By Ilias Michail and Elias Antonius
Aramean supremacists have long perpetuated two enduring
myths, which strike at the very heart of any rational understanding of
Levantine history. The first is that they are the rightful heirs to the title
of ‘indigenous’ throughout the region. The second is their relentless portrayal
of the Levant as a purely Semitic land. Both of which have made them as
adamantly opposed to the concept of a Rûm ethnic identity as Arabists.
The reality is that neither of these myths could be farther
from the truth. The Levant has always been a crossroads of Civilizations. A
meeting place of Semitic, Indo-European, and other linguistic and cultural
groups. From the Paleolithic to the Neolithic Age, the Levant continuously
presents itself as such a place. Home to local cultures such as the Natufian
and Halaf, as well as multi-continent cultures, like the Aurignacian, which
spread across Europe and the Levant.
By the dawn of the Bronze Age, the Levant had seen the rise
of several different kingdoms. Some Semitic like the Eblaite and Yamhad
kingdoms, and others Indo-European like Mitanni and the Hittite Empire. This
multi-cultural land was populated by Semitic-speakers like the Amorites,
Indo-European speakers like the Luwians, and Alarodian-speakers like the
Hurrians. Historical facts, which disprove the claims of Aramean supremacists
and their propaganda of a purely Semitic and Aramaic land.
Foreigners, Invaders, and the Indigenous
One argument that Aramean supremacists attempt to use
against the very idea of an ethnic Rûm identity, as if they have the right to
enforce their beliefs upon another community, is that Greeks are “foreigners” and
“invaders” to the Levant. Throughout the region, the need to justify one's
culture as ‘indigenous’ is paramount to justifying one's political authority or
right to exist. Arab, Israeli, and now also Aramean supremacists all fight for
the right to be called ‘indigenous.' However, the reality is that this title
belongs to people that have long gone extinct, such as the Canaanites, Luwians,
and Amorites. Those who may or may not claim this title today did not emerge as
a people or culture until after the infamous Bronze Age Collapse.
It is around this time that the first ethnic Greeks settled
the Levant, historically known as the Sea Peoples. Arriving along the coast,
this collection of tribes separated, some developing their own civilizations
like the Philistines around Gaza, and Kingdom of Palistin in Northern Syria.
While others mingled with the local Canaanites to create the great Phoenician
Civilization. Meanwhile, at the same time history sees the emergence of both
the ancient Israelites and Arameans for the first time. Therefore, blessing all
three with the same rights to the title of ‘indigenous’.
The first undisputed reference to the Arameans as a distinct
people appears in the inscriptions of the Assyrian King Tiglath Pileser I
(c.1100 B.C.). Originating in what is today southern and central Syria. The
Arameans displaced the indigenous Amorites from the region, and in the
aftermath created several Aramaic-speaking city-states of their own, such as
Aram-Damascus. Like the ancient Greeks of the Aegean, the Arameans never had a
united ‘state’ but reminded divided between numerous city-states.
It is with this being said that the Aramean argument of
Greeks being “foreigners” and “invaders” falls apart. If the Greek is an
invader for displacing the original inhabitants of the coast after the Bronze
Age Collapse. Then what are the Arameans for doing the very same to the
Amorites in central and southern Syria? How can one identity be deemed
‘indigenous’, and the other “foreigner”, when they both arose at the same time?
Hellenization vs. Aramaization
Aramean supremacists have long portrayed the Levant’s
Hellenistic period and Hellenization as a form of cultural imperialism. This
over-simplistic approach to Levantine history is not just wrong, but blatantly
Hellenophobic. To make matters worse, these propagandists conveniently forget
that the region also went through a process of Aramaization. Just which, if
any, of these two cultural expansion, was truly imperialistic?
Well in the case of Hellenization, it must first be said
that it was far more complexed than Arameans will acknowledge. Ethnic Greeks
during the Hellenistic period colonized much of Northern Syria, specifically in
areas that were sparsely populated at the time, yet had historically been home
to previous generations of ethnic Greeks. These new migrates established newly
founded Greek cities, which developed into large urban centers, such as the
Tetrapolis Seleukis and the Decapolis. Meanwhile, the official policy of the
Seleucid Empire did not entail forced assimilation of non-Greek peoples, and
instead promoted ethnic segregation and cultural autonomy for native peoples.
This allowed non-Greeks to maintain their ethnic traditions and identities.
In the case of Aramaization, we witness a much more intrusive
process of cultural assimilation. Beginning roughly around the fall of the last
independent Aramaic city-state of Aram-Damascus in 732 B.C. The Neo-Assyrian
Empire began a policy of forced deportations of Arameans into Babylonia, and
even Assyria, which resulted in the intermixing of the deportees and the native
populations of Mesopotamia. It is at this point that Aramaic culture and
language began to spread across the Levant and Mesopotamia, resulting in the
adoption of Aramaic as the lingua franca of the Neo-Assyrian Empire in the
mid-8th century BC by King Tiglath Pileser III. The first people to succumb to
Aramaization were the Akkadian-speaking Assyrians and Babylonians, which became
Eastern Aramaic-speakers. While in the West, the process of Aramaization in
places such as Phoenicia and Palestine did not take hold until after the rise
of Christianity between the 1st and 3rd centuries A.D.
Thus, when one looks at the history of Hellenization vs.
Aramaization of the Levant, it becomes clear which of the two the true form of
Cultural Imperialism was. Hellenization, for the most part, was a purely
voluntary process, which never led to the destruction of any native culture or
language, and instead resulted in bilingualism. While, Aramaization saw the complete
destruction of several cultures and languages, such as but not limited to
Akkadian, Phoenician, and for a time even Hebrew.
It’s time for respect and mutual understanding
Just what is the need for Aramean supremacists to forcefully
aramaize the indigenous Rûm of the Levant? Why are they so troubled by the
prospect of a revival of a Levantine Rûm ethnicity? Does the existence of an
independent identity for the Rûm hinder the Aramean cause? No. So why so much
hate and Hellenophia?
Unlike Arameans, Rûm advocates have no wish to persecute or
enforce their identity upon the Aramean community. All they wish for is the
same mutual respect and understanding that they give those Syriac-Christians
who wish to self-identify as Arameans. Today, rather than fight over whose
identity is “indigenous”, we should be working together to fight a common
enemy, Arabism. Both of our communities have the right to claim the title of
indigenous. The time has come to end these enduring myths of Aramean Supremacy
and move forward towards a day when both the Rûm and Aramean identities can
co-exist in the Levant in peace.