antiquity to the modern age. If you doubt that the modern Christian Aramaic-speaking Assyrians are descended from the ancient (first pagan, then Christian) Aramaic-speaking Assyrians, do you also doubt the continuity between ancient and modern Greeks or ancient and modern Persians? What is your standard for continuity at all? Do you accept genetic evidence?
 * And to address your example, there is no evidence that blacks speaking Haitian Creole are not descended – in part – from the local or other Amerindian populations too, and every reason to suspect they are. According to Taíno people, the Amerindian contribution on Hispaniola actually appears to be substantial. So your own example disproves your point rather than strengthening it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Some linguists, such as Geoffrey Khan, DO link the modern Eastern Aramaic dialects of the Assyrian Christians to Akkadian, mentioning Akkadian grammatical structures and loan words not found in Western Aramaic. Indicating that East Aramaic overlayed and was influenced by the earlier Akkadian language. Also, that Syriac meant Assyrian originally, thus Syriac and Sureth dialects meant Assyrian dialects of Aramaic, and that they originated in Assyria. All of these are very valid points when discussing continuity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.230.41 (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Just imagine this sentence was saying Quranic Assertion instead
disproving the Biblical assertion that Assyria was both depopulated and devastated. Muslims and Atheists that controls wikipedia, and block and censore christians everytimes forget that Quran considers to Bible as an antecedent. If you denies or questions Bible, you denies and question Quran itself.190.207.141.115 (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

So what? Neither the Bible nor the Quran are accurate in terms of historicity, that has been well proven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.230.41 (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Genetic studies
An Assyrian Television reporter named Nineveh Denha was subject to a genetic mapping profile as part of an American News Documentary in 2008, which showed her genetic ancestry traced to circa 1400 BC in what was then ancient Assyria,

The above statement isn't accurate and doesn't convey what was said in the video, plus they only analyzed her mtDNA. Pretty dishonest. Wasn't sure whether to remove it completely but I'll test the waters first.

In part 2 of the news report at 1:26 and again at 2:42 we're shown Denha's HVR I and II mutations: 16300G, 16325C, 16362C, 239C, 263G, 309.1C, 315.1C

These correspond to haplogroup H6 (perhaps subclade H6b but we don't know her coding area mutations and it's unlikely they were tested at that time) which spans Eastern and Southern Europe to Central Asia. It's not possible to indicate the specific regional origin of her haplogroup with such a high level of accuracy, certainly not "ancient Assyria circa 1400 B.C." and not by using the limited databases available today, let alone those from 2008 when the report first aired.-- So linear (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Be bold and remove it. Youtube is not a RS anyway.--  K a t h o v o  talk 12:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the claims prove to be accurate, the link WAS made in the report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.230.41 (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, genetic studies of modern Assyrians do show that they are a homogenous group, and equally show that they are genetically distinct from former Aramaic speakers in Levantine and Transjordanian regions, which kind of shoots down the argument that they are Arameans. The Akkadian substratum in East and Central Neo-Aramaic dialects of north Iraq, north east Syria, east Turkey and north west Iran which is seemingly completely absent in Levantine, Transjordanian and even South Mesopotamian dialects helps underline this. The same genetic studies distinguish modern Assyrians from nearby Arab, Iranian, Kurdish, Turkish, Armenian and Jewish populations as well, and this kind of shoots down the argument that they are really Christianized members of these ethnic groups, as does too the pretty much accepted fact that they historically pre-date all of those peoples by quite some length of time. So surely all this points to Assyrians being Assyrians? If they aren't, then who are they? Because none of the naysayers so far have given any well referenced, structured or scholarly argument giving an alternative ancestry or origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.25.50 (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

More nit-picking and pedantry here. The fact the Assyrians are homogenous and Bona Fide according to Cavalli-Sforza and many others more versed in genetics than any of us is clearly not enough for some of the pedants. The Assyrians are more genetically homogenous than the Turks, Arabs and Iranians/Persians, and yet the Turks Arabs and Iranians/Persians are distinct peoples and the Assyrians are not? A large helping of Hypocrisy anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.31.78 (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Is the article name valid?
Is there any source by historians that specifically refer to something called "Assyrian continuity" or did this name just appear on wikipedia and some websites? I couldn't find anything by historians referring to this name. There may be historians addressing claims of descent from ancient Assyrians without mentioning something called "Assyrian continuity". This would qualify as a made up neologism.Rajmaan (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Likewise you will not find any historian talking about "Comparative officer ranks of World War II". This is just a descriptive title, if you know a better name to describe "claims of continuity between modern and ancient Assyrians" you can suggest a rename.--  K a t h o v o  talk 12:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Improve Intro
I think the intro could be more concise and simpler to read if the details (for example, list of names/references) where left in the main body. Referencing in the intro is not purpose of an intro.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The intro should also not include a large body of one sided POV opinions either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.25.101 (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

What is the point of this page
This page adds nothing Wikipedia except fuel the Assyrian Political POV pushing. The contents of this page are often cut and pasted into other Wikipedia pages to simply satisfy this POV goal.

Dr E.Odisho himself is a modern-day Assyrian and editor-in-cheif from the Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies (an Assyrian Publication), offers this an explanation of the much criticized Simon Parpola: “He [Parpola] is the only non-Assyrian international scholar who believes in the historical and cultural connection (continuity) between the ancient Assyrians and the modern Assyrians” E.Y. Odisho “Parpola: A Finn scholar defence of Assyrian Historical Identity” Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies 16:1 (2002) p11.

Most of the academics implicated in the this article as supporting Assyrian continuity are either misquoted or taken out of context.Sr 76 (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed they are. But what's the point of trying to fix it? Life's too short.


 * Djwilms (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * LOL Yes life is too short. I would rather live a short life full of truth than a long life full of lies. Sr 76 (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Djwilms, Fix what? I note that you yourself have given no indication as to who Assyrians are if they are not Assyrians, rather you just state that they are not Assyrian. You seem fixated on theological labels, which are an irrelevance when discussing ethnic identity. The arguments against Assyrian identity and continuity are rather weak, considering there is in actuality a rather stronger argument for such a continuity than many other generally unquestioned continuity and ancestral claims. Much of it is quite compelling, consider the following; It is known that Assyria was extant from perhaps the 25th century BCE until the begging of the 6th century BCE, it remained known as Assyria until the early part of the 7th century CE. It is well documented in Hellenic and Persian records throughout this period, including the use of the appellation Assyrian to describe the inhabitants. It is equally well documented that a specific Assyrian culture, including the worship of Mesopotamian gods, was evident into the 4th century CE. Equally, it is known that the name Syria was wholly synonymous with, derived from and solely applied to Assyria and the Assyrians, and that this appellation only much later came also to be applied to Aram in the 3rd century BCE. The adoption of Aramaic, which we know was gradual, also does not detract from an Assyrian continuity argument, particularly as the Mesopotamian forms retain many loan words and grammatical similarities with the older Akkadian, whereas the western Aramaic of the Arameans does not.

In short, the arguments against Assyrian identity are rather weak, if not spurious. An Assyrian ethnic, historical and cultural continuity is no less valid than most other accepted ancestral claims, and far and away more valid than many of these.

Clearly, the use of terms such as Nestorian, Syrian and so forth are meaningless for very obvious reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.17.45 (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

These arguments against continuity are pretty weak. Historically, Syria and Assyria are etymologically one and the same, both terms continued during the Graeco-Roman period, and well into the Christian period, where by the way there was a Well Documented parallel pagan Assyrian revival which extended into the 4th century AD, which in itself strongly supports continuity.

The transformation to Eastern Aramaic from Akkadian is also an irrelevance, as this took a millennia to come about, and actually began during the very height of Assyrian power, which is very relevant in itself. Of course the Akkadian influence on Eastern Aramaic dialects, which is not found in Western Aramaic dialects, is also highly significant.

H. W. F. Saggs, Robert D. Biggs, Simo Parpola, Richard Nelson Frye, Mordechai Nisan and many others support continuity, it actually has a pretty strong body of academic, historical, genetic, linguistic, geographical and anthropological evidence to support it. Some of this is very clear, some open to interpretation, some circumstancial, but taken as a whole, it is pretty strong. Whereas Djwilms and Sr 76, do not have any scholarly evidence at all for their blind denials, and for inexplicable reasons seem to narrow mindedly ignore any evidence put forth for continuity. Neither of them have actually put forth a scholarly based argument for who the Assyrians actually are if they are not Assyrians, (??)... after all, it is clear they are not Arabs, Kurds, Iranians, Turks or Armenians (they are without any doubt genetically and linguistically distinct from these ethnicities), and they are also genetically, linguistically and geographically distinct from Levantine Syriacs (read Arameans).

Just because some Assyrian Nationalists strongly espouse the continuity hypothesis it DOES NOT in any way prejudice the validity and factuality of such a hypothesis, particularly when you compare it to the myriad of wholly unsupported continuity claims that for political (or even politically correct) reasons go unquestioned around the world. So the fact that Assyrians themselves push the evidence on this issue does not detract from its accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.25.101 (talk) 07:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

There really should be no point in this page. Not because Assyrians don't exist, but because they should not have to repeatedly prove that they do, in particular when there are a multitude of continuity, heritage and ancestral claims world wide which are much less provable and considerably less valid than Assyrian continuity, and none of these have been the target of such vociferous naysayers, in fact many are not even questioned. In summary, there certainly seems to be more than a tad of hypocrisy here.

Whether or not Assyrian Nationalists have a POV is not the issue really. The issue is Do they have a point?, and a point that has academic and evidential support. The answer to that, is yes. Too often Wiki editors remove or challenge pages, or additions to pages, simply because these are created and altered by people who have a certain POV, without taking a step or two back and actually assessing whether the page or edits are actually valid and supported referentially and academically.

Another issue here is that often, the references given do not come from Assyrian people themselves, so using them cannot really be POV Assyrian Nationalism in a technical sense.

I do wonder just what the naysayers will accept as evidence? Do they accept Genetic Studies which seem to show Assyrians are a fairly distinct and homogenous people? Do they accept Habitational Continuity in the region from at least the Neo Assyrian Empire onwards? Bearing in mind that it is undisputed that the East Aramaic and Syriac speaking Assyrians ancestors were living in said region long before the arrival of Arabs, Kurds and Turks? Do they accept supporting Academic Opinion from Non-Assyrian Historians, Assyriologists and Orientalists? Because these opinions do exist. Do they accept Written Historical Record? Again, there is written historical record in support. Do they accept Linguistic Evidence? Once more, there seems to be an Akkadian substratum and influence to the Neo-Aramaic dialects not found in Western Aramaic. Do they accept the physical and political existence of Assyria up until the Islamic Conquest? Because this too is accepted as a reality. Do they accept the Etymology of Syria is generally accepted now to be a derivative of Assyria? This again is fairly well proven, and seems to shoot down the argument that Syrian', Syriac and East Syrian'' detract from an Assyrian identity. Do they accept that Nestorian, Chaldean Catholic and Syriac Christian are quite clearly just specifically theological appellations? We know that they are of course. Do they accept a people's right to self expression, and a right to a history and heritage?

There are a few can I say Hard Core contributors to matters Assyrian who clearly have an Anti-Assyrianist POV, which is fine up to a point, but not quite so fine when it extends to a default position of outright denial, with a refusal to even consider supportive evidence and opinion in an open minded way, coupled both with accusations of POV, Nationalism, vandalism and so on, as well as pretty extreme Talk Page comments which include emotive and outright insulting words, such as Bogus, A Lie, False, A Myth.

In summary, far from Assyrian so labelled POV edits queering these articles and Talk Pages (and I agree they do sometimes of course), it is a few of the naysayers who seem the most POV, narrow minded, intransigent, and sometimes outright offensive and insulting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.22.75 (talk) 11:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Which studies? And what does homogeneity have to do with continuity? Provide references that support your claim.
 * You need to provide secondary academic sources which explicitly state that there exists written historical record that supports Assyrian continuity.
 * I think you might be referring to Khan's paper. He never claims "linguistic continuity" between Akkadian and Neo-Aramaic nor an "Akkadian substratum and influence to the Neo-Aramaic dialects". I added the Linguistic continuity subsection myself but now I think it's baseless.
 * There was no political entity known as Assyria during the Islamic conquest. The Sassanian satrap known as Asorestan was actually located in modern central Iraq. You can compare it with how "Romania" is not located in central Italy but in the eastern Europe.
 * This is the only valid continuity claim. Still, it doesn't necessarily follows that modern Assyrians are THE descendants of ancient Assyrians. Going back to Rome again, a large number of modern Arabic-speaking Christians in the Levant call themselves Rūm. Clearly, Etymology of Rūm is a derivative of Rome, it doesn't follow that the modern Rūm are the descendant of ancient Romans.
 * Syrian/Syriac are not "just" theological appellations. Aramaic Speaking Christians call themselves Suryaye/Suryoye which translates to "Syrian" regardless of their religious affiliation. You will find this name appearing countless times uninterrupted for centuries in both eastern and western Syriac traditions.
 * --  K a t h o v o  talk 23:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There was no political entity known as Assyria during the Islamic conquest. The Sassanian satrap known as Asorestan was actually located in modern central Iraq. You can compare it with how "Romania" is not located in central Italy but in the eastern Europe.
 * This is the only valid continuity claim. Still, it doesn't necessarily follows that modern Assyrians are THE descendants of ancient Assyrians. Going back to Rome again, a large number of modern Arabic-speaking Christians in the Levant call themselves Rūm. Clearly, Etymology of Rūm is a derivative of Rome, it doesn't follow that the modern Rūm are the descendant of ancient Romans.
 * Syrian/Syriac are not "just" theological appellations. Aramaic Speaking Christians call themselves Suryaye/Suryoye which translates to "Syrian" regardless of their religious affiliation. You will find this name appearing countless times uninterrupted for centuries in both eastern and western Syriac traditions.
 * --  K a t h o v o  talk 23:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Syrian/Syriac are not "just" theological appellations. Aramaic Speaking Christians call themselves Suryaye/Suryoye which translates to "Syrian" regardless of their religious affiliation. You will find this name appearing countless times uninterrupted for centuries in both eastern and western Syriac traditions.
 * --  K a t h o v o  talk 23:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

talk - With regard to genetic studies, I note that these are already extant within the article, so why is it necessary to requite these on a talk page? Homogeny in actuality does aid in the continuity issue also, in that deniers claim Assyrians are merely a collection of Arameans, Arabs, Kurds and Turks, but genetically, they are clearly distinct from these peoples. Cavalli-Sforza make the link between ancient and modern for example.

There is much written historical record, including from the Parthian Era, the 2nd century BCE to 4th century AD Assyrian revival has been covered by many historians. Others have noted the existence of polytheist Assyrian religion, the continuation of Assyrian names and customs and the continual use of the term Assyrian and Assyria. There are scholars that support this position, or should they be ignored?

You are wrong concerning no geo-political entity named Assyria; Assyria was Athura under the Achaemenids, Syria (the Greek for Assyria) under the Seleucids, Athura once more under the Parthians, Assyria Provincia (all be it briefly) under the Romans, and in the Parthian era Assur, Adiabene, Osroene, Beth Garmai and Beth Nuhadra became Neo-Assyrian independent or semi independent entities. Asoristan means The Land of The Assyrians, as I am sure you know full well. The Mesopotamians were one and the same people; Which of course is why the Sassanids and possibly later Parthians were happy to label all of Mesopotamia The Land of the Assyrians. A further reason of course is that much of Assyria proper was semi-independent until the later 3rd century AD. The comparison with Romania and Italy is utterly invalid and a very poor example, as these were geographically, culturally and ethnically distinct from one another, while conversely the Mesopotamians were certainly not; same people, same land, same history, same language, same culture. The inhabitants of Classical era Romania were Dacians a people utterly unrelated to Latins, the inhabitants of Mesopotamia were native Mesopotamians. In addition, many classical writers quote upper Mesopotamia as being Assyria, well into the Byzantine era. A complete red herring.

If you accept Syria derives from Assyria etymologically, then logically it means one and the same when used by or to describe Assyrians. Suryaye/Suryoye thus in fact actually translates to Assyrian. If we accept the etymology of Syria, then when applied to Levantine or Transjordanian populations, it is surely an inaccuracy and a misnomer? Because as an ethnic and geographic term, it is only accurate when describing Assyrians.

In actuality talk, your example of Romania and Rome is far more accurate when applying Syria to The Levant and Levantine Arameans is it not?

As for linguistic continuity, Personally I never claimed Neo Aramaic is descendant from Akkadian, I stated that there appears to be some influence there, including many loan words, family and tribal names, and arguably some grammatical features. The language shift in itself was gradual, taking perhaps a millennia, and is yet another red herring in denial of continuity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.25.101 (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I really don't have time to reply to everything but:
 * Cavalli-Sforza doesn't test whether modern Assyrians are descendant of ancient ones, Joel J. Elias is an Assyrian professor of biochemistry and pharmaceuticals who is passed in this article as an expert in genetics.
 * There is no archaeological evidence of continuation of ancient Assyrian settlements, we know they were completely destroyed and abandoned then remodeled as Hellenistic and Parthian cities as this article concludes for example.
 * In Aramaic, Syrian is Suryaya, Assyrian is Aturaya, there is no confusion here. Syriac Christians always called themselves Suryaye and never Aturaye, pretending the two are the same because they are etymologically related is nonsense.
 * Any proof of Akkadian tribal names? "The language shift in itself was gradual, taking perhaps a millennia", interesting, got references?
 * There are several other things that stink in this article; Sebastian Brock, perhaps the ultimate living authority on Syriac Christians never appears ones in this article. Coakley, Fiey and John Joseph, all heavyweights on the subject are only mentioned in passing and are equated with unknowns like Fred Aprim, Odisho Gewargis, and a Fox news anchor. Adam Becker's article, one of the few that strictly covers the subject is completely ignored. Georges Roux is blatantly misquoted, Ibn al-Nadim's reference is simply false, you (probably Eddie's sock) keep adding it to articles even after I warned you not once. I don't have the time nor the will to go through the article so I hope someone else cleans it up.--  K a t h o v o  talk 00:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

talk :#Cavalli-Sforza states that the modern Assyrians are a homogenous group and that they are probably bona fide descendants of their namesakes. There was also a further set of genetic studies which differentiated Assyrian Christians from Levantine peoples.
 * Acyually, there is no evidence that all Assyrian settlements were destroyed and abandoned, we know that Nineveh, Kalhu and Dur-Sharrukin were, but Roux for example, maintains others survived largely intact. In addition, there is academic opinion that inhabitants of destroyed major cities simply built new smaller settlements nearby. We also know that Assur, Arrapha (Karka), Harran, Arbela and others remained occupied, or were reoccupied. The idea that Assyria and the Assyrians were simply wiped out after the fall of empire as quoted in The Bible is now wholly inaccurate. As you know, there is academic opinion from noted scholars which strongly support this. We also know that during the Parthian and early Sassanid era traditional Assyrian/Mesopotamian culture was still alive and well.
 * Fiey, Joseph and Coakley are mentioned, as is Becker, but are they truly equated with Aprim and Gewargis? Or are they in fact equated with Parpola, Frye, Saggs, Brinkman and others? Are these too not Heavyweights on the subject? Why ignore them? So, this is a blatantly untrue and unfair statement.
 * Adam Becker has an opinion that Middle Eastern Christians in general (including Egyptian Copts and Syriac Arameans) have appropriated an ancient ethnic heritage they have no right to. In the case of Syriac Christians, he uses long obsolete and discarded early Medieval terminology such as West Syrians and East Syrians. Scholars today do not apply these terms to any ethnic group. What ethnicity are East Syrians or West Syrians? Indeed what ethnicity are Syrians and/or Syriacs? What do these terms mean? Because if there are no such ethnicities, who then are these peoples?
 * I did not pretend the two are the same regarding Syrian and Assyrian. In an etymological, historical and geographical sense it is fact that they are the same. What is said is that, because they are the same, the appellations Suryaye, Syrian, Syriac are accurate etymologically, historically, geographically and ethnically when referring to Assyrians, whereas they are inaccurate on all of these levels when referring to Levantine Aramean Christians or Syrian Arabs. You yourself unwittingly gave an example which disproves your argument with Romania. They call themselves Romanians, implying a non extant ethnic and geographical link with Rome. East European Gypsies also call themselves Roma, which has the same implied connotation. We know neither are Romans, ie descendent from the Italic Latin speaking tribes of the Italian peninsula. They have always used the name too, but we know it is inaccurate. Syriac Christian in relation to Levantines is purely connected to theology and religious persuasion, and not ethnicity or historicity, it has no more ethnic relevance than calling a Gypsy Roma. After all when Cilician subject kings were referring to their Syrian overlord, they were not referring to a minor Aramean king sitting in Damascus were they? They were referring to an Assyrian emperor-king sitting in Assur or Nineveh. The term Suryaye only ever became applied to the Levant because the Levant was long under the domination of Assyria, and the Greeks applied the name wholesale and without regard to geography, history or ethnicity to much of the Near East, the same with Romania, if it had never been conquered and ruled by Rome it is unlikely in the extreme that Romania would have come into use.
 * Some examples of extant tribal and clan names Bit Ashur, Bit Shamasha, Bit Eshtazin, Bit Tyareh, and surnames such as Shinu/Shinoo, Ashur, Hadad, Sinharib, Sharbel, Sharrokin, Ramsin, Sargon and many others with the ending of Shu/Sho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.25.101 (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The Assuristan argument is a pointless pedantry, and much as with the Roman/Romania example, it actually works rather strongly against your position. That it was largely concentrated in central Mesopotamia is a complete irrelevance, particularly when you take into account; (A) That Central Mesopotamia was a battleground between two different Mesopotamian polities, namely Assyria and Babylonia, and at different times parts were ruled by each. (B) Assyria usually had the upper hand over Babylonia, so in actuality it was far more often a part of Assyria than of Babylonia. (C) The Mesopotamians were the same people anyway, speaking the same language, following the same religion, using the same written script, a part of the same culture, civilisation and history. (D) The Sassanids recognising and naming this area as The Assyrians' Land supports Assyrian continuity, rather than denies it, in that it starkly it shows a consciousness of Assyria and Assyrians long after any consciousness of Sumer, Akkad, Babylonia or Chaldea had faded into history. Your attempts at differentiating on this are more akin to an attempt to assert that Germans in Germany, Austria and Switzerland are different races because they live in different polities, or that North Koreans are different to South Koreans, for the same deeply flawed reason.
 * UNPO and even the notoriously Arabist BBC even quote the Assyrians as the indigenous people of the regions they inhabit.
 * The language shift was gradual. Where is there evidence for a sudden break? We know that the population began a shift towards Aramaic from perhaps the 9th century BCE (during the apex of Assyrian power), we know that Imperial Aramaic was introduced as the lingua franca of the Assyrian Empire in the mid 8th century BC, and we know that Akkadian as an imperial language largely disappeared during the 6th century BCE, we also know that it endured perhaps as late as the 3rd century AD. But there is no evidence for a sudden and immediate disappearance whatsoever. Even if there were, how relevant is that? Because the Assyrians and Babylonians began to convert to that language even at the height of their power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.25.101 (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

talk - I think there are some rampant double standards employed here. This is worth consideration; The vast majority of Levantine Syriac Christians in Syria and Lebanon only speak Arabic, and have long done so. A tiny number of villagers in Maloula aside, Western Aramaic is stone dead. And yet, Levantine Syriacs assert an Aramean or Phoenician heritage, and do not consider themselves Arabs. Because they speak Arabic does that mean that they are Arabs, and have no other heritage or identity? Because there are no more Aramean or Phoenician cities, does this imply the destruction of the people themselves? Does the destruction of Aztec cities and a language shift to Spanish mean modern Mexicans are in fact Spaniards and not Aztec/Native American? I think not. I agree with Levantine Syriac Christians, they may have some pre-Islamic Arab admixture, but they are not Arabs at root, and have every right to assert an Aramean and Phoenician identity, their history goes back long before the Arab Islamic Conquest. I feel it would be pedantic, narrow minded and mean spirited to deny these peoples their heritage, especially as there is no proof they were wiped out, or bred out. What is good for them however, does not seem to be good for the Assyrians, why should that be? By your flawed logic then, Arabic Levantine Syriac Christians are in fact Arabs, and Eastern Aramaic speaking Assyrians are in fact Arameans. Should we also regard Mexicans as Spaniards and the vast majority of Scots and Irish as English too?

If you really want to go after utterly baseless continuity claims, try looking at the articles on Gutians and Kurds, where Kurdish nationalists are allowed to assert Kurdish descent from the Gutians, a Language Isolate speaking people of the Zagros who disappeared from history over a millennia before the Indo-Iranian speaking Kurds even appeared. These sort of claims (along with many others) go utterly unchallenged on Wikipedia. By contrast, Assyrian ancestral claims, which alongside Egyptian Coptic continuity from Ancient Egypt, are probably the strongest in the entire Middle East, and do have academic support are subject to continual attack. There are risible claims made by some Assyrianists on other mediums. I myself have challenged insane assertions that the Sumerians were one and the same people as Assyrians, and that the Assyrians discovered The Americas, to mention just two examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.25.101 (talk) 10:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The example with Rome and Romania is a poor example anyway. The term "Roman" and its derivatives did not apply only to people from Rome and Roman Italy, but to Roman citizens and Romanized populations across the Roman Empire. Following the Constitutio Antoniniana (212) the Roman citizenship was expanded to include every free man and woman within the borders of the Roman Empire.

There is still some continuity between the Roman Empire and Romania, because the Romanian language is one of the Romance languages and a direct descendant of Vulgar Latin. This variation of Latin was the language the Latin-speaking populations of the Empire actually spoke and differed considerably from the Classical Latin preferred by writers and the upper classes. On the other hand, the Dacian language has been extinct for more than a millennium. There is considerable disagreement on whether Dacian has had any influence on Romanian. See our article on List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin, where most etymologies are disputed. Dimadick (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes the link between Rome and Romania and its Dacian inhabitants is in fact far more similar to the link between Assyria and The Levant and its (largely) Aramean inhabitants. Romania was in an ethnic and geographic sense a misapplication when applied to Dacia/Romania, as Assyria/Syria was when applied to Aramea/Eber Nari. Modern Levantines are not really Assyrians or Syrians/Syriacs, any more than modern Romanians are really Romans, any more than the traveller Roma are, whose origins we know to be from northern India. Much like the Imperial Aramaic of the Assyrian Empire became the Lingua Franca of a vast region stretching from The Caucasus to Egypt, and from Persia to Cyprus under the Assyrians, Latin became the lingua franca of the Roman Empire, but of course citizens of both empires were not all Assyrians/Syrians or Romans/Latins in an ethnic or geographical sense. The term Syrian (meaning originally of course Assyrian), became applied to much of what had been the Assyrian Empire by the later Greeks - thus Arameans, Phoenicians, Canaanites, Nabateans, possibly some Pre-Islamic Arabs, and in fact anybody living in Mesopotamia, The Levant, southern and south eastern Anatolia, and Transjordan was simply dubbed Syrian by the Greeks, a misnomer technically, unless applied to the Assyrians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.25.101 (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Throughout the talk page you have been voicing you own personal opinion without citing references. No matter how convincing your arguments are, which are not in this case, they will still be rejected as long as they are not supported explicitly by sufficient references.--  K a t h o v o  talk 14:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

These people attacking the Assyrians are fools. I am Greek, we are from the old Greeks, the Assyrians today the same! Where are the proofs the Assyrians were destroyed then? We gave the name Syrian to the Assyrians which = the same. We gave it to Aramia too..a mistake because now they stupidly call themselves Syrian and Syriak as if this is a new race, but a real Syrian is Assyrian!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.103.30.157 (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

talk - Really? Most of what I have said is referenced already within the articles, do I really need to repeat references with every point? Because you certainly do not do that yourself! In actuality, it is your arguments that are spurious and rather weak. You have provided no proof whatsoever nor even strong evidence that supports your position that the Assyrians were wiped out, bred out or destroyed, and without that proof there really is no basis for your position other than personal opinion is there?. Nor that the modern Assyrians are unrelated to the ancient Assyrians. talk for example, is actually quite correct in his comment above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.25.101 (talk) 07:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The whole denial issue is more than a bit hypocritical, particularly in light of a whole host of continuity and ancestral claims around the world with a lot less evidence to support them. Why is there no Scottish continuity page dealing with the modern Scots' connection to the ancient Scoti tribe for example? Bear in mind folks, the Scoti were a specific tribe who gave their name to Scotland as a whole. They were later migrants, and from Ireland to boot. The earlier inhabitants, the Kingdom of Strathclyde and the Pictish east were different people, Brythonic Celts. Eventually they intermingled. Add Norse, Danish and English input, plus further migrations from Ireland, and of course the Normans. Then take the virtual extinction of Scots Gaelic, apart from in a few isolated regions, its replacement with English, together with a certain input of English and Biblical personal names. Add a conversion to Christianity and the death of native Gaelic Celt religion, customs and culture. Throw in a scarcity of local and native literature, in fact a total absence until the 6th or 7th centuries AD. Where is the continuity? See just how easy it is to be a naysayer and pedant should you be of a mind to? Personally, Scots are Scots, and have every right under the sun to call themselves Scots. So, why are these negative, pedantic and nit-picking arguments thrown at Assyrians on Wikipedia, and not the Scottish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.31.78 (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Most of these allegeations such as pairing Levantines with Arameans is poor anyways since modern day Levantines are descendants of Arabs, NOT Syriacs or Arameanans. As for Assyrians, genetic studies show they are different from their neighbours and even from Chrisitan aramnean people which proves they are the same as the ancients. Akmal94 (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Saggs taken out of context
H.W.F. Saggs is used as a reference of Assyrian Continuity, Since Saggs dedicates an entire section of chapter 9 with the title "Assyrians a Nation not a Race". Saggs states "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"

Intention of this page "Assyrian Continuity" is that the Modern day Assyrians are the descendants of the Ancient Assyrians. This conclussion from Saggs is taken out of context. Sr 76 (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Sr 76 (talk - Actually, Saggs is most certainly NOT taken out of context. The section relating to Saggs very clearly states that Assyria deported various peoples into Assyria proper, and into other parts of its empire.

The argument is that the modern Assyrians are the descendants of Ancient Assyria, including those that became, for want of a better word, 'Assyrianized'.

The fact that other peoples were deported into Assyria does not in any way detract from an Assyrian identity or continuity. It is a weak argument, particularly so considering that most ethnic groups have input, often significant input, from other ethnic groups due to migration, invasion and assimilation. The same argument could be used against practically any ethnic group in the world, and thus is pointless.

Your posts on Assyrian matters show a very clear Anti-Assyrian POV I must say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.17.45 (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The claim Saggs is taken out of context is completely bogus. These sorts of denials are pretty weak and desperate really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.31.78 (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I suggest reading the book. Sr 76 (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Surnames
I managed to found that Assyrian has a surname related to mine, Shamash, i am a descendant of Jews from southern Iraq and we knew that the surname is not the Hebrew meaning of the name but rather a Mesopotamian surname. very interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.221.237 (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Rather a lot of Mesopotamian surnames have survived; Shamash, Ashur, Hadad, Shinoo/Shinu (from the moon god Sin), Atorayeh, Rabi, Baba, Sargon, Sharrokin, Sinharib, Shulman, the prefix Bit, the name endings Shu and the derivative Sho which date back millennia, tribal names such as Bit Tyareh, Bit Eshtazin and Bit Shamasha and so forth, month names such as Nisan and Tammuz also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.25.101 (talk) 09:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hebrew has a great deal of Akkadian loanwords, so it could very well be Hebrew.--Monochrome _ Monitor  02:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Assyrian continuity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111124234429/http://christiansofiraq.com:80/facts.html to http://www.christiansofiraq.com/facts.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)