A COMMENTARY TO THE PREFACE OF BISHOP JACOB EUGIN MANNA'S DICTIONARY PART  I

Ninety years have now elapsed after Jacob Eugin Manna edited his dictionary called An Introduction to the Aramaic Language for the Interested. It was a difficult but great achievement, and therefore, Rafael Bidawid, the Patriarch of the Chaldeans had a second edition printed in 1975.

It is common knowledge that Bishop manna wrote a Preface that was several pages long about the Syriacs, or, as they were originally called, the Arameans and about the Syriac, or, as it was originally called, the Aramiaic language. This preface b Mc arne widely known among the Syriac elite. The reason for this was its wealth of historical information which was important to the Syriacs.

This information was accepted altogether without a critical scrutiny by the Syriac elite.

The fact that it was not scrutinized resulted in incorrect information not being contradicted, and was damaging to the written history of the Aramaean people. Today's Arameans want to study their history on a scientific basis.

I have found it very inportant to correct som facts in the Preface. We ought to remind ourselves that the Preface was written at the beginning of the twentieth century, while we are now heading towards the twenty-first century, which is an age that does not permit the history of the Syriac people to be falsified or weakened.

Bishop Manna wrote as follows in his Preface., l)".....all tribes......were known by the name of Aram or Arameans. It is true that some of the tribes also had special names. Like Chaldeans, as the inhabitants of Babylon were called, or Assyrians, as the inhabitants of the kingdom of Assur were called. or Edomites as the inhabitants of Damascus were called.

Common to them all was the Aramean name..... thus the Chaldeans and Assyrians are Arameans, or, the official language of their kings would not be Aramaic".

These few lines are repeated with historical errors. Bishop Manna has mixed up the ancient Assyrians and the ancient Chaldeans.

Ishall begin my article with a few formal corrections.

I-The history of the ancient Assyrians began in the fourth millenium B.C. while the Chaldean tribes were not mentioned until 878 B.C. This could be seen from the writings of King Assurbanipal II II-The ancient Assyrians abandoned their tribal life early and settled down in northem Iraq to east of the Tigris and in the mountaineous areas. They were a mixture of the inhabitants of the ancient Assyrian country and remnants of the Hurrians , the Mitanni and the Amorites.

The Chaldean tribes came from the west (from the Syrian desert) in the second millenium B.C. Most oftodays historians now regard them as Aramean tribes. It was also commonly known that these Chaldean and Aramean tribes fought against the Assyrian occupying power during several hundred of years. It is also commonly known that the ancient Assyrians spoke Akkadian and used the cuneiform writing but then in official matters began to use the Aramaic language verb all y as well as in writing. From the 8th century up to the end of the 7th century BC. a great part of the Assyrians began to use the Aramaic language owing to its simplicity and beacuse of the great number of Arameans and Chaldeans amongst the inhabitants of the country 2).

Today's historians consider that the Chaldean tribes began to speak Aramaic when they began to govem Babylonia however, they adopted Akkadian names like the Babylonians.

We ought to remember that these tribes came from the west and that if they were not Aramean tribes, they were at least very closely related to the Arameans.

Historians agree that the Aramaic language was widely spread in Babylonia long before the downfall of the Assyrian empire. AIso the Jews who lived in captivityin Babylonia, as is well known, spoke Aramaic. Manna's view about the ancient Assyrians were Aramaean tribes was incorrect. The fact that the Assyrians used Aramaic in matters of state, which Bi shop Manna looked upon as proof that they were Arameans, obviously does not mean that they were Arameans. AIso the Persians used Aramaic in writing, but I do not belive that anybody would opine that the Persians were Arameans.

Manna further wrote in his Preface:
"All through the ages, Babylonia and Assyria were called Bet Aramaye, i.e.the land of the Arameans. This applied even when the Arabs took over these lands, 3).

It is true that Bet Aramaye has become a synonym with Iraq, something which is clearly seen in the writings of the East-Syriac church, for instance in Elia, Bishop of Nsibis; "At that time Muawiya set up Ziad Ibn-abihi as a ruler over the country ofthe Arameans (Bet Aramaye), 4).

Everyone who researches into the history of the church in the Orient, especially ifhe or she makes a study of the ancient Syriac documents, would find that the Syriacs were divided into two halves.

A-The East Syriacs, who form today's Chaldean and Assyrian Churches.
B-The west Syriacs, who form today's Syriac Orthodox, Catholic, Maronite, and Melchite churches.

The Syriacs both in the east and in the west, were however, proud. of their Aramean origin This was made clear in several rep orts by Bishop Manna. Starting from the fact the documents called Iraq the country of the Arameans, he drew the concIusion that the ancient Assyrians were Arameans as ancient Assyria was part of Iraq (Bet Aramaye). Manna was wrong as regards the ancient Assyrians.

They were no Arameans. However this does not mean that all that he wrote was wrong. He made it cIear that Iraq was the country of the Arameans. The scholars of the East Syriac Church were renowned for their

Syriac-Aramaean identity. The East Syriac Hasan Bar BahlouI (Nestorian) from the tenth century B.C.

wrote in his dictionary: ' 'which means in English:"The Syriacs were called in the old times, called Arameans". Elia bishop of Nsibis wrote in the 12-th century B.C." AI-Hajjaj gave orders that the christians should not install a church leader, and the church of the country of the Arameans remained without a head until al-Hajjaj's death, 5).

It is remarkable that not a single historian tried to find out why Iraq was called the land of the Arameans, , 'Bet Oromoye". Thanks to the achievements of the European historians in the field of Aramean history especially their success in translating the old Assyrian writings, which tell us quite a lot about the Aramean kingdoms we can now answer the question under reference. Iraq was called the country of the Arameans, , 'Bet Oromoye", beacuse of two main reasons: firstly owing to the presence of a l arge number of Aramean and Chaldean inhabitants amongst the population of Mesopotamia, and secondly, because of the assimilation of other peoples of the country into the Aramaean people that was going on. The Aramaic language, the Aramaean civilization, and then the Christian Creed were factors that influenced this assimilation process.

THE MASSIV ARAMAEAN AND CHALDEAN PRESENCE IN IRAQ

TheArameans and the Chaldeans were present everywhere in Iraq. From the Assyrian writings, we can leam that there were strong ties between the Sutaeans, the Ahklame, and the Arameans. During certain periods of time, the Arameans were called Ahklame, and at times, they were called Arameans. In certain writings they were even called Ahklame- Arameans, 6).

The Sutaean tribes began to immigrate to Babylonia and Amurru (Syria) during the 17th century B.C. These tribes made a living by plundering both towns and villages. This was a common way of life in those days. In the 15th century, tribes of Ahklame appeared on the banks of the Euphrates.

They then march ed towards the east in search of more fertile lands. This resulted in violent clashes between them and the Babylonians. The ancient Assyrian tribes tell us in their writings about their many "Victories" over the Aramean tribes.

This later became known in history as "The Aramean invasions". For within a few years, the Arameans succeeded in establishing several kingdoms in Northern Mesopotamia and J Syria, especially at the bend of the Euphrates. 7).

The Assyrians king, Tiglath Pileser I(1114-1O76B.C.) wrote that he crossed the river Euphrates on fourteen different occasions during the period when he pursued the Arameans "from the town of Palmyra (in the country of the Amorites) and the town of Anata (in the country of Suhi ) as fas as the town of Refiqu, 8).

The Babylonians could not defend themselves against these innumerable waves of attacks, 9).

By Aramean and Chaldean tribes. It is opined that an Aramaean succeeded in ascending the throne in Babylonia, 10).

From the Babylonian writings we can leam that during both the 8th and 7th century the relation between the Babylonians and the Aramaean tribes took the form of a coalition against the Assyrians instead of the relation of animosity that prevailed during both the 10th and 9th century B.C. From thhe Assyrian writings it is clear that the Assyrian kings met with an aggressive resistance from the Aramaean and Chaldean tribes. In these Assyrian documents we can today read ab out the "Aramaean presence" in Babylonia, Here under are itemized 36 Aramaean names pertaining to tribes, communities, and towns which were documented by the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III (745-724 BC).12)


1- It'u

2-Rubu

3-Hamaranu

4-Luahuatu

5-Hatal

6-Rublu

7-Hiranu

8-Rafiqu

9-Rabilu

10-Nasiru

11-Gulus

12-Ka-()

14-Rhiqu

15-Rummulutu

16-Adile

17-Kifre

18-Ubudu

19-Gurunu


20-Hudatu

21-Hinderu

22-Donanu

23-Pamunu

24-Nilqu

25-Rade

26-Da-()

27-Ubulu

28-Karamu

29-Amlatu

30-Ru’a

31-Qabi’

32-Li’tau

33-Marusu

34-Amatu

35-Hagaranu

36-Puqudu


All these tribes ramified into l8-Ubudu toda y' s mid-Iraq. Tig1ath pileser mentions' 'that he vanquished all the 19-Gurunu Arameans who were present on the banks of the Euphrates, the Tigris and the Surapu and as far as the river Uknu, 13) .

The tribes differed in strength and impOliance. This e.g. Gambulu, Hinderu and Puqudu were more populous than the others. King Sargon mentions in his writings that the tribe Gambulu had 44 fortified towns, 14).

We notice that these Aramaean tribes had abandoned their nomadic life and had begun to build towns and villages, especially on the banks of the rivers.

These towns remained in the hands of the Arameans for several centuries. A good example of such a town is Rafiqu on the Euprates. It functioned as an Aramaean base from the end of the 11 th century B.C. until the time of the Ch al dean kings. The lands to the east of the river Tigris began in time of the Chaldean kings. The lands to the east of the river Tigris began in time to be known as the country ofthe Arameans, 15).

As earlyas the 7th century B.C. this name probably replaced all the other old names that had existed for the areas inMidIraq. ThemostknownChaldean tribes are Bet Dakuri and Bet Yakin.

These tribes gathered together in Chaldaeasouth ofBabylonia, especially on the banks of Euphrates. They became known by the name of Chaldeans as they settled down in Chaldaea, 16).

The Chaldeans began to take over the govermnment of Babylonia as the previous government began to crumble. This enabled Chaldean kings to govern for short periods of time. The Assyrians felt the danger from these Chaldean -Aramaean tribes and launched several attacks on them.

The Chaldean Aramaean tribes had to pay huge tributes, and many of the children of the Chaldean Aramaean kings and Elders were taken as hostages. The Assyrians even tried to divide the tribes in order to gain bettercontrol overthemin this way, but their strategy failed for these tribes rebelled against the cruel Assyrian rule 17).

In 612 B.C. the Chaldo-Arameans together with the Medes succeeded in destroying the Assyrian Empire. In this article, we have mentioned som of the Chaldean and Aramaean tribes but there were, of course, also other Aramaean and Chaldean tribes. The specialsts in the field of Oriental history as sure us that the number of the Arameans and the Chaldeans widely surpassed that of the local population. This opinion was expressed in a study made by the historian Zadok, 18).

THE ASSIMILATION OF THE LOCAL POPULATION INTO THE ARAMEAN NATION BY THE ARAMEAN CIVILIZATION AND THE ARAMEAN LANGUAGE.

Today, historians are amazed at the fantastic Aramaean development.

The Aramaean tribes came from the Syrian desert and brought along with them their Aramaean language. They intermingled with peoples such as the Canaanites (the Phoenicians), the Assyrians, the Rittites, the Babylonins, and other who contributed to the Aramaean development. The Arameans worshipped a special god, "Radad", the ancient god of the Amorites. They also worshiped other gods whom they adopted from their neghbouring nations. Rowever, Radad became the foremost god of the Arameans, especially in the kingdom of Damascus. The Arameans also adopted the Phonenician alphabet which they developed further. This alphabet was later known as the Aramaean alphabet. In the preface of his famous work, Kaufman wrote that the ancient Arameans spoke an East semitic language, which was very elosely related to the language of the Amorites. The elose similarity in language, history and religion made som hi sto rian s believe that the Arameans and the Amorites were one and the same people. The Aramaic language is perhaps a mixture of a New Amorite dialect and a canaanite language. That which is certain is that the Aramaic language is easy to write.

It was therefore easy for the inhabitants ofBabylonia to learn it. We must not either forget that many Amorite tribes had settled down in Babylonia, and in Assyria too.

No doubt the inhabitants of Babylonia had begun their merging into one single Aramaean civilization. This merging, this assimilation was owing to geographical proximity, language, and not in the least, to the strong will to live in a peaceful and fertile Babylonia. The influence of the Aramaean civilization was great also in Assyria. During the 25th International AssyriologyCongress, the historian and scholar Tadmor Iaunched his latest Andings under the caption: ' 'The Aramaization of Assyria" , 20).

In his study Tadmor Wrote: ' 'Today it is universally accepted that the vanquished Arameans together with other semitic peoples in the west have had a great impact on the culturai development because of their superiority in numbers". Obviosly he had in mind the influence of the Arameans on the Assyrians. Tadmor enumerates the names of the Aramaean civil servants who acted as sol di ers and commanding officers in the Assyrian army. Tadmor's conelusion was that the number of the Arameans widely surpassed that of the Assyrians, 21).

on account of the incorporation of the Aramaean kingdoms into the Assyrian empire and not in the least owing to the deportation of a great number of Arameans into the centre of Assyria. GareIli put forward similar views in his study' 'The Importance and Role of the Arameans in the Administration of the Assyrian Empire." In this study,he gives examples about tens of Aramaean officials( with Assyrian names), for instance the Aramaean philosopher, Ahiqar ,22).

and the Aramaean queen Naqia Zakhutu, the mother of the kings Asserhaddun and Assurbanipal.

Further, the great role played by the incorporated Aramaean areas is mentioned in the article. In his summary, GareIli writes: 23)"Itseems as if the Aramaean influece during this period had penetrated so deeply, that one is tempted to look upon the Assyrian empire as an AssyrianAramaean empire. This line of thougtht one finds in Lewy The orientalist" .

GareIli belives that the cultural cooperation with the Assyrians was to advantage of the Arameans "and in this way, the vanquished Arameans were able to take revenge on their victors - the Assyrian-during the 10th centyry B.C. 24).

The interest of the German orientalists for Aramaean history was aroused at the beginning ofthis century.

It is a pit Y that their achievements did not reach the Syriac intellectuals.

The interest of the Syriac scholars was focused on church matters, which made them aliens to their own Aramaean history. But in spite of the strong ties to the church (both in the east and in the west), the Syriacs have never denied their Aramaean origin. This is something that we find clearly expressed in Bishop Manna' s preface. We have noticed that the Syriac historians have forgotten the history of their kingdoms.

Consequently, the Syriacs have had to suffer abuse from other peoples especiaIly from the Greeks, who have made the Syriacs an object of ridicule by saying "You have not had a single king", Today however, nobody can describe the national, cultural, and church history of the Syriacs in this manner, 25).

This is so thanks to the comprehensive studies that have been assigned to the ancient Assyrian writings, which contain information conceming the Aramaean king doms and the important role played by the Arameans up to the 7th century B.C.

However, one important problem still remains today, namely, to ascertain when the Arameans began to be caIled Syriacs. This weIl be treated in later articles.