Crusade against the Assyrian name

[member 326969 Global]

Sharukinu, what l dont like that we say we are descendants of the Sumerians and akkadians and hurrians and Arameans and the real assyrians etc is because when l read about Assyrian history from old assyrian empire to neo assyrian empire,  its like read that "the assyrians conquered the arameans(also being assyrian, our ancestors)  and they conquered the babylonians(also assyrians, our ancestors) and the hurrians(our ancestors) , akkadians(our ancestors) ,  sumerians(our ancestors),l mean which is my real history!

The history I've been explaining to you.

You have to realise that these populations merged. You had 2 parents who in turn had 4 parents who in turn had 8 parents etc. Even only dating back 2 generations, your parents could have come from 8 different societies and from different places. Through that logic, your ancestors from 4000 years ago don't go back to a tribe of just 50 people rather, they amount to numerous people from various places -which I've carefully explained.

All of this is not unique to Assyrians at all. The English for example, descend from Brittonic Celts, Angles, Saxons, Frisians, Jutes and Vikings (especially Normands) as well as any I might have failed to account for. Despite all this, the English keep the name of their Anglian ancestors. You wouldn't say that the Normand invasion of England (resulting in new populations mixing with the locals) isn't the "real history" of the English.

This is history, the truth isn't always a simple story.

I cant read all of the other peoples history and say its my history, meaning sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian, Aramaean etc, choose one history for god sake.

These people aren't "other people", they have a role in you genetic lineage and culture to varying degrees which I pointed out. If you mother is from tribe B and your father is from tribe A, you will (normally) adopt your father's tribal identity. You would be very silly to say about yourself that the history of tribe B is the history of "other people".

Is it possible that we call ourselves assyrians and claiming the assyrian history from early period, old assyrian empire to neo assyrian empire?  That being our real history even though we mixed with other people, and they became assyrians? I sometimes call my self swedish because l was born in Sweden and claiming the swedish history as my history also, and assyrian history ofcourse, even though swedish people became mixed with other people in scandinavia.

Just because Assyrians in Sweden call themselves Swedish doesn't mean they are the genetic representation of the Swedish people. However, lets pretend the 30% of Swedes are Assyrians: If the population blends over time, than all of those people will have one identity (Swedish) despite that they can trace their roots two at least two groups; a sum of a Swedish population of 70%, and an Assyrian population of 30%. Therefore, they would accordingly be described as having such a mixed ancestry.

Is it possible that this Assyrian history is our real history https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyria?
Sharukinu, l hope you understand what l am talking about.

Assyrian history is our history. History is complex, that of the Assyrians is no exception; if anything, it is the epitome of that complexity.

I think a lot of this confusion arises when people stop applying the abstract thought of examining an entire ancestry (the breadth of your genetic forerunners), choosing to look for a specific lineage only (a particular line within your ancestry).

 

[Neta1991]

The history I've been explaining to you.

You have to realise that these populations merged. You had 2 parents who in turn had 4 parents who in turn had 8 parents etc. Even only dating back 2 generations, your parents could have come from 8 different societies and from different places. Through that logic, your ancestors from 4000 years ago don't go back to a tribe of just 50 people rather, they amount to numerous people from various places -which I've carefully explained.

All of this is not unique to Assyrians at all. The English for example, descend from Brittonic Celts, Angles, Saxons, Frisians, Jutes and Vikings (especially Normands) as well as any I might have failed to account for. Despite all this, the English keep the name of their Anglian ancestors. You wouldn't say that the Normand invasion of England (resulting in new populations mixing with the locals) isn't the "real history" of the English.

This is history, the truth isn't always a simple story.


These people aren't "other people", they have a role in you genetic lineage and culture to varying degrees which I pointed out. If you mother is from tribe B and your father is from tribe A, you will (normally) adopt your father's tribal identity. You would be very silly to say about yourself that the history of tribe B is the history of "other people".


Just because Assyrians in Sweden call themselves Swedish doesn't mean they are the genetic representation of the Swedish people. However, lets pretend the 30% of Swedes are Assyrians: If the population blends over time, than all of those people will have one identity (Swedish) despite that they can trace their roots two at least two groups; a sum of a Swedish population of 70%, and an Assyrian population of 30%. Therefore, they would accordingly be described as having such a mixed ancestry.


Assyrian history is our history. History is complex, that of the Assyrians is no exception; if anything, it is the epitome of that complexity.

I think a lot of this confusion arises when people stop applying the abstract thought of examining an entire ancestry (the breadth of your genetic forerunners), choosing to look for a specific lineage only (a particular line within your ancestry).

When simo parpola wrote about neo assyrian empire being multiethnic and traced the assyrians from that empire to modern Assyrians(suryoyo/suryaya) , he said that at that time the mixed people from different cultures, for example arameans, hurrians etc became assyrian citizen, the ancient assyrian history (from early period, old assyrian empire, middle Assyrian empire etc) of the Neo-Assyrian Empire became their history, isnt it right?

When you say "Assyrian history is our history", do you mean this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyria assyrian history? Early period, old assyrian empire, middle Assyrian empire etc? I know you say that we got mixed and the ancient Assyrians but isnt modern assyrians(suryoyo/suryaya)and other people, when they mention modern assyrians(suryoyo/suryaya) meaning the assyrians of this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyria assyrian history? Old assyrian empire etc, because clearly l dont see sumerian history mention modern Assyrians (suryoyo/suryaya) or Akkadian history or Aramean history etc, but ancient assyrian of this(early period, old assyrian empire etc) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyria history mention the modern Assyrians (suryoyo/suryaya) of the syriac orthodox church, nestorian church,  chaldean church etc. Do you understand what l am saying?

 

[member 326969 Global]

When simo parpola wrote about neo assyrian empire being multiethnic and traced the assyrians from that empire to modern Assyrians(suryoyo/suryaya) , he said that at that time the mixed people from different cultures, for example arameans, hurrians etc became assyrian citizen, the ancient assyrian history (from early period, old assyrian empire, middle Assyrian empire etc) of the Neo-Assyrian Empire became their history, isnt it right?

This question has already been answered many times in great detail. No offense, but you keep going around in circles. Reread the last few posts.

When you say "Assyrian history is our history", do you mean this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyria assyrian history? Early period, old assyrian empire, middle Assyrian empire etc? I know you say that we got mixed and the ancient Assyrians but isnt modern assyrians(suryoyo/suryaya)and other people, when they mention modern assyrians(suryoyo/suryaya) meaning the assyrians of this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyria assyrian history?

I really don't understand what it is that you don't understand. All the Assyrian states belonged to one evolving ethnic group (virtually every ethnic group is constantly evolving). I just gave you the example of the Assyrians from Sweden.

For example, we have substantial ancestry that goes back to Arameans who migrated to Assyria during the early Neo-Assyrian Empire. Therefore, our ancestry dating prior to the Neo-Assyrian Empire, will be more diversified. Therefore we will have many non-Assyrian ancestors that became Assyrianised -(this kind of process virtually happens all the time to all people).

Old assyrian empire etc, because clearly l dont see sumerian history mention modern Assyrians (suryoyo/suryaya) or Akkadian history or Aramean history etc, but ancient assyrian of this(early period, old assyrian empire etc) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyria history mention the modern Assyrians (suryoyo/suryaya) of the syriac orthodox church, nestorian church,  chaldean church etc. Do you understand what l am saying?

Firstly that page clearly states:

" The Akkadian-speaking people (the earliest historically-attested Semitic-speaking people[12]) who would eventually found Assyria appear to have entered Mesopotamia at some point during the latter 4th millennium BC (c. 3500?3000 BC),[13] eventually intermingling with the earlier Sumerian-speaking population, with Akkadian names appearing in written record from as early as the 29th century BC.[12][14] "


Secondly, just because you didn't find something on Wikipedia doesn't mean it's not true. If I don't see the name of your grandparents on your passport, I would be very stupid if I presumed that you don't have grandparents. So do you think Assyrians popped into existence out of nowhere? If you read it about, you will learn they where a mixture of Sumerians and Akkadians. As time went on, more ethnic groups became absorbed into their society. Therefore, we descend from both that original Sumerian-Akkadain population as well as all the non-Sumerian-Akkadian people who eventually mixed into the population.





Sorry Neta, I feel like you keep asking them same questions. Even when you don't, it seems like your questions suggest that you didn't read the answers to your last few. It's kind of like asking me where Bob lives. I answer, "Bob lives in a blue house." Then, you ask me, "name one person who lives in a blue house."

I don't want to discourage you from asking any questions, and I'm more than happy to answer as best I can but, I've almost written a book here that repeatedly answers your questions. Please read them. If you have read them and didn't understand a sentence, point it out, do not merely rephrase the original question.

Regards,

 

[Neta1991]

This question has already been answered many times in great detail. No offense, but you keep going around in circles. Reread the last few posts.



I really don't understand what it is that you don't understand. All the Assyrian states belonged to one evolving ethnic group (virtually every ethnic group is constantly evolving). I just gave you the example of the Assyrians from Sweden.

For example, we have substantial ancestry that goes back to Arameans who migrated to Assyria during the early Neo-Assyrian Empire. Therefore, our ancestry dating prior to the Neo-Assyrian Empire, will be more diversified. Therefore we will have many non-Assyrian ancestors that became Assyrianised -(this kind of process virtually happens all the time to all people).




Firstly that page clearly states:

" The Akkadian-speaking people (the earliest historically-attested Semitic-speaking people[12]) who would eventually found Assyria appear to have entered Mesopotamia at some point during the latter 4th millennium BC (c. 3500?3000 BC),[13] eventually intermingling with the earlier Sumerian-speaking population, with Akkadian names appearing in written record from as early as the 29th century BC.[12][14] "


Secondly, just because you didn't find something on Wikipedia doesn't mean it's not true. If I don't see the name of your grandparents on your passport, I would be very stupid if I presumed that you don't have grandparents. So do you think Assyrians popped into existence out of nowhere? If you read it about, you will learn they where a mixture of Sumerians and Akkadians. As time went on, more ethnic groups became absorbed into their society. Therefore, we descend from both that original Sumerian-Akkadain population as well as all the non-Sumerian-Akkadian people who eventually mixed into the population.





Sorry Neta, I feel like you keep asking them same questions. Even when you don't, it seems like your questions suggest that you didn't read the answers to your last few. It's kind of like asking me where Bob lives. I answer, "Bob lives in a blue house." Then, you ask me, "name one person who lives in a blue house."

I don't want to discourage you from asking any questions, and I'm more than happy to answer as best I can but, I've almost written a book here that repeatedly answers your questions. Please read them. If you have read them and didn't understand a sentence, point it out, do not merely rephrase the original question.

Regards,

It makes sense,its true that they(arameans,sumerians etc) are our ancestors, but then does it mean that their(Akkadians,  sumerians, Aramaeans etc) history is also our history? But why is our name Assyrians, from the ancient assyrians? Why is our name not Akkadians? What is it that makes assyrian name so special? Ancient Assyrians were mixed with other people,  akkadians during Akkadian Empire were mixed with other people, sumerians also etc, so why not Akkadians? Did we stop mix with other people after the fall of the Neo-Assyrian Empire? Or what?  please tell me. Then chaldean empire should be our history to, the people who destroyed the Neo-Assyrian Empire,  and why not persian empire, we must have mixed with persians also, right? Persian history should be our history too? Why are Assyrians mention this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyria assyrian history as our history?

One more thing l am wondering is that why do we call our culture and everything else as Assyrian, when there is no ancient assyrian culture in our culture, it is clearly Christianity, is it because we are assyrians and therefore its "Assyrian"? Especially our language, there is clearly also arabic, turkish etc words in our language.   

 

[member 326969 Global]

It makes sense,its true that they(arameans,sumerians etc) are our ancestors, but then does it mean that their(Akkadians,  sumerians, Aramaeans etc) history is also our history? But why is our name Assyrians, from the ancient assyrians? Why is our name not Akkadians? What is it that makes assyrian name so special? Ancient Assyrians were mixed with other people,  akkadians during Akkadian Empire were mixed with other people, sumerians also etc, so why not Akkadians? Did we stop mix with other people after the fall of the Neo-Assyrian Empire? Or what?  please tell me. Then chaldean empire should be our history to, the people who destroyed the Neo-Assyrian Empire,  and why not persian empire, we must have mixed with persians also, right? Persian history should be our history too? Why are Assyrians mention this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyria assyrian history as our history?

One more thing l am wondering is that why do we call our culture and everything else as Assyrian, when there is no ancient assyrian culture in our culture, it is clearly Christianity, is it because we are assyrians and therefore its "Assyrian"? Especially our language, there is clearly also arabic, turkish etc words in our language. 

Firstly, I'd like to say that our modern Assyrian culture carries a great amount of ancient Assyrian culture from which it directly descends. Our culture is not alien at all, it is remarkably similar. There is much that has been written on this by Assyriologists.

I'll give you one example that may seem trivial but is in fact incredibly telling. When we say to one another "ana khlapux" or "hawit khlapa d aha ganiy", we are literally saying "I, (am) your substitute" and "You be the substitute of this self of mine" respectively. When an ancient Assyrian king would receive bad omens regarding his kingship in the near future, he would organise for a "substitue" to ritualistically/symbolically become the king and marry someone, having them executed after 100 days. That is why saying "ana khlapux" is the deepest expression of love, it suggests that you would die instead of someone else; that's why this is typically only said by mothers and lovers. That is also why saying "hawit khlapa d aha ganiy" is perhaps the most insulting thing you can say to someone, it suggests that the other person ought to die for the one who says it. This is an iota of the myriad of examples there are.


To really answer your question, it becomes a bit more philosophical. All ethnic groups are constantly evolving. Ultimately, the most dominant identity that our ancestors espoused becomes our identity. So the Assyrian name doesn't just reflect the culture that has been handed down to us; it reflects the identity that our ancestors developed, adopted willingly or adopted unwillingly. Nationalism is what you make of it, the new things you chose to accept into your culture, redefine it.

With all that in mind, Assyrians must therefore focus more on the development of our culture as apposed to it's preservation (in it's original form).

 

[Neta1991]

Firstly, I'd like to say that our modern Assyrian culture carries a great amount of ancient Assyrian culture from which it directly descends. Our culture is not alien at all, it is remarkably similar. There is much that has been written on this by Assyriologists.

I'll give you one example that may seem trivial but is in fact incredibly telling. When we say to one another "ana khlapux" or "hawit khlapa d aha ganiy", we are literally saying "I, (am) your substitute" and "You be the substitute of this self of mine" respectively. When an ancient Assyrian king would receive bad omens regarding his kingship in the near future, he would organise for a "substitue" to ritualistically/symbolically become the king and marry someone, having them executed after 100 days. That is why saying "ana khlapux" is the deepest expression of love, it suggests that you would die instead of someone else; that's why this is typically only said by mothers and lovers. That is also why saying "hawit khlapa d aha ganiy" is perhaps the most insulting thing you can say to someone, it suggests that the other person ought to die for the one who says it. This is an iota of the myriad of examples there are.


To really answer your question, it becomes a bit more philosophical. All ethnic groups are constantly evolving. Ultimately, the most dominant identity that our ancestors espoused becomes our identity. So the Assyrian name doesn't just reflect the culture that has been handed down to us; it reflects the identity that our ancestors developed, adopted willingly or adopted unwillingly. Nationalism is what you make of it, the new things you chose to accept into your culture, redefine it.

With all that in mind, Assyrians must therefore focus more on the development of our culture as apposed to it's preservation (in it's original form).

So you are saying that our assyrian identity comes from the ancient assyrian history https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyria but the Sumerian, Akkadian, Aramaean etc history is also our history? So thats why our name is assyrian, and thats why the Assyrian flag https://www.google.se/search?q=assyrian+flag&client=ms-android-sonymobile&prmd=ivmn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwis8OfkpcPNAhVJQZoKHe-FATwQ_AUIBygB&biw=360&bih=512#imgrc=gL6Y3wXiYG187M%3A has ancient assyrian symbol on it, because we are assyrians from the ancient assyrian empire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyria mixed with many people?

 

[member 326969 Global]

So you are saying that our assyrian identity comes from the ancient assyrian history https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyria but the Sumerian, Akkadian, Aramaean etc history is also our history? So thats why our name is assyrian, and thats why the Assyrian flag https://www.google.se/search?q=assyrian+flag&client=ms-android-sonymobile&prmd=ivmn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwis8OfkpcPNAhVJQZoKHe-FATwQ_AUIBygB&biw=360&bih=512#imgrc=gL6Y3wXiYG187M%3A has ancient assyrian symbol on it, because we are assyrians from the ancient assyrian empire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyria mixed with many people?

Neta, I've been trying to answer this same question as carefully and as accurately as I can over more than the last two pages that has been this conversation between us. You will find your answer therein. I literally don't know how else to word it. "Yes" and "no" are weak answers, please reread over the last two pages (and earlier).

Assyrians are the descendants of the ancient Assyrians, but history is complicated. If you know what I've typed over the past two pages, you should have a very clear picture.

As I've already explained, the ancient Assyrians and Babylonians came to constitute the sole descendants of the merged Akkadian-Sumerian population that preceded them. Babylonians and Assyrians were essentially the same sort of people and mixed often. Arameans and Hurrians (among other people) merged with the Assyrian population and became Assyrianised. All modern Suraye and modern Suryoye are the descendants of the Assyrians (including those who were Assyrianised and completely blended into the community).

 

[Neta1991]

Are our languages really dialects? If its dialects then we should understand each other, l can understand suryoyo(syriac orthodox church) dialects but not suryaya (nestorian, chaldean)....

I would say rather that suryoyo and suryaya are two languages, rather than dialects. What will we do when we have our own country? Which language will we speak? I dont think anyone want to lose their own language, either it is west assyrian or east assyrian, neither the dialects from those languages.

You are saying that aramean, hurrian etc is also our history, meaning aramean etc history from before they were Assyrianised.  I already know they (arameans, hurrians etc)are our ancestors but what you didnt say is if Aramean, hurrian,akkadian etc history from before being assyrians is our history also?

 

[member 326969 Global]

Are our languages really dialects? If its dialects then we should understand each other, l can understand suryoyo(syriac orthodox church) dialects but not suryaya (nestorian, chaldean)....

I would say rather that suryoyo and suryaya are two languages, rather than dialects. What will we do when we have our own country? Which language will we speak? I dont think anyone want to lose their own language, either it is west assyrian or east assyrian, neither the dialects from those languages.

You're right. Western Neo-Syriac and Eastern Neo-Syriac are best described as two languages rather than dialects because of how much they've diverged. But, they share a common ancestry and are only spoken by Assyrians.

Western Neo-Syriac and Eastern Neo-Syriac are essentially each clusters of dialects.

Some would even argue that there were various dialects used throughout the Neo-Assyrian Empire, and that the Western Neo-Syriac culster descends from a particular dialect /cluster of dialects therefrom whereas the Eastern Neo-Syriac cluster descends from another particular dialect /cluster of dialects therefrom. In any case, the speakers of both came to refer to both varieties as "Surit" /"Suirth".


I am a big proponent of the cause to make a standard language for both speakers -it would take the best parts from each and develop it from there. I would like to see Akkadian, Sumerian, Aramaic and Hurrian being used to develop the language wherever useful.

You are saying that aramean, hurrian etc is also our history, meaning aramean etc history from before they were Assyrianised.  I already know they (arameans, hurrians etc)are our ancestors but what you didnt say is if Aramean, hurrian,akkadian etc history from before being assyrians is our history also?

Yes. However, because it's so diverse, we are not purely any one of those people. We are the only descendants of people such as the Sumerians, Hurrians and Akkadians, but we are therefore not purely any one of those people. Make sense?

 

[Neta1991]

Please, explain better. Why are we only descendants of Sumerians,  hurrians and akkadians,  what about arameans also? They had many kingdoms in the Middle-East before the assyrians conquered them. If we have proof that we are also the descendants of the arameans( which many Suryoye of the syriac orthodox chuch claim to be) then we could be united.

 

[Neta1991]

Did we once talk the same language suryoye(Syriac orthodox church) and suryaye(nestorians, chaldeans) ? When did our languages get separated from each other?

 

[member 326969 Global]

Please, explain better. Why are we only descendants of Sumerians,  hurrians and akkadians,  what about arameans also? They had many kingdoms in the Middle-East before the assyrians conquered them. If we have proof that we are also the descendants of the arameans( which many Suryoye of the syriac orthodox chuch claim to be) then we could be united.

Read very carefully. I didn't say "we are only", I said "we are the only" -two very different meanings. If I say "you are only the child of your father"; that is wrong, you are also the child of your mother. If I say "you are the only child of your father", that might be true, your father might only have one child.


It means that the only descendants of the Sumerians, Akkadians and Hurrians are Assyrians. Arameans do have Assyrian descendants, but it is quite possible (and debated) that they may also have non-Assyrian descendants.

As for Suryoye and Suraye, they are definitely Assyrians (which means that part of their ancestry is Aramean).

 

[Neta1991]

I understand, you say that the Akkadians, sumerians and hurrians mixed with eachother and "created" the ancient assyrians, therefore our real ancestors are them, but we have also Aramean etc ancestry, because we are not the ancient assyrians, but the modern Assyrians that mixed with arameans etc in neo assyrian empire.

 

[Neta1991]

Or you are saying that sumerians etc are the ancient assyrians ancestors, while suryoyo and suryaya are the descendants of the neo assyrian people?

 

[member 326969 Global]

I understand, you say that the Akkadians, sumerians and hurrians mixed with eachother and "created" the ancient assyrians, therefore our real ancestors are them, but we have also Aramean etc ancestry, because we are not the ancient assyrians, but the modern Assyrians that mixed with arameans etc in neo assyrian empire.

No, you didn't understand. The Assyrians of the Neo-Assyrian Empire lived in ancient times -they were definitely ancient Assyrians. The Neo-Assyrian Empire collapsed  over 2600 years ago. The Sumerians, Akkadians, Hurrians and Arameans are our ancestors.  Modern Assyrians are descendants of all four of them (among others) due to what happened before Assyria fell.. We are the only descendants of Sumerians, the only descendants of Akkadians, the only descendants of Hurrians and we are descendants of Arameans (but Arameans might have other descendants; we might not be the only descendants of them).

Or you are saying that sumerians etc are the ancient assyrians ancestors, while suryoyo and suryaya are the descendants of the neo assyrian people?

Just reread everything I've written. I'm just repeating myself over and over. The Akkadians conquered the Sumerians and they all mixed and became one people called "Akkadians". Akkadians developed two dialects which eventually formed two identities/subgroups (Assyrian and Babylonian). Hurrians and Arameans were Assyrianised. Sometime after the fall of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, two distinct Assyrian groups emerged, West Assyrians (Suryoye) and East Assyrians (Suraye).

 

[Neta1991]

No, you didn't understand. The Assyrians of the Neo-Assyrian Empire lived in ancient times -they were definitely ancient Assyrians. The Neo-Assyrian Empire collapsed  over 2600 years ago. The Sumerians, Akkadians, Hurrians and Arameans are our ancestors.  Modern Assyrians are descendants of all four of them (among others) due to what happened before Assyria fell.. We are the only descendants of Sumerians, the only descendants of Akkadians, the only descendants of Hurrians and we are descendants of Arameans (but Arameans might have other descendants; we might not be the only descendants of them).


Just reread everything I've written. I'm just repeating myself over and over. The Akkadians conquered the Sumerians and they all mixed and became one people called "Akkadians". Akkadians developed two dialects which eventually formed two identities/subgroups (Assyrian and Babylonian). Hurrians and Arameans were Assyrianised. Sometime after the fall of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, two distinct Assyrian groups emerged, West Assyrians (Suryoye) and East Assyrians (Suraye).

You are saying that the sumerians, akkadians (those together created the ancient assyrians) and many others etc are our ancestors due to what happened in the neo assyrian empire,  when all in the empire became assyrian citizens? And those non assyrian people became assyrians. The goal of the ancient assyrians was to delete ethnic origin and replace them with the Assyrian one, therefore they became assyrians through deportation etc? Modern Assyrians come from what happened in the neo assyrian empire, before the fall of assyria? Like l said, when all (arameans etc)became assyrians and mixed with eachother. I am telling you what l read in simo parpola article..... I think this is what you mean

I want to understand but its hard, you are writing academic english, l think

 

[Neta1991]

But the important is that we (suryoyo, syriac orthodox church,  suryaya,  nestorians) are the same people.

 

[Neta1991]

It clearly mean that Mesopotamian history(assyrian,akkadian, sumerian etc) is our history.

 

[Neta1991]

May l ask you something? Why doesnt sumerian, akkadian etc history be written as our history on Wikipedia or somewhere else? Its only the ancient assyrian history that is written as our history, even though ancient assyrians mixed with the Akkadians etc and they (sumerians, hurrians etc) are our ancestors, its still just ancient assyrian history, meaning old assyrian empire to neo assyrian empire history that is written as our history.  Do you understand?

What do you mean with "Modern Assyrians are descendants of all four of them (among others) due to what happened before Assyria fell." and "two distinct Assyrian groups emerged, West Assyrians (Suryoye) and East Assyrians (Suraye)."

 

[member 326969 Global]

What do you mean with "Modern Assyrians are descendants of all four of them (among others) due to what happened before Assyria fell." and "two distinct Assyrian groups emerged, West Assyrians (Suryoye) and East Assyrians (Suraye)."

All Sumerians merged with all Akkadians during Sargon of Akkad's Empire. All Sumerians and Akkadains completely mixed together, they were all considered Akkadian.

Eventually, those new Akkadians became known as Assyrians/Babylonians.

Assyrians Assyrianised Hurrians, Arameans and others. This happened before Assyria fell. Sometime after the Neo-Assyrian Empire fell (early on; I don't know exactly when), Assyrians split into two groups, West Assyrians and East Assyrians.

May l ask you something? Why doesnt sumerian, akkadian etc history be written as our history on Wikipedia or somewhere else? Its only the ancient assyrian history that is written as our history, even though ancient assyrians mixed with the Akkadians etc and they (sumerians, hurrians etc) are our ancestors, its still just ancient assyrian history, meaning old assyrian empire to neo assyrian empire history that is written as our history.  Do you understand?

From my memory, Wikipedia does mention these things.

 

[Neta1991]

All Sumerians merged with all Akkadians during Sargon of Akkad's Empire. They were all considered Akkadian from then onwards. All Sumerians and Akkadains completely mixed together.

Eventually, those new Akkadians became known as Assyrians/Babylonians.

Assyrians Assyrianised Hurrians, Arameans and others. This happened before Assyria fell. Sometime after the Neo-Assyrian Empire fell (early on; I don't know exactly when), Assyrians split into two groups, West Assyrians and East Assyrians.

So thats why this site http://www.everyculture.com/Africa-Middle-East/Assyrians.html says that: Ancient Assyrians were inhabitants of one the world's earliest civilizations, Mesopotamia, which began to emerge around 3500 B . C . The Assyrians invented the world's first written language and the 360-degree circle, established Hammurabi's code of law, and are credited with many other military, artistic, and architectural achievements.

Because clearly it wasnt the ancient assyrians who created the worlds first written language,  it was the sumerians,  but due to the fact that the sumerians were ancient assyrians ancestors and ours of course, we can say the ancient assyrians (our ancestors) created the world first written language etc, same thing with hammurabi law, it was the babylonians but they being the same people it doesn't matter. We are the only ancestors of the Sumerians, akkadians, hurrians and maybe arameans,  because they mixed with each other through history. Sumerians and Akkadians mixed and became Akkadians,  akkadians became assyrians and Babylonians, Aramaeans and many others became Assyrianised and became assyrians and mixed etc. I think l understand but you think l dont, you are clearly saying what l am written. There might be other descendants of Sumerians etc but they have been arabized and are arabs now.

Btw that you wrote about west Assyrians and East Assyrians might be wrong, because they must have been began being separated in the very beginning of Christianity,  due to the fact they living in different empires, we west Assyrians living in roman empire,  you east assyrians living in persian empire.

We the modern Assyrians created the world first written language and many others things because they(sumerians, akkadians etc) are our ancestors.

 

[Neta1991]

Now l know, if this is correct then quote it and say yes! We are the ancestors of the ancient assyrians but because the ancient assyrians being ancestors of other people (sumerians etc)and because ancient assyrians mixed with arameans etc, then they(arameans,  sumerians etc) is also our ancestors,  because they became assyrians, therefore we modern Assyrians created the world first written language etc.

 

[member 326969 Global]

We are the only ancestors of the Sumerians, akkadians, hurrians and maybe arameans,  because they mixed with each other through history.

Neta, now your right track except here where you've mixed the word "descendants" with "ancestors". Ancestors come before; descendants come after. A father is the ancestor of his son; a son is the descendant of his father.

Reread what you just wrote, I reckon you had the right intention but used the wrong word. If that's the case, you ought to edit it.

There might be other descendants of Sumerians etc but they have been arabized and are arabs now.

No, this is not the case at all. The closest relation that Arabs have to Sumerians is that some Assyrians became Arabised much later on in history.

Now l know, if this is correct then quote it and say yes! We are the ancestors of the ancient assyrians but because the ancient assyrians being ancestors of other people (sumerians etc)and because ancient assyrians mixed with arameans etc, then they(arameans,  sumerians etc) is also our ancestors,  because they became assyrians, therefore we modern Assyrians created the world first written language etc.

This is true except the part where you said "the ancient assyrians being ancestors of other people (sumerians etc)". Once again, I think you meant to say, "descendants" instead of "ancestors". Also, it is better to say that "the Sumerian ancestors of modern Assyrians invented the first written language". -That way you state the clearest and most accurate information.

 

[Neta1991]

Neta, now your right track except here where you've mixed the word "descendants" with "ancestors". Ancestors come before; descendants come after. A father is the ancestor of his son; a son is the descendant of his father.

Reread what you just wrote, I reckon you had the right intention but used the wrong word. If that's the case, you ought to edit it.


No, this is not the case at all. The closest relation that Arabs have to Sumerians is that some Assyrians became Arabised much later on in history.

This is true except the part where you said "the ancient assyrians being ancestors of other people (sumerians etc)". Once again, I think you meant to say, "descendants" instead of "ancestors". Also, it is better to say that "the Sumerian ancestors of modern Assyrians invented the first written language". -That way you state the clearest and most accurate information.

Sharukinu, l am sorry for not responding, l was busy, but isnt we modern Assyrians, because sumerians and akkadians created the ancient assyrians,  and therefore sumerians and akkadians are "we", and because sumerians and akkadians created the ancient babylonians, which means that the ancient babylonians are also "we", ancient babylonians being the same people as ancient assyrians, and because they(arameans,hurrians etc) became Assyrianised and became ancient assyrians, and therefore its also "we". They (sumerians, ancient Aramaeans etc) belong to our people,  the modern Assyrians (suroyo,suraya).

I think that we have the most connection to the ancient assyrians, but because the sumerians and akkadians created the ancient assyrians "we" are also the Sumerians and akkadians, and the arameans etc, is this correct?

Ps, when l say "we" l mean modern Assyrians (suroyo,suraya)

 

[member 326969 Global]

Sharukinu, l am sorry for not responding, l was busy, but isnt we modern Assyrians, because sumerians and akkadians created the ancient assyrians,  and therefore sumerians and akkadians are "we", and because sumerians and akkadians created the ancient babylonians, which means that the ancient babylonians are also "we", ancient babylonians being the same people as ancient assyrians, and because they(arameans,hurrians etc) became Assyrianised and became ancient assyrians, and therefore its also "we". They (sumerians, ancient Aramaeans etc) belong to our people,  the modern Assyrians (suroyo,suraya).

I think that we have the most connection to the ancient assyrians, but because the sumerians and akkadians created the ancient assyrians "we" are also the Sumerians and akkadians, and the arameans etc, is this correct?

Ps, when l say "we" l mean modern Assyrians (suroyo,suraya)

Yes. This is true however, by having various ancestors, we have a little bit of genes from each. The more races we derive from, the less we become likely to reflect any particular one of them. On the other hand, all these populations that we're discussing already mixed by the Neo-Assyrian Empire at the latest. That means that even 2600 years ago, most of our ancestors were Assyrian citizens who had this mixed ancestry.