John Messo, Tur Abdin, and the Aramaean Renaissance

John Messo, Tur Abdin, and the Aramaean Renaissance

By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

In two previous articles, we examined the focal point of the Middle East, namely the fake identity that has been attributed to Arabic speaking people throughout a vast area encompassing SE Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Emirates, SW Iran, Jordan, Israel and Palestine. We explained that, racially – ethnically and culturally, these populations are Aramaic, and that their linguistic arabization is a secondary phenomenon that changes in nothing their Aramaic nature and identity.

We presented this as the central problem in the Middle East, and of seminal importance for the fight against the Islamic Terror. We also added that the fake identity was the result of colonial manipulation and machination, and more precisely the fabrication and the diffusion of the Pan-Arabism. Key tool in the colonial disaster programmed for the Aramaeans was their national splitting around the supposedly national names, namely Aramaeans, ‘Assyrians’ and ‘Chaldaeans’, of which only the first is genuine, authentic and pertinent.

To what extent the Aramaeans of today understand by themselves that the question of the name, correct or fake, is crucial for their forthcoming reunification and for the necessary awakening campaign for the vast masses that have become victims of Pan-Arabism?

We have reasons to believe that there are several leading Aramaean intellectuals, who already started the gigantic task of clarifying several points related to the proper name of the Aramaeans, and to the importance of the issue. The rise of a new generation of Aramaean Orientalists will equip the Aramaic speaking and self conscious part of the Aramaeans with the necessary team to support the efforts for National Awakening, Historical Truth, Political Reunification, and ultimately for the Re-Aramaization of the Arabic speaking Aramaeans, all the successive steps towards an Aramaean Renaissance in the Middle East.

One of these young Aramaean Orientalists is John (Yuhannun) Messo, who happens to be from the culturally illustrious area of Tur Abdin, what has correctly been called ‘Mount Athos of Mesopotamia’. The area lies at the confines of SE Turkey, in the south – east of Diyarbakir down to Nusaybin / Nisibis on the Turkish / Syrian border. Tur Abdin is around 100 km at the west of the tri-national border intersection (Turkey, Syria, Iraq). We have to specify here that, despite their repeated persecutions and limitations throughout the ages, the Aramaeans living on the soil of today’s Turkey have been luckier than the Aramaeans living in Syria, Iraq and Iran, because the latter have been more exposed to colonial plans for national disorientation (through the introduction of the meaningless, anhistorical and futile names of ‘Assyrians’ and ‘Chaldaeans’) and false teachings of the past.

John Messo lives currently in Holland, and has published several pertinent academic articles in various magazines like Bahro Suryoyo ("The Syriac Light" in Aramaic), a Sweden-based magazine published by the Syriac-Aramaic Federation at Stockholm. We believe it would be necessary for the rest of the world to attest from very close these early, but clear and solid, steps towards the Re-Habilitation of the Aramaic Nation. We find therefore significant to present herewith an article composed by John Messo that is focalized on the Aramaean Identity of the Tur Abdin Aramaeans; we believe that specialized readership will search the rich footnotes in the original publication, whereas we make here available the main body of the article integrally.

We should add that we disagree with the author on several general theoretical considerations pertaining to what the Language and the Cultural and National Identity of a people are or might be, but we fully agree with the author on all the issues related to the ethnic identity of the Tur Abdinians and the historicity of the national names of the Aramaeans. We also disagree on the correct orthography of the name of the Aramaeans in English; but we respected the orthography followed by the author throughout the text of his article. We find very promising that young Aramaean orientalists develop such thoughts, approaches and argumentation after so dense colonial effort for disorientation and obscurity of that Nation.

The Aramean Identity of Tur ‘Abdin and its Native Population

By Johny Messo

Tur ‘Abdin, which basically denotes "the mountain of the servants [sc. of God]" in Aramaic, is the local name of an erstwhile densely populated Christian region in Southeast-Turkey.

The vast majority of its indigenous citizens have, for obvious reasons, migrated to Western countries in recent decades and the emerging demographic vacuum was swiftly filled by myriads of infiltrating Kurdish tribes from the periphery and beyond.

In their new diasporic reality these Tur ‘Abdinians were confronted with identity questions in a challenging way. For some avidly claimed a pre-Christian Assyrian ancestry, while others defended a connection with the Aramean heritage; still others decided not to take sides.

Being a member of this community and familiar with its history, I see no reason to doubt or even to repudiate its Aramean roots. On the contrary, its Arameanness can be substantiated. Therefore, verifiable arguments (albeit in brief and with occasional recognized references) will be advanced in favor of the Aramean patrimony of the original children of Tur ‘Abdin.

Let us first touch on a rational aspect of the matter. One may reason: "Whence this certainty about their Arameanness?" In all fairness, this query should be dealt with – indiscriminately – by all people who appeal to a specific national heritage. But it goes without saying that the response needs to consist of logical and persuasive arguments supported by indisputable facts. We can further ask: "What kinds of people reject the Aramean descent of the Tur ‘Abdinians and what are their motivations?" Here, one can distinguish essentially two kinds of people.

First, there are those who are, or prefer to stay, ignorant (derived from ‘ignore’). Hence, some may judge out of ignorance. Others, however, may not grasp the very idea of a direct link with an ancient people that appeared on the political scene in the late second millennium B.C. Tur ‘Abdinians who endeavor to prove their claims, often encounter a lack of concern in their history and in the end their identity may be questioned anyway.

Second, there are people whose system of beliefs (or ‘ideology’, ‘world-view’) will not accept the recognition of the Aramean identity. Many Turks, who govern Tur ‘Abdin politically and Kurds, who populate and rule this area demographically, may stand as an example. Frankly, there are even Tur ‘Abdinians who adhere to an ideological viewpoint that rejects the Aramean identity at the expense of a politicized ‘Assyrian’ one; it is a truism that this group has affected, e.g., reporters, writers, politicians, human activists, etc. Besides, there are the neutrals who, while obviously desiring to abstain from a political standpoint, in effect deny the historical and ethnocultural identity of the Syriac people.

It follows from this that the resistance to the acknowledgement of the Aramean identity is, in my view, mostly due to a person’s (ideological) background. In most cases, the rejection itself has little, if anything, to do with the actual issues at stake. Let us, therefore, focus on some of the prime arguments that really matter to this historical debate on the Tur ‘Abdinian identity.

1.) History / Geography. The ancient Arameans were native to Mesopotamia and historians, Assyriologists included, affirm the Aramean roots of Tur ‘Abdin. Current Aramaic toponyms, some of which date back to the Neo- and the Middle Assyrian epoch, also point to this fact. (Cf. my "The Indigenous Origins of the Arameans of Upper Mesopotamia," in an earlier Bahro Suryoyo issue.) Although Kurds and, to a lesser degree, Turks have deeply penetrated into the area of Tur ‘Abdin, both of these nations are originally foreign to this countryside; this fact is widely accepted, also among their historians. I would further argue that the tribal structure of the Tur ‘Abdinians is a continuous tradition of the typical Aramean society in Antiquity. E.g., in Tur ‘Abdin Aramaic it would be natural to refer to the family of this writer as ‘b(ç)-Messo’; my father’s grandfather, Israel b(ç)-Messo, inherited his family name from his great-grandfather. This ‘b(ç)’ is a linguistic development from ‘bçth’ (lit. ‘house of’), a so-called construct state of ‘bayto’ (‘house’); the form ‘bçth’ is still preserved in Edessan Aramaic. This long-lasting practice is reminiscent of the way ancient Aramean states were styled by means of ‘bçth’ + a personal name, usually the name "of an ancestor or prominent member of a dominant family within the kingdom"; e.g., Bçth (Akkadian: ‘Bît’) Zammâni. Unlike the Arameans, their neighbors from Assyria, for instance, "were not basically tribal, and beliefs about descent from a common ancestor played no part in uniting Assyrians."

2.) Language / Culture. Aramaic developed as an indigenous language of the Tur ‘Abdinian plateau. Tur ‘Abdinians have maintained two centuries-old Aramaic dialects. The first one, a living speech which is not standardized yet, is commonly called ‘Turoyo’ or ‘modern Syriac’; I think ‘Tur ‘Abdin Aramaic’ is more accurate. The other one emerged as the literary dialect of the Edessan locale and is usually called ‘(Classical) Syriac’; I opt for ‘Edessan (Aramaic)’. Thus the linguistic Aramean identity of the Tur ‘Abdinians is indigenous and goes back to a period prior to the internationalization of Aramaic; it would be difficult to presume otherwise, given the fact that centuries before the tongue of the Arameans would become an international language the Tur ‘Abdin region was clearly depicted as ‘Aramean’ in Assyrian sources. Even though the idiom of Tur ‘Abdin’s citizens, obviously, further developed in its long history, they have never relinquished their original language. Hence their Aramaic mother tongue, which they were able to retain, can be regarded as serious evidence of their Aramean lineage.

The concept of ‘language’ is one of the most significant identity markers. While experts are still debating the degree to which languages determine someone’s identity, they agree on other points. One’s mother tongue is seen as more than merely a communicative medium. In fact, it is the most efficient and primary carrier of a people’s culture and identity. Hence living languages have sometimes been portrayed as the ‘soul’ or the ‘heartbeat’ of vital nations. Conversely, language death has sometimes been interpreted as the disappearance of a people. The historian Georges Roux, for example, saw the prelude to the ultimate assimilation of the Assyrians in the loss of their mother tongue, Akkadian. Although there are exceptions to this idea, it is generally agreed that when a people forgets its native mother language, it will be deprived of one of the major assets and natural manifestations of its national cultural heritage. In addition, (politicized) languages have frequently been used as the main criterion by which nations have identified themselves with; Europe contains a sufficient number of examples.

3.) Religion. Some 2,000 years ago, the Tur ‘Abdinians were polytheists and pagans before their early conversion to Christianity in massive numbers. Even though their faith was (is) universal, after the 5th-6th centuries A.D. the ‘Syriac-Orthodox’ church would soon evolve into an ethnic or national church. Indeed, as monotheists they remained, in varying degrees, distinguishable from the Jews, the other church communities (e.g., Copts, Greeks, Armenians) and, from the seventh century on, the Muslims. Chiefly their native tongue (see 2, above), their ethnicity (see 4, below) and their peculiar Christian faith with their own hierarchy, their Aramaic Bible and their saints reinforced the awareness of cultural differences. But with respect to their identity, the most powerful and lasting impact of their submission to the Gospel brought about a change in the self-designation of their identity. That is to say, while the Greek-speaking world already applied the originally foreign and Greek name ‘Syrian’ to the Arameans before Christianity (cf. the Septuagint and Posidonius), the people themselves still continued to utilize their local and Aramaic name ‘Aramean’ in the early centuries A.D. The Arameans themselves, too, finally adopted the alien appellative ‘Syrian’ as a self-ascription for their people, tongue and culture somewhere between the 3rd-5th centuries A.D. for reasons unimportant here (also consult some prominent grammars of Aramaic dialects). The point to stress here is that this ‘name change’ was facilitated, if not directly caused, by their acceptation of the Gospel, which generated a deep and lasting impact on the Arameans.

4.) Ethnicity. Following the useful definition of one modern scholar, we consider ‘ethnicity’ here as "the expression of a consciousness of collective identity." This very concept "both includes and excludes. It creates a boundary between an in-group and an out-group." Thus ethnic identity dichotomizes between the ‘self’ and the ‘non-self’, between ‘we’ and ‘them’. The key issue in this regard, then, is the self-perception of a given people. Or, in our context: how do Tur ‘Abdinians call themselves and how have they done so in the previous millennia?

The original people of the Tur ‘Abdin district, for convenience’s sake called ‘Tur ‘Abdinians’, are part of the Syriac people. In their Aramaic parlance they identify themselves as ‘Suryoye’ (singular ‘Suryoyo’), pronounced with a regular s, meaning ‘Syrians’ (not to be confused with the Arab Muslims of Syria, the somewhat artificial name ‘Syriacs’ is being used instead). And if we study the early literary works composed in Edessan Aramaic, it appears that the Syriacs of Mesopotamia have used this name as a self-reference for the past 1,700 or so years. However, there is more to highlight. In the previous paragraph we had already observed the appellative ‘Syrian’ at the cost of their former name, ‘Aramean’. Interestingly, the early Syriacs themselves, both from the West- and the East-Syriac tradition, were very much aware of this name change (cf., e.g., the lexicon of the East-Syriac lexicographer Bar Bahlul [d. 963] from Baghdad under ‘Sûrya/Syria’). However, the difference was that they thought that this shift took place centuries before their ancestors embraced the Christian faith, while today we know that this rather came about shortly after their large-scale conversion. Moreover, there are copious references to early manuscripts wherein the authors deliberately utilize their former self-designation ‘Aramean’ as an equivalent of ‘Suryoyo’. In fact, for the early Arameans their new name ‘Suryoye’ basically signified their being Christian Arameans; indeed, the appellation ‘Suryoye’ came to symbolize their Christianized Aramean identity. Let us now turn to Tur ‘Abdin and its vicinity and take a brief chronological look at the data and examine how the greatest Syriac scholars in this ancient Aramean milieu saw themselves.

It is truly fascinating to discover that Ephrem (d. 373), who was born in Nisibin (whence he fled to Edessa in 363), "speaks of Aram as ‘our country’ in a number of places." It has been further confirmed that "Ephrem himself uses the word ‘Aramaic’ to describe his language." "But the Philosopher of the Syrians," as Ephrem derided the Edessan intellectual Bar-Daisan (d. 222), "made himself a laughing-stock among Syrians and Greeks." Oddly, the English translation rendered the actual name ‘Arameans’ in the text twice with ‘Syrians’ here! These ‘Arameans’, explicated an authority on Ephrem, "sind die orthodoxen Syrer von Edessa." In a metrical homily, Jacob of Serugh (d. 521) writes about Ephrem: "He who became a crown for the people of the Aramaeans [armâyûthâ], (and) by him we have been brought close to spiritual beauty." Perhaps a closer translation of the Aramaic word ‘armâyûthâ’ would here be ‘Arameandom’ (cf. German ‘Aramäertum’). Also notice the synonymous use of the name ‘Suryoye’ two lines further in the same couplet: "He who raised up the horn of the Syrians everywhere, (and) from him henceforth we have learnt to sing to the Lord with sweet songs." We conclude by citing two other eminent writers from just a few centuries later. A native of today’s Malatya (Turkey), Jacob Bar-Salibi ended his clerical career as Metropolitan of modern Diyarbakir from 1166 on; here he died and was buried in 1171. "As to us Syriacs," he specified to an Armenian audience, "we descend racially [sic] from Shem, and our father is Kemuel [the] son of Aram, and from this name of Aram we are also called sometimes in the Books by the name of ‘Arameans’." Like Bar Salibi, Michael the Elder (d. 1199) was born in Malatya. During his Patriarchate (1166-), he completed a voluminous chronicle in 1195. In this work, the Aramaic pages 7, 17 and 748ff. are of particular interest to those concerned with the historical identity of the Syriacs. His explication of Gen. 10:22 (cf. above and n. 20) on p. 7 is captivating: "The sons of Shem (are): the Assyrians, the Chaldeans, the Ludians, the Arameans who are the Syrians, the Hebrews and the Persians." On p. 748, Michael appended a highly interesting exposition on the pre-Christian history of his people to his Chronography. It commences thus: "[… t]he kingdoms which have been established in Antiquity by our race, (that of) the Aramaeans, namely the descendants of Aram, who were called Syrians."

We have just seen that a few of the most celebrated scholars of Syriac Christianity, and there are also others like them, were indeed very conscious of their ancient-old Aramean identity. As Christian Arameans, or Syriacs, they continued to view themselves as the sons of Aram – their legendary ancestor; frankly, to the best of my knowledge, there exist no pre-19th century manuscripts in Edessan Aramaic wherein ‘Ashur’ surfaces as the self-professed forefather. If the Syriac intelligentsia thought and believed they were (the heirs of the) Arameans, how much more would the common folks and the masses have cherished this conviction?

I want to elaborate a little more on this issue, for I do not think that we can ever overrate the explicit and indisputable written evidence of the self-testimonies of the intellectual forefront of Syriac society, which clearly appeared to thrive from Ephrem’s century on. In fact, this argument of self-perception – to my mind, the most cogent of all – still goes largely unnoticed by many experts and scholars not familiar with Syriac-Aramaic Studies. Small wonder, then, that historians claimed that the Arameans were also lost in the mists of history. Unfortunately, this part of history is even unknown to the bulk of the Syriac people. Thus it was chiefly for them that their rich and unique, but ‘buried’, legacy was revealed and charted by scholars in The Hidden Pearl: The Syriac Orthodox Church and The Aramaic Heritage (Rome, 2001).

The Proper Name. As we stated above, Tur ‘Abdinians who ended up in a Western Diaspora were increasingly faced with questions pertaining to their history and identity. One of them is the issue of the proper designation of their people and language. Nowadays ‘Syrian(s)’, as we mentioned earlier, is a displeasing self-identifier in the eyes of most Tur ‘Abdinians due to its inevitable association with the denizens of the ‘Syrian Arab Republic’. Thus alternatives have been put forward in the past, but to this writer the next three names gain the most support.

A. Syriacs. Until fairly recently, the appellation ‘Syriac’ was still solely in use as an adjective that designated a language. However, after this meaning has been extended to refer to the name of the people as well, a comprehensible, but admittedly factitious, term was created. As of late, it is evident that this new usage is extensively in use in the English-speaking world. Still, the academic world continues to use and translate ‘Syrians’ wherever it is to be expected. Thus, to some people the term ‘Syriacs’ clearly lacks a firm historical foundation.

B. Ancient Syrians. The adjective ‘ancient’ provides some clarification. For this compound name implies that the ‘Suryoye’ antedate the modern-day ‘Syrians’ from Syria and need to be differentiated from each other. The idea is not new, though. The concept has existed for centuries and via the Arabic language it entered the Turkish vocabulary. Moreover, it seems as if the Turkish form gave rise to the creation of the artificial name ‘Syrian’ in Swedish. As far as I know, Swedish is further the only other language that similarly discerns a ‘Syrian’ (i.e. ‘Suryoyo’; plural ‘Syrianer’) from a ‘Syrier’ (i.e., a resident of Syria; plural is also ‘Syrier’). In translating Aramaic texts, one could well insert the adjective ‘ancient’ in square brackets, viz. ‘[Ancient] Syrians’, and write about the ‘Ancient Syrians’ instead of the ‘Syrians’ sec.

C. Arameans. There is an irony here. The forefathers of the ‘Suryoye’ were forced by external factors to drop their native name and adopt a foreign one that was in use at the time. Today, however, they once again seem to be driven by outside pressures to seek a solution for the connotations attached to the translation of their self-reference, ‘Suryoye’ (i.e. ‘Syrians’). Would it not be wise for the present generation to consult its intellectual legacy for solutions? The strong and conscious belief in the Aramean ancestry is what the early Syriac society actually and really believed. Moreover, even the early Syriacs were aware that before they were known as ‘Suryoye’ their native name was formerly ‘Arameans’. I suggest, therefore, that the Tur ‘Abdinians – nay, all the Syriacs – call themselves and their language ‘Aramean’ and ‘Aramaic’ respectively. These names are not new, nor are they strange to the world community. They are widely familiar thanks to the Bible, which shows, for instance, how the ancestors of the Jewish people are explicitly identified as ‘Aramean(s)’, that certain portions were penned in ‘Aramaic’ and that Jesus and His apostles communicated in Aramaic. But above all, the resuscitation of their former native name would demonstrate an undeniable and historically well-founded continuity with the convictions of their intellectual ancestors. The appropriation of the ‘Syrian’ name by the ‘Syrian Arab Republic’ might thus lead to a re-adoption of the previous self-designation of the ‘Suryoye’, viz. ‘Arameans’ and ‘Aramaic’. And this, I think, surely would be an irony of history.

In sum, in this study we attempted to substantiate the Aramean roots of the autochthonous people of Tur ‘Abdin from different perspectives. The Tur ‘Abdinians have lived for centuries in Tur ‘Abdin and, as we remarked, the ancient Arameans were historically indigenous to the geographical landscape of Upper Mesopotamia, which includes Tur ‘Abdin. We further noted that despite the logical linguistic changes over time, the Arameans of Tur ‘Abdin have always kept their original Aramaic mother tongue alive. In their case, we contended, their Aramaic vernacular was like a cord that kept a remnant together and provided it continuity with their forbears, in that their language functioned as the guardian of its speakers’ history and of their Christianized identity. For the polytheistic Arameans converted in considerable numbers to Christianity. But as time went by, these monotheists stayed distinguished from their neighbors. Their being Christian thus brings us straight back to a pre-Islamic civilization. Moreover, because they accepted the Christian Gospel as the truth, they distanced themselves from their heathen countrymen by accepting, under outside pressures, the foreign name ‘Syrian(s)’ as a self-reference. We demonstrated, however, that they never forgot their roots. They remained cognizant of the fact that their original name was ‘Aramean’ and they even used it in their writings – either alone or they mentioned it in one breath with their new name. Furthermore, they upheld the belief in an eponymous ancestor, viz. ‘Aram’, and ventured to endorse this with Biblical authority. Lastly, it was suggested that the undesired associations attached to their identity in Western languages can be solved when the Syriacs (incl. Tur ‘Abdinians) return to their original name. For such an irony of history could become the example par excellence of a true and well-founded historical continuity with their forefathers.

In conclusion, therefore, we might ask: "Whence this certainty about the Aramean ancestry of the Tur ‘Abdinians?" The indigenous people of Tur ‘Abdin and its vicinity, we will reply, are (the offspring of the ancient) Arameans, because their Arameanness can be corroborated – historically & geographically; linguistically & culturally; religiously; and, finally, ethnically.

I would like to end with two quotes. The late Professor Rudolf Macuch (1913-1993) stated: "Tur ‘Abdin has a history of one and a half millennia before the conversion of its Aramean inhabitants to Christianity and is mentioned in several Assyrian records, such as Adadninari I (1305-1274) and Salmanassar I (1274-1244), in which wine regions, especially the good wine of the Mount Izala, a name still used for the southern part of Tur ‘Abdin, is mentioned."

In spite of the westward expansion of the Assyrian empire in the 9th century B.C., Professor Edward Lipiñski, who authored a detailed book on the Arameans (n. 2, above), noted: "The area around the Tûr ‘Abdîn remained a main centre of speakers of Aramaic through centuries, and it is no hazard that Nusaybin and Mardin, to the south of the mountain, and Amida, to its north, were later important centres of the earliest Christian literature in Aramaic."