Talk:Syriacs/miniproject/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I think that it is a very good idea, but I would like to make a complete collection of the syriac people, that is culture, religion, history, geography, important persons and so on. so that the picture of the syriac people will be much clearer. And I agree with that the Syriac name does cover the whole topic and can be used as an umbrella for all other names as aramean, assyrian, chaldean and so on. I would also like to stress out that our work shouldnt be based on the nationalistic views, we should rather to bring out the truth and to give a clear picture of the syriac people, And I hope that when the reader reads syriac then you know that I mean all denominations as arameans/assyrians/chaldeans and so on. Suryoyo

I've started this off to bring our discussions together. I'll put a message on the talk pages of those articles directly affected. I'll also remove current merge requests: I think the whole issue needs to be dealt with as one. --Gareth Hughes 12:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, Gareth. But I think we should start this project by choosing a name that is impartial, and covers the whole topic. I'd like to suggest "Arameans/Assyrians/Chaldeans", or simply "Syriacs". --Benne 14:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the discussion had to take place somewhere, and this name has two parts to it. The name on this page doesn't matter so much: it's how we define names in the articles that's more important. All of these articles are realted to one another, so it's good to have a centralised discussion. --Gareth Hughes 18:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It does underline the current dominance of Assyrianist terminology though. References to the Aramean heritage of the Syriacs are found in the writings of many authors in both the West and East Syriac traditions. See for example the site of the Syriac Universal Alliance. I strongly urge you to at least include the Arameans in the name of this project. In my opinion, a neutral point of view requires and implies a neutral name. Not very beautiful, but perhaps a way out of this discussion could be referring to the people as such:

Syriacs (Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans)

This can vary according to the presence or absence of a specific group in an area. --Benne 19:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that Assyro-Chaldean is a good name. That is also what the Assyrians/Chaldeans decided to be named in Iraq. As Gareth says, its how we define names in the articles thats important.

As you can see from the main page, I divided up articles into 'direct' and 'indirect'. That's because I would like us to look at the 'ethnic' articles first, and debate the definition of these labels. Then we can see howe these definitions feed into the other articles. I think that we can agree the Aramaeans/Syriacs/Assyrians/Chaldeans constitute a single people group defined by culture and history. Although for much of their recent history they have been subsumed into Arab culture, they remain distinct. The differing labels we have today are all relatively modern, and each has its own set of nuances. In spite of this, there is a continuum of culture binding them together. The culture is based on two major elements: language and faith. The language consists of a number of dialects of eastern Aramaic. The most important of these is the classical Aramaic of Edessa/Orhay/Urhoy. This language has been called Syriac/Suryaya/Suryoyo, originally rejecting the name Aramaic/Aramaya/Oromoyo as being linked to the pre-Christian past. It is interesting to note that today names that link the people to their pre-Christian past are now back in favour. There are a number of dialects that have always existed alongside the classical/literary language. Some of these dialects form a continuum, like Assyrian Neo-Aramaic and Chaldean Neo-Aramaic, others are quite different, like Hertevin and Senaya. The Christian faith is an equal partner in the formation of this culture, and an understanding of the labels is partly based on confessional divisions within the church. Although terms like Nestorian and Monophysite are widely rejected today, the bitterness behind these names underline the sense of separation from European Christianity. The Assyrian Church of the East has its roots in Imperial Persia, beyond the boundaries of the Roman Empire: its separation from the rest of the church was thus as much due to socio-political factors as anything else. Members of this church almost invariably chose to be known as Assyrians. However, the adoption of this name by the church is a relatively new phenomenon. The lack of stability of the eastern reaches of the Byzantine Empire and christological controversies led to Syriac-speaking Christians feeling alienated from Byzantium, and their separation along with Copts and Armenians. The coming of Roman Catholic missionaries in the last few centuries led to further splintering of the church into groups which sought reunion with the West, and those who resisted it. Particularly, Rome chose to call pro-Catholic former adherants of the Church of the East 'Chaldeans'. This may have been based on various sources, but its usage promated the name. Many members of the Chaldean Catholic Church use Chaldean to describe themselves. However, many prefer to be known as Assyrian. Many members of the Syriac Orthodox Church prefer the name Syriac/Syrian for themselves. This is encouraged by the church hierarchy, and its use is sometimes tied to political stance supportive of the Syrian Government. Thus SOC members within Syria are less likely to use any other label. However, members of SOC in Turkey, Iraq and the diaspora tend to be more likely to prefer the name Assyrian for themselves, and are less likely to choose to be known as Syriacs. This has led to 'Assyrian' being the generally preferred name for this culture and its people, and the rejecton of denominational labels. However, as there is a substantial number of Chaldeans in Iraq, the label Assyro-Chaldean has been used to underline the commonality of the two names. This is, however, a modern compromise, and has no source in history. The name Syriac is still preferred by scholarship. It has been used more than any other term historically to describe Aramaic-speaking Christians regardless of their confession. Just a few thoughts. I know some will disagree with a few sentences, but most of it is all quite acceptable. We just have to hammer out the bumps! --Gareth Hughes 18:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)