Ancient and Modern Assyrians: A Scientific Analysis

By George V. Yana

Some scholars have doubted or denied the continuity of the Assyrian people from the times of empire to the present time. This work, based on a scientific analysis, sheds light on the subject, and demonstrates the continuous existence of the Assyrian people.

Assyria, (northern Iraq), was a state grouped about the heavily fortified city of Ashur, on the middle of the Tigris River. Assyrians had become civilized in the third millennium BC, under the impetus of Mesopotamian development. They created the first empire known to history that was run by an empire administration. The empire created by Sargon Sharukin, much earlier in the third millennium, did not have an administration to hold it together.

Toward the close of the Bronze Age (1700-1200 BC), Assyria had expanded westward to the middle of the Euphrates River, and in the south they held Babylon temporarily. Tiglat-Pileser I (1114-1076), extended Assyrian rule to the Mediterranean. But, Adadnirari II (911-891 BC) may be called the father of Assyrian imperial administration. Empire building was a necessity of economic development, which was based on the technological advances caused by the introduction of iron and the alphabet. International trade was necessary for the growth of industry and manufacture, and the Assyrians became the tools to carry out this historic economic necessity. The Assyrian army was the first army to use iron arms. The Assyrian Empire was defeated, in 612 BC, by an alliance of Medes (an Iranian people), Persians (Iran), Babylonians, and Cythians. Since then, Assyria has been governed by Persians, Greeks, Arabs and Turks.

The Assyrians were the first non-Jewish people to accept Christianity, and since then, Christianity has become their identity. They burned all their ancient books that reminded them of their pagan kings. Thus, with time, a dark cloud was cast over their memories that separated them from their glorious past. But, now and then, there were sparks from the remote past that testified to the persistence of memory. Only recently has the full national awareness been restored. There are, still, scholars who doubt or deny any link between the ancient and the Modern Assyrians. They argue that the Assyrians were all massacred during the destruction of their empire. This book sets out to demonstrate that the Assyrians were not all massacred during the destruction of their country in 612 BC, and that they emerged as a Christian people in Assyria (northern Iraq) and the neighboring countries.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Apr 10, 2008
• ISBN: 9781465316295

George V. Yana

George V. Yana (Bebla) was born in Paris, France. He first graduated in physics, and then decided to join the profession of civil engineering. George has been a professional engineer (P.E.) in Pennsylvania and Florida. For the last eleven years, he has concentrated on studying the history of Assyria, Babylonia, and other major countries. This work has received the approval and praise of Dr. Simo Parpola, internationally renowned Assyriologist from the University of Helsinki, Finland. Some scholars have doubted or denied the continuity of the Assyrian people, from the times of empire to the present time. This work, based on a scientific analysis, sheds light on the subject, and demonstrates the continuous existence of the Assyrian people.

Book preview

Copyright © 2008 by George V. Yana (Bebla).

Cover image: The Standard of Sargon II carried in front of the army

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,

recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without

permission in writing from the copyright owner.

This book was printed in the United States of America.

To order additional copies of this book, contact:

Xlibris Corporation

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

[e-mail]

46034

Contents

Foreword

Introduction

Hypothesis No.1

Hypothesis No. 2

Conclusion

Bibliography

Appendix

Dedication

I am dedicating this work to the noble Assyrian nation. Brigadier-General H.H. Austin, the British commandant of the huge Baqubah refugee camp in Iraq, during the World War I exodus wrote about the Assyrian refugees:  . . . although four or five families usually shared one E.P. tent, men, women, and children all living together in it, I remember no instance of charges of impropriety being brought by the occupant of a tent against any other member of it. I wonder if this would have been the case had five European families been sharing one tent under similar circumstances. J’en doute.

Foreword

Dear George,

I have read the additions to the second edition of your book, and I stand behind my positive evaluation of the first edition. It is good that you put John Joseph’s Modern Assyrians under your microscope. Having read your analysis of Fiey’s L’Orient Syrien, parts of this section sound repetitive, but it is essential that J.J.’s views and assertions are dealt with and answered in detail.

With all best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Simo Parpola

Professor Simo Parpola’s comments on the first edition:

Dear George,

I have read your manuscript and find it excellent. It is very well and objectively written, and in my opinion a very important and well thought-out contribution to the issue. I can unhesitatingly and without any reservations recommend its publication.

. . .

With best regards and congratulations on a fine paper,

Yours sincerely

Simo Parpola

NOTE

Dr. Simo Parpola is Director, Department of Assyriology at Helsinki University, Finland, and an internationally renowned Assyriologist.

Introduction

In the third millennium BC, Assyria, the northern part of present day Iraq, was a state grouped about the heavily fortified city of Ashur, on the middle of the Tigris River.

First, there were petty kingdoms in Mesopotamia, or city-states, which guaranteed local stability. The next necessary step, in the direction of industrial and commercial development, was the consolidation of these city-states into a great territorial state. The people who transmuted the growing economic and cultural unification of the Near East into political unity were the Assyrian folk.1

Tukulti-Ninurta I (1246-06) expanded the Assyrian domain westward into the middle Euphrates River, and in the south, he held Babylon. Tiglat-Pileser I (1114-1076) was even able to expand Assyrian rule to the Mediterranean.

An overview of the history of Assyria is presented in the Appendix.

In the words of André Parrot, In all, from the earliest times to the downfall of the Assyrian empire, one hundred and sixteen kings successively occupied the throne of Assur.²

The Assyrian Empire was destroyed, in 612 BC, by the Medes (an Iranian people), in alliance with the Babylonians and Cythians.

What happened to Assyrians, since that date of 612 BC is the subject of this study. Some claim that Assyrians were all massacred and their history was terminated at 612 BC, Others claim that they melted into the flood of peoples; however, some believe that the modern Assyrians represent the continuity of the Assyrian history.

The subject of Assyrian history, after the fateful date of 612 BC, has not been thoroughly studied by Assyriologists. What adds to the difficulty of the subject is the scantiness of historical evidence. Bits and pieces of historical facts are scattered among the works of a few historians.

Sources are scarce, consisting mainly of a few notices in the works of classical authors such as Strabo, Pliny, Polybius, and Ptolemy, while the cuneiform sources are mainly incantations, accounts of religious rites, and copies of ancient religious texts.³

The critical period for this study is from 612 BC to the rise of Christianity. It is in this period that the survival and continuity of the Assyrian people needs to be investigated, and the transition from paganism to Christianity scrutinized.

To trace the historical path of the Assyrian people, use shall be made of two major flagstones, namely, Athura and Adiabene. Both are about Assyria, but they appear in different periods. Athura is important in connection with the question of the survival of Assyrians. The second, Adiabene, will be used to study the possible link between pagan and Christian Assyria, and the ground for the analysis of the link between the Christians of Adiabene and the descendents of the ancient Assyrians. This being a scientific analysis, this writer decided on forming two hypotheses, one that considers modern Assyrians as the descendants of ancient Assyrians, and the other which denies such a connection. Each hypothesis shall divide the history of Assyrians into two major parts:

1-   Modern Assyrians are the descendents of the ancient Assyrians, therefore:

a)   They survived the destruction of their empire in 612 B.C., and the creation of the satrapy of Athura (Assyria) is a proof of that.

b)   The continuity of Assyrians can be witnessed in Adiabene (Assyria), where they renounced their pagan religion and embraced Christianity.

2-   Modern Assyrians are not the descendents of ancient Assyrians, therefore:

a)   They did not survive the destruction of their empire, or they melted away in the sea of peoples that settled in the country, and Athura was simply a name given by the Medes to one of their satrapies.

b)   Adiabene (Assyria) was Aramaic and occupied by many peoples.

The most critical part of this study, for the first hypothesis, is to demonstrate that the Christians of Adiabene were the descendents of the ancient Assyrians. In this respect, the name Assyrian does not imply a pure race, but a citizen of "the hotchpotch that was Assyria."⁴

Therefore, with regard to the first hypothesis, the general course of study shall be to analyze the survival of Assyrians from the destruction of 612 B.C., the formation of the satrapy of Athura, and their emergence as Christians in Adiabene (Assyria) and the plain of Nineveh, known as Ba Nuhadra. From this point on the history of Assyrians should coincide with the history of their churches.

For hypothesis No. 2, namely the hypothesis that denies the descent of Modern Assyrians from the Ancient Assyrians, two of its proponents, Jean Maurice Fiey and Prof. John Joseph, have been selected. The arguments of each of these authors will be quoted, followed by comments from this writer.

Before embarking on our journey, it is important to briefly discuss two issues:

1-   The issue of bias in writing history, and

2-   The scientific method of analysis. These two issues are interrelated.

Bias in writing history

Does such a thing exist as a truly objective world history? Probably not. Each selection of facts involves someone’s preconceived point of view.⁵ It is only with a profound commitment to truth that one can keep an open mind to all facts and views, avoiding the trappings of preconceived points of view. Even then, success is not guaranteed.

The scientific method of analysis

It is sometimes claimed that the link between modern and ancient Assyrians is not scientifically proven, or that this link has to be scientifically proven.

What is meant by the term scientifically proven? Does it mean that it has to be proven with the certainty of mathematics or physics? Or, does it mean that textual remains and archeological finds have to be analyzed with the scientific methods?

The latter is the case, as the former is inapplicable to history. However, it is important to understand that the main thing distinguishing science from storytelling and other ideologies is that it is testable, reproducible and verifiable by different persons. The scientific method creates general consensus among scientists, hence, so to speak, proof when a given phenomenon can be reproduced (tested) by others at different times and places.

But, what is the scientific method?⁶ The scientific method is a highly specific set of rules used by scientists to formulate theories about how the world (or some part of it) works. Scientists ask questions and go about answering them systematically: they make observations, collect data, and set out to prove or disprove their explanations in a regimented way. Based on his or her experience, and analyzing the collected data, the scientist then makes one or more informed guesses. This informed guess is called a hypothesis and a scientist may arrive at more than one hypothesis. Using evidence gathered the scientist convinces other scientists that his hypothesis is correct. By proving his hypothesis the scientist now has a theory, which is supported by many observations, and seems to have no major inconsistencies. The theory is the surviving hypothesis in a group of multiple working hypotheses, the one that is not clearly disproved. The scientist thus creates a consensus among other scientists because they can test the theory. At times, consensus is reached among two opposing groups of scientists, for example, one group believing that light is made up of particles, and the other group believing that light is a wave. They finally resolve their differences by accepting the dual nature of light.

Applied to history, the scientific method will guide the historian to collect ALL pertinent data for the subject. Then, based on his or her experience, the historian will make an educated guess, that is, he/she will form one or more hypotheses. In our case, there are two hypotheses as described above.

Theoretically, to prove his/her hypothesis, the historian will need ALL existing pertinent textual and archeological data and information, assuming this was feasible. The historian will then examine and analyze ALL the data and will come up with a theory, which is the winner of the two hypotheses listed above. Now, in order to create consensus, historians must test the theory for themselves. Here the similarities between science and history end. Whereas the scientists would need to conduct specific laboratory or observational tests to check the theory, historians, on the other hand, would need to read and examine ALL the material supporting the theory. This process is subjective, in the sense that it is interpretative. The results of laboratory tests and observations are the same, no matter who conducts them, or where and when the test is conducted. The results of the tests by the historians are not necessarily the same, and they result in differences of opinion. General consensus is difficult to reach, especially in a case where most documents have been destroyed. For example, J.M. Fiey made a cursory analysis of the history of modern Assyrians, and came up with the conclusion that the modern Assyrians are not the descendants of the ancients. Therefore, a consensus was formed among most French and some international Assyriologists regarding his conclusions, but it is doubtful whether he examined ALL textual and ALL archeological data, as he himself admits it when he writes: "I wouldn’t go that far, because a scientific and exhaustive study of all the aspects of the problem does not yet exist, at least to my knowledge."⁷ It is practically impossible to have such a reach, unless if it is done by a well funded group of experts, having the cooperation of all the entities in possession of the documents.

Regarding the first hypothesis, namely that modern Assyrians are the descendents of the ancient Assyrians, there is consensus among another group of historians and Assyriologists. Even such a consensus is not a guaranty for correctness. Discussing the requirements of a good theory, Stephen Hawking writes: If the predictions agree with the observations, the theory survives that test, though it can never be proved to be correct.⁸ Underlining by this writer.

Still in that vein Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.⁹

So, if there is no absolute proof in the most exact sciences, why would we expect absoluteness in a historical question dependent on the subjective interpretation of scanty textual evidence? However, regarding the requirement that observations should agree with the predictions made by the hypothesis, the two above-mentioned hypotheses make the following predictions. According to the first hypothesis, since the ancient Assyrians survived the fall of the empire, therefore there must be Assyrians living today. This prediction agrees with the observation that a distinct people call themselves Assyrians. But the work of the historian is not over; he or she must prove that the observed result is correct and the modern Assyrians are indeed the descendents of the ancients.

On the other hand, the second hypothesis, denying the link between the modern and ancient Assyrians, makes the prediction that since the ancient Assyrians did not survive the fall of their empire, or they were absorbed by the Arameans and others, therefore, today there should be no Assyrians. This prediction is in apparent contradiction with observations, as a distinct group of peoples do call themselves Assyrians. The hypothesis, therefore, must prove its point, that is it must prove that the people who call themselves Assyrians are not the descendents of the ancient Assyrians.

Here, the only decisive observation would be a DNA test made on a number of selected modern Assyrians and compared to samples taken from ancient Assyrian graves, if such remains exist.

The limited accessibility to available historic evidence, the subjectivity of its interpretation, has resulted in the lack of a common consensus and in a split in the ranks of historians. These schools of thought have produced a strong inertia among their adherents, which manifests itself as an eternal conviction, and refusal to consider any other alternatives.

This writer, unable to gather ALL the available data, and aware of the fact that there are thousands of clay tablets awaiting translation, has succeeded only in assembling a considerable number of source materials, which are all consistent with the premises of the two hypotheses