Talk:Assyrian continuity

Very one sided

This article is very one sided and acts as if this is settled science. It should also include arguments that go against the continuity which are plenty. 2001:DF4:3200:1500:71B1:AEE1:A449:95C1 (talk) 06:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Religious continuity: Mesopotamian paganism continued into the 1700s?!

"Although the ancient Mesopotamian pantheon ceased to be worshipped at Assur with the city's destruction in the 3rd century AD, it persisted at other localities, despite the overwhelming conversion of the region to Christianity, for much longer; the old faith persisted at Harran until at least the 10th century and at Mardin until as late as the 18th century."

This is very hard for me to accept, and I'm curious if there's any supporting source for this claim other than a passing reference in the Simo Parpola article. Also, that article itself doesn't appear to be claiming the persistence of the whole Mesopotamian patheon, but a much more modest survival: "the 'sun-worshippers' [Shemshiyeh] described by Carsten Niebuhr and Southgate."

I'd favor either cutting the quoted sentence entirely. This just seems like a very bold claim based on very little documentation. Mosi Nuru (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Restoring 2022 pre-fringe revision

The idea of Assyrian continuity is a nationalistic myth and WP:FRINGE among serious scholars. This article more or less reflected that reality until 2022, when the article was entirely rewritten by one user (see the edit summary here and the #Rewrite section above) to unequivocally support this fringe position.

I have restored the last good revision, which still has a tendency to overplay the fringe position as a seriously held theory, but at least is not mispresenting it as "almost unilaterally" supported. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

On second thought, since the Assyrian continuity claim barely exists outside of the context of Assyrian nationalism, and since any discussion of it should take that context into account, a separate article will always tend to exaggerate its notability as a separate issue. I will therefore boldly blank and redirect to Assyrian nationalism. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

The early 2022 version was awful and User:Ichthyovenator, not an Assyrian editor to my knowledge, did a great work rewriting this article with reliable sources. I don't think that the redirect is uncontroversial and will be restoring the 2025 version. Please create a deletion discussion, or request a merge. Shmayo (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the 2022 version was pretty bad. But Ichthyovenator's work (which still makes up most of the article now) is original research and unambiguous wp:profringe (unwarranted promotion of fringe theories). It may look better because of its citations and prose, but it actually is much worse because it is deeply misleading. I will, however, not spend my precious time trying to convince other editors of this fact. Hopefully at some point someone else will look at the RS in this field and rewrite the thing. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Assyrian Continuity is a terrible biased nationalist fever dream of an article.

Where do I even begin, first the idea that the modern Assyrians are descendants of ancient Assyrians is like any modern national identity a construct of the 19th century starting after Layard's Excavations to try to unite the various Aramaic speaking christians in Northern Mesopotamia against Turkish genocide and persecution and by using the Assyrian name they can claim legitimacy to a lost golden age.

The only ,,scholar'' that supports the position Simo Parpola does make good points for Assyrian continuity up until the 3rd century Ce as there is evidence that for instance Assur was still inhabited in the Parthian Period saw new building activity (personal names that are clearly aramaic versions of Neo Assyrian Akkadian names like Ruth Assor) but after that date we have 0 evidence that Assyrians actually existed as a separate people and Parpola's evidence starts to fall apart like for instance using Folklore and various nationalist sources from the 20th and 21st centuries

Parpola is also rather insane when it comes to his Assyrian origins of Christianity which no serious scholar accepts so I do not generally trust him.

Other scholars from what iI have read generally dismiss the idea of Assyrian Continuity and simply ignore it so it generally is a Fringe wiew and just like previous editors said it should be returned to the 2022 version ( restored the last good revision ) Theopedias (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

@Theopedias Your revert was absolutely unwarranted for a number of reasons. You are asserting that Assyrian continuity is merely a "terrible biased nationalist fever dream", and you state that only scholar supporting this position is Simo Parpola. However, if you were to look under "Academia and politics", you will find a paragraph that lists a number of different scholars, and citations to their works, whom have previously supported the notion of Assyrian continuity. A multidisciplinary list of scholars outside of Assyriology is more than enough to assert that Assyrian continuity is supported outside of one scholar, and you can check their sources to see more details.

Furthermore, denial of Assyrian continuity is considered greatly racist and offensive by the Assyrian community today, see the "Denial" subsection. Per Donabed, it is associated with forms of historical oppression that Assyrians have been faced with since the 20th century, and constitutes a normalization and propagation of epistemic violence against Assyrians in academia. Bas ter Haar Romeny, who works in Syriac studies, also reminds that denying modern Syriac Christians the right to identify with the ancient Assyrians would be using a double standard. Even if the subject is controversial and debated, making claims as you have just done, which have been disproven time and time again, does not address anything to the topic and offends an entire people at the same time.

I would also like to point out to you that topics regarding Assyrians are under a set of general sanctions; see WP:GS/ACAS for more information. I will leave a notice on your talk page after posting this reply. Surayeproject3 (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I think I did a grave mistake and edited a page that is in an edit war, sorry for possibly offending modern Assyrians. Theopedias (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Theopedias is hardly the first Wikipedia to express reservations about the direction of the article since 2022. In 2025, Apaugasma also reverted back to the earlier version. I expressed some reservations at the time (see #Rewrite above) but did not press or follow up. The article is argumentative and loaded with special pleading. Srnec (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

If there are issues with this article, you don't address them by calling the entire topic a "terribly biased nationalist fever dream." That is among the most offensive things you could possibly say for any ethnic group, let alone Assyrians. For the record, Apaugasma falsely stated the Assyrian continuity claim barely exists outside of the context of Assyrian nationalism, and then tried redirecting the entire article to Assyrian nationalism which is barely in scope of this one. Mixing the idea of continuity with nationalism asserts that the entire identity has no merit and is fake, unfortunately a common rhetoric in anti-Assyrian sentiment. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

As I said before, I will not put my sweet time in trying to convince anyone of anything here, but let it be known that my interest in this topic is purely academic (I'm a historian of philosophy, religion and science) and that I have no anti-Assyrian sentiment of any kind. I know the same is true for Srnec, and judging from Theopedias' argument above, I strongly suspect it is true for them too. So please keep the conversation wp:civil and do not insinuate anything like that again. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:24, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I made that comment when I seriously did not know what I was doing. I will correct literally everything that I brought up the fact is that I entered a topic that is so controversial that any edit I made would have been a problem I decide to stop editing this page now for this very reason I do not want to be offensive I already caused to much harm now I will edit less controversial topics Theopedias (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assyrian continuity § Assyrian continuity

 – FaviFake (talk) 06:56, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Rejection of the thesis in Syriac studies

Should the general rejection of the Assyrian continuity thesis as described here be mentioned in the second paragraph of the lead or not? I will address Shmayo's objections in the edit summary of their revert:

Donabed & Mako (2009) p. 83 write that

A trend has become more prevalent in modern scholarship to dismiss the ‘Assyrian’ claim. Much of this finds its strongest proponents within the field of Syriac Studies.

Why should this not support the article's claim that "the idea of Assyrian continuity is generally met with skepticism in the field of Syriac studies"? The claim in the article seems actually weaker (as is appropriate). True, there is also skepticism in other fields, and Donabed & Mako 2009, p. 84 actually generalize the rejection to most historians as such, writing that in every case where ‘Assyrian’ is used in literature from the fall of the Assyrian Empire to the present day, it is (usually) categorically rejected by historians. But it should be clear that Syriac studies most strongly and most notably rejects the continuity claim.

Why should the Brock quote not address the thesis as formulated in the lead sentence ("the idea that the modern Assyrians are directly descended from the ancient Assyrians")? This seems like hair-splitting, and isn't it in any case clear that Brock is responding to the general idea of Assyrian continuity as broadly described in the article?

As for Syriac studies not being the primary authority on this topic, that's debatable, but not necessarily relevant to assessing whether it is wp:due to mention or not. The thesis is rejected by a whole field of study that –dealing with the history of the Assyrians and related groups from late antiquity to the Middle Ages– has at least a good deal of relevance to the topic. Not making that clear from the beginning of the article would be very non-neutral. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:25, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that my primary reason for reverting was the last part above. I think it is relevant when we are discussing a second paragraph of a lead in an article.

It may seem like hair-splitting, but other scholars have pointed this out. Aaron Butts (2017) did so in his introduction to an article on Assyrian ethnic self-identity ("The present essay is not concerned with evaluating the legitimacy of connections between the Syriac heritage and ancient Assyria."). I think that is true for similar articles as well. While that was not necessarily the case with Brock in 2001 (taking into consideration that he ends the sentence with "...and it lacks any sound historical basis."), in my interpretation, the "Assyrian claim" in Donabed & Mako (2009) is also the one of continuous self-identification and connection between "Assyrian" and "Syrian".

I agree with you to some extent, many Syriac studies scholars are skeptical, but there are also scholars in the field that don't reject this thesis (Harrak, ter Haar Romeny, Al-Jeloo).

Again, I'm not against including this in the article - as it is already partially included - but rather the lead. Shmayo (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say about Brock 2001, but let's drop that.

I'm also not entirely clear about your primary reason for reverting. Is it that Syriac studies is not the primary authority on this subject, or that not all Syriac scholars are skeptical, or both?

Could you provide some quotes from Harrak, ter Haar Romeny and Al-Jeloo supporting the continuity thesis? If there is significant support for the thesis in Syriac studies I would agree that the proposed text should not be the second paragraph of the lead, and that it should be differently worded. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 06:38, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Syriac studies not being the primary authority.

I won't be able to compile more than this today:

• For Harrak and Al-Jeloo: See the two lectures cited in this article.
• Also see: Efrem Yildiz (1999), "The Assyrians: A historical and current reality", Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies
• For ter Haar Romeny: Please see this article - I would not call anything here "support for the thesis" (which is not what I stated above either). He does however state that Syriac-speaking Christians were living in an area where the Assyrian Empire once held sway. The empire disappeared into the mists of history, but its inhabitants may have continued to live there, mingling with the people they overcame and that overcame them. If outsiders were to deny the Syriac Orthodox the right to identify themselves with the Assyrians, they would be using double standards. Shmayo (talk) 11:01, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I guess that these scholars do support the thesis, albeit in a vague and roundabout way. Apparently direct and in-depth discussion of the thesis in its strong form is rare, both among proponents and opponents of continuity.

Still, the fact that significant scholarly opposition to the thesis does exist should somehow be mentioned in the lead in order to comply with wp:npov ("representing fairly, proportionately [...] all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources"). What about moving it to the last paragraph of the lead, with the first sentence modified in the following way:

Some scholars have openly opposed the Assyrian continuity thesis, especially in the field of Syriac studies. According to the leading Syriac scholar Sebastian Brock, "the alleged ethnic identity with the ancient Assyrians is in fact a recent creation which has taken place in the course of the last century and a half, and it lacks any sound historical basis." According to Adam H. Becker, a Syriac scholar who has investigated the origins of Assyrian nationalism, the use of the word Assyrian itself for the modern ethnic group "derives from Western sources, not from a continuity of identity between the ancient Assyrians and the modern ones." Proponents of the thesis regard such statements as inaccurate and partial.

☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 08:23, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the new suggestion. I just reread the lead. I don't think that any of the existing paragraphs currently summarize the scholarly support that exists and is mentioned in the article, anymore. If the suggested paragraph is thought to present or summarize the "other" significant scholarly view that exists, shouldn't it be preceded by a summary of the scholarly support (imo the weight of modern scholarly opinion)? Shmayo (talk) 12:28, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

If the thesis is supported by majority of scholars, there should in principle be no need to explicitly state this in a well-written lead. The problem here though is that this lead was written from a defensive point of view, as if the Wikipedia article needed to establish against scholarship that the thesis is correct. I removed the most offending parts in that regard, but it is still too long as it stands. There is still much unnecessary detail about continuity in antiquity, and it's just wordy in general. It should be rewritten (just like the article as a whole) to give a more concise overview of the thesis and its various aspects, as explicitly described and debated by scholars. Instead we have a Wikipedia article that is itself building the argument for continuity, citing sources that often only vaguely support what it is saying.

I have neither the expertise nor the time to work on this much-needed rewrite. Assuming that you won't be doing a rewrite either, we are likely going to leave the lead in its current state. In that case, I agree that explicitly mentioning the scholarly support before pointing out that there also is opposition is probably a good idea. Given the fact that there is not much room for expansion, it should be a concise and general statement that most scholars support the thesis. However, per wp:academicconsensus we will need a source that gives exactly such a statement, which may be difficult to find. Do you know of such a source? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:59, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hannibal Travis (2012) concludes regarding opposition that Due to the efforts of a many scholars in diverse fields, such denial has become very difficult to sustain. Shmayo (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

That's a little bit sparse. What denial exactly is Travis talking about (unfortunately, I don't have access to Cetrez et al. 2012 to check the context for myself)?

Alternatively, we can write something like

Many scholars in various fields have expressed support for Assyrian continuity. There is also some opposition, especially in the field of Syriac studies. According to [... continues as above]

Since we are not saying "most" or "all", wp:academicconsensus can perhaps be ignored. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:25, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Here is a longer passage from the Travis article, for context:

Those, like John Joseph, who have denied the existence of Assyrians or attempted to construct a monolithic Aramaean identity must have ignored not only the key Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and Persian confirmations of the existence of Assyria and the Assyrians in the first millennium CE, but also the survival of ancient Assyrian deities and magic in the hearts and traditions of the people of Assyria down to the present. Due to the efforts of a many scholars in diverse fields, such denial has become very difficult to sustain. Rather than a strictly imagined community, Assyrians have insisted on continuous national commonalities. This does not mean that Assyrians are a metaphysical or strictly biological phenomenon, but a people and nation seeing itself, and being seen by others, as sharing a region, ideals and traditions.

I think one quote is enough to get the point across, but I'll leave the final call to you. I'm fine with that version as the last paragraph of the lead. Shmayo (talk) 11:37, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the longer snippet. It seems like this rival idea of "Aramean continuity" (as Gaunt, Atto & Barthoma 2017, p. ix call it, though they point to Brock & Taylor 2001 rather than to John Joseph, as Travis 2012 does) is also something that should at some point be mentioned in the article. Then we could follow up by quoting Travis 2012 on how this rival thesis has been discredited.

For now though let's just add the paragraph we agreed on. To be honest, I have put much more time into this than I actually have available, which has already resulted in my own work suffering from it, so I'll be more than glad to leave this behind. If we're very lucky, Generalissima will take up this article and work her GA/FA magic on it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:05, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

References

Thoughts on the article

I just stumbled across this randomly, and I thought it was a very interesting topic that ought to be brought up to quality a bit more. I think discussions are too focused on the lede in comparison to the rest of the article, and even though I personally feel that the continuity analysis holds up, this article is so argumentative in favor of the theory that it makes it seem less authoritative about the subject, and makes the theory seem less factual.

• To start with, it's pretty excessively long. That third paragraph in the lead is gargantuan, and I think we can take it down to just three normal sized-paragraphs with enough summary style.
• Most of the background context ought to be condensed down through proper summary style, This isn't article on Assyrian history, it's an article on one historiographical lens of Assyrian history. I think "Assyrians after the Assyrian Empire", "Identity in ancient Assyria", and "Pre-modern self-identities" can all be compressed into a single background section, of 2000 words or so. If there is no serious scholarly argument that the Assyrians as a people were destroyed, we don't need to spend paragraph and paragraph refuting that. We can just give a brief summary of Assyrian history, and save the rest for the History of the Assyrians article.

• In general, the article spends far too much time explaining the minutia of a particular theory or line of evidence for continuity. We spend over a thousand words talking about the word Suryāyā and attempting to prove its etymological link to assūrāyu. Is there any serious scholarly analysis which denies this link, that there were people calling themselves Assyrians in the Roman period? If not, we don't need to include it. As it is, this whole section reads like an argumentative essay, not an encyclopedic article. We also shouldn't include background info that is actively debated between reliable sources, only unambiguous stuff (or summarizing both viewpoints which we absolutely have to include it.)

• In contrast, the "Modern identity and nationalism" section is pretty good, although it has a bit too many personal anecdotes from individual scholars and travelers, when we could just summary the state of affairs. I feel like there's more we can say about the emergence of Assyrian nationalism itself here, since from what I can tell, the main point of scholarly opposition theorizes that nationalists overemphasized continuity with ancient Assyria?
• If this is an area of active scholarly debate, why are we clumping all opposition into a "denial" section, rather than incorporating those theories throughout the article? Even though I feel the continuity theory has more merit, it is ridiculous to treat its denial like a fringe theory akin to the Khazar myth or something. The "Denial" section doesn't even really describe their evidence for these viewpoints, it just describes that people are pissed off at them for opposing it! (Also, trying to say that the views against the theory originate from the Ba'athist regime is strange, when we are otherwise talking about academic theories which predate the regime. We can say the regime promoted anti-continuity views though.)

• Likewise, "Other forms of continuity" can probably just be incorporated into our already existing descriptions of Assyrian history

• That list of academics who support the theory under "Academia and politics" is honestly just citebombing. In any case, it is original research to present a wide variety of academics who agree with a theory and say that this represents the majority - the reader doesn't know we aren't just cherrypicking! If we want to talk about how many academics support the theory, we have to use secondary sources about academic support of the theory, not a selection of sources where academics support the theory without discussing viewpoints more generally.
• Bibliography is a bit messy. We seem to be focused on quantity rather than quality of sources. For a point of comparison, look at a featured article on a very important and controversial subject that also gets a lot of nationalistic historians attempting denialism - Armenian genocide. Look carefully at the sources; even though it's a massive, sweeping topic, there's like 5 or 6 sources that comprise the vast majority of its cites. We need to downsize to a smaller number of the best quality sources which accurately reflect general academic consensus (and its variation within) and use these as a focus for the article.

Also, Cetrez et al. 2012 sounds like a valuable source, but we spread a bunch of chapters from it into a handful of cites that aren't even formatted as SFNs. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:19, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you on all points. If you feel like working on this article, please do so! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 07:03, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Assyrian continuity is not a fringe theory at all

As the title suggests. I understand the need for political neutrality, but the facts are the facts, and the incessant use of vague words like 'idea' or 'claimed heritage' in the very opening of the page greatly downplays the very strong consensus on Assyrian continuity and makes it appear to be some debated issue to this day, which it really is not. Something like this can be very dangerous, and carry a lot of very anti-Assyrian overtones that continue to be peddled by many (I am sure not all) Kurdish/Arab nationalists to this day. The wording simply does not reflect the scholarly consensus. The previous talk page that this was a 'nationalist feverdream' is rather reprehensible, and I think its unacceptable to speak about an ethnic group in that way. It is the vast majority of modern scholarly opinion that the Assyrians have consistently claimed and possessed both cultural and demographic descent from the ancient Mesopotamian civilisations, and this only came to be denied by initial Western scholars operating of assumptions they drew from the Bible (that aren't really in the text) that Assyrians were destroyed totally by God following the fall of Nineveh. I think the page should be reverted to the last acceptable edit made before the reversion by Apuagasma, who I think has consistently very much overly downplayed and treated as 'fringe' (by their own admission) the question of Assyrian continuity, in contrast to the view of modern scholarship and the consistent testimony of the Assyrians themselves. I don't feel as though any of these concerns have been raised or addressed, and we are simplying being "edit-warred" and reversed without taking into account any of the new work we put in to make the article more accurate and reflective of the actual information that exists today. Even the attempt to call ancient Assyria "one of several contemporary Mesopotamian civilisations" reads like an attempt to downplay even ancient Assyria's importance/unique nativity to ancient Mesopotamia, as for much of its history it was the ONLY civilisation in Mesopotamia and there could barely be considered more than like 6 or 7 barely distinct Mesopatamian civilisations that did not even exist contemporaneously, like the Assyrians and Babylonians both coming from Akkadians, and the northernmost groups like the Mittani or Uratu being mostly considered as from and and based in Anatolia and the Armenian Highlands respectively. I do not intend to accuse anyone of bad faith, but particularly in the context of online misinformation and modern conflict around Middle-Eastern nationalism and ethnic groups, better language that reflects objective scholarly opinion and historical data should be used. I think the page as it is today a huge disservice to Assyrian continuity as a topic and should be reverted back to its state at my last edit on JUNE 25 TruthInMesopotamia (talk) 07:37, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

You refer to this version from JUNE 25 which was revered by this edit. At least the claims you make should have references supporting that claim.

In the introduction you add The continuity of ancestry and cultural heritage from ancient Mesopotamian civilisations (...) becoming widely accepted after new research and developments in genetics, linguistics, and regional demographic patterns. Followed by a reference to Butts 2017, p. 605. On that page I read nothing that supports this claim. On the contrary, in the introduction on page 599 I read The present essay is not concerned with evaluating the legitimacy of connections between the Syriac heritage and ancient Assyria.

The paragraph "Denial" you started with A large number of scholars across various fields have expressed support for the thesis of Assyrian continuity. I don't think it is neutral to add that line there.

Please also keep in mind that there is no consensus within the Assyrian community itself. (See Butts 2017, p. 605: Many Syriac Orthodox individuals and groups have resisted the adoption of an Assyrian identity and ideology). --wimmel (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't place emphasis on Butt's work for the lack of "consensus" when his work is part of the same pattern of offensive continuity denial that other scholars have went by in the past. Per Donabed 2022, pg. 548-549:

“Bogus” and “hogwash” are loaded terms and apparatuses meant to illicit a sense of skepticism regarding Assyrians’ sense of self and community. Such strategies of violence adopted and reiterated across generations by scholars have become epistemological and ontological methods for studying the Assyrians and their respective communities. They also reflect deep-seated and racialized power hierarchies that shift the sense of identity and belonging from that of members of the community to a Eurocentric view, held by white scholars, on telling the community who they are or are not. Such rhetoric is then recycled in almost robotic fashion. This is written by Donabed criticizing Adam Becker, before he then cites the same Butts source cited above. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I can agree that more sources are needed (and can be easily added even from other Assyrian-related pages), but there is certainly a consensus. The Syriac Orthodox Church, whilst having Assyrians in it, is not even one of the three descendants of the Church of the East in which most of the Assyrians belong and there certainly does exist a consensus in & a few (actually fringe) views in that church cannot constitute a lack of consensus. The Syriac Orthodox Church also is primarily in Syria, notably in places distant to or outside the historic Assyrian heartland in northeastern Mesopotamia wherein the heart of the empire was. The addition in the denial section is true and usefully contextualises the state of the consensus, whereas all the other recursions and current state of the article is wildly unrepresentative.

I think that the edit should be reverted and the sources which are present in other Assyrian pages for the same claims and even in other this very article such as the evidence of continued existence following the fall of Nineveh (also such as in Assyrian people) should be added.

I can think of "Assyrians: 3,000 Years of History, Yet the Internet is Our Only Home" (2022) and "Joel J. Elias, The Genetics of Modern Assyrians and their Relationship to Other People of the Middle East", the Assyrian people page on Britanncia assumes Assyrian continuity with the people who conquered vast swathes of the Middle East during the 14th-7th centuries BC, even proof of the Assyrian self-identity in 1552-58 during correspondents with Pope Paul. Justinus the roman historian says in 300 that the assyrians would come to be called syrians after the fall of their empire, and a load of other great sources and examples on assyrians.n.u which has a whole section with info and sources on assyrian continuity. TruthInMesopotamia (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Let's first focus on the line containing (...) becoming widely accepted after new research (...). Please read WP:Verifiability. Now provide a source which support that claim. I quickly scanned through the articles from Albert and Elias, but they both don't seem to support this claim. But one source is sufficient, so please select the best source, but please say where. --wimmel (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

You are right, thank you. I wrote this line line are a signpost for an introduction to big articles with lots of sections to marks some of the major/key fields that would go on to be discussed in the article even as it is now (so they are easy to find and the general direction of the article, even as it is now, is shown). For a source we could use references 36 (modern consensus does not support eradication theory), 272 (genetic testing is relatively new and supports continuity), 30 (differences between pre-19th century and modern conclusions and the Bible), and if we can only pick one than 33 (Dalley 1993, pp. 135–136. which talks about the erroneous idea of eradication persisting despite evidence) and 34 (Smith 1926, p. 69., talking about his own change of mind just a year later). I know we only need one, but as the sentence references both genetics, demographics, and linguistic development and I think its important that it does, then I would propose specifically the references: 30 (Reade 2018, p. 286. about the change in scholarly opinion), 272 (Travis 2010, p. 149., about the demographic and genetic continuity), and 209 (Frahm 2023, p. 361., about Akkadian loanwords for linguistics).

Or we could go with just 30, and I can revert the page, rewrite this line, and add the references.

Here are just some of the places in this article even as it currently stands that back up the line being a sufficient signpost the contents of the article/where these references are already used. As this line is a signpost I think its best to simply

use references that are here in this case. (Almost the entirety of this article is full of evidence and support for Assyrian continuity and accurately portrays its consensus and the lots of evidence, which is also why the introduction and denial section being so completely opposite is very strange)

"Modern Assyriology does not support the idea that the fall of Assyria also brought with it an eradication of the Assyrian people and their culture." Ref 36 (Hauser 2017, p. 229.), 3 (Frahm, Eckart (2023). "Assyria's Legacy on the Ground". Assyria: The Rise and Fall of the World's First Empire. Basic Books. p. 353. ISBN 978-1-5416-7440-0), and 37 (Ponchia & Lanfranchi 2024, p. 525-526).

Kuhrt 1995, p. 240.

Elements of Neo-Assyrian Akkadian survived the fall of the empire, with the language imparting a noticeable lexical heritage on certain varieties of Aramaic which were present in the northern Mesopotamian area.[209] Akkadian is the underlying substrate of multiple modern Syriac phenomena, some of which have managed to survive four-thousand years, and both languages can help to decipher each other in their linguistics at times.[210]

"Genetic testing of Assyrian populations is a relatively new field of study, but has hitherto supported continuity from Bronze and Iron Age populations and underlined the notion that Assyrians historically rarely intermarried with surrounding populations." 272, Travis 2010 p. 149.

"Genetic testing of Assyrian populations is a relatively new field of study, but has hitherto supported continuity from Bronze and Iron Age populations and underlined the notion that Assyrians historically rarely intermarried with surrounding populations." 273. Banoei et al. 2008, p. 79.

"A study from 2017 investigating the genetics of various northern Iraqi population groups found that Assyriansand Yezidis clustered together, but away from other population groups in northern Iraq analyzed by the study, with the Iraqi Assyrians seen to be a genetically homogenous and enclosed group of people. According to the study, "contemporary Syriacs and Yazidis from northern Iraq may in fact have a stronger continuity with the original genetic stock of the Mesopotamian people, which possibly provided the basis for the ethnogenesis of various subsequent Near Eastern populations." 274. Dogan, Serkan; Gurkan, Cemal; Dogan, Mustafa; Balkaya, Hasan Emin; Tunc, Ramazan; Demirdov, Damla Kanliada; Ameen, Nihad Ahmed; Marjanovic, Damir (2017). "A glimpse at the intricate mosaic of ethnicities from Mesopotamia: Paternal lineages of the Northern Iraqi Arabs, Kurds, Syriacs, Turkmens and Yazidis". PLOS ONE. 12(11) e0187408. Bibcode:2017PLoSO..1287408D. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0187408. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 5669434. PMID 29099847.

"Before the 19th century, the prevalent belief in Biblically influenced western scholarship was that ancient Assyria and Babylonia had been literally annihilated due to provoking divine wrath." Reade 2018, p. 286.

"This belief was reinforced through archaeologists in the Middle East initially not finding many remains fitting with the conventional European image of ancient cities, with stone columns and great sculptures, beyond those of ancient Persia;" Reade 2018, p. 286.

"Assyria and other Mesopotamian civilizations left no magnificent ruins above ground—all that remained to see were huge grass-covered mounds in the plains which travellers at times believed to simply be natural features of the landscape." Trolle Larsen 2017, pp. 583–584.

"Early European archaeologists in the Middle East were also for the most part more interested in confirming Biblical truth through their excavations than to spend time on new interpretations of the evidence they discovered." Dalley 1993, p. 134.

The erroneous idea of complete Assyrian annihilation, despite increasing evidence to the contrary, proved to be enduring in western academia. As late as 1925, the Assyriologist Sidney Smith wrote that "The disappearance of the Assyrian people will always remain a unique and striking phenomenon in ancient history. Other, similar kingdoms and empires have indeed passed away, but the people have lived on ... No other land seems to have been sacked and pillaged so completely as was Assyria".[33] Just a year later, Smith had completely abandoned the idea of the Assyrians having been eradicated and recognized the persistence of Assyrians through the Christian period into the present." [34] Smith 1926, p. 69.

Aryo Makko has stated that Western scholarship has treated Assyrian identity in a pejorative, even hostile, fashion, refusing to refer to it without citations or viewing the existence of an Assyrian identity as regrettable.[262] He states that the understanding of Assyrian identity originates in Orientalism and studying Assyrians as only Eastern Christians, based on the study of Syriac language religious sources, and ignores both contemporary processes and Armenian, Persian, and Ottoman sources.[262] He further states that these disciplines were unchallenged on their position until recently,[262] and that Assyrian identity suffered from the challenge of its historicity by Syriac studies scholars and related academics, who "viewed it as funny, illegitimate and even dangerous."[267]. Makko 2012, pages referenced on each passage.

For examples of some contemporary scholars in support of Assyrian continuity:

listed extensively in the academia and politics section

"Due to the efforts of many scholars in diverse fields of study, such a denial of Assyrian continuity has become increasingly difficult to sustain in academia." Reference 225: Travis, Hannibal (2012). "On the Existence of National Identity Before 'Imagined Communities': The Example of the Assyrians of Mesopotamia, Anatolia and Persia". In Donabed, Sargon; Makko, Aryo; Cetrez, Onver A. (eds.). Assyrian Heritage: Threads of Continuity And Influence. Uppsala Universitet. p. 118. ISBN 978-91-554-8303-6. TruthInMesopotamia (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

The history of the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac/Aramean people (all names are used, cf. Assyrian naming dispute) between the end of Post-imperial Assyria in c. 240 CE and the advent of the modern period in the 19th century is studied within the field of Syriac studies. Whereas Assyriologists (who study ancient Assyria) often express support for the Assyrian continuity thesis, there is significant opposition against the thesis in Syriac studies. Especially given the fact that the question of continuity depends precisely upon what happened during the intervening period studied in Syriac studies, mention of this opposition should not be removed from the lead or downplayed in any other way.

Generally, proposed changes to the article should be directly based on what reliable sources are writing and should not ignore or remove what opposing sources are writing. The fact that what some reliable sources write may be offensive to the Assyrian people or detrimental to their cause is not relevant, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not the place to set any record straight. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:40, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

The opposition from Syriac studies is wildly overstated in the original edits which you supported, wherein you supported Assyrian continuity being labelled as fringe which is simply false, and is of a fundamentally different nature than the continuity supported by Assyriologists and modern studies of demographics and linguistics. The kind of opposition made by some Syriac scholars who study language and what was written in it is concerning the continuity of identity and culture, the question of whether the Assyrians always identified as such or to what extant a Syriac-speaking or Christian identity erased/transformed the previous Sumero-Akkaddian culture of ancient Assyrians— not the continuity of descent and demographics between the ancient and modern Assyrians which is elsewhere clearly supported even in this article as it is now, and this is clear when you read the modern scholars. Opposition from Syriac scholars as well has only decreased as time and interdisciplinary research has advanced on the subject with genetics and the original mindsets of the first western scholars. The notion that such a genuinely fringe in comparison objection from some Syriac studies, which again Syriac studies dont really concern the study of demographics or genetics but rather intersects moreso with questions the cultural and self-identification continuity. Any continuous debate on the subject from scholars centres on that question, of the extent and transformative nature of the cultural self-identifiaction of the Assyrians following the fall of the empire and adoption of Syriac Christianity, not whether or not the modern genetically distant ethnic group native to northeastern Mesopotamia are demographically descendant from the ancient occupants of that same land (which is a largely settled question of demographics and genetics). Premodern societies and communities almost universally congregated on the basis of language and religion and local life together, and the question of how and what they understood about their own history and descent and families is discussed with people affirming both ends with regard to everywhere from France or England to Italy and Rome and China or Japan or Aboriginal Australians (and there is a great amount of evidence even from Syriac and linguistic studies itself about the cultural and self-identification with the ancient Assyrians in this very article as well, by the way, and more which were reverted).

The proposal that minor Syriac study opposition to cultural-identity continuity should be placed in the leading paragraph without reference to the majority of scholars coming to agree, the historical shift in the scholarship, or the consensus on the demographic-genetic continuity of the Assyrians even uniquely in relation to other groups like Kurds, Turks, or Iraqi Arabs with the ancient Mesopotamian population, and the conflation of the different kinds of continuity (which is explained elsewhere in this article even as it is currently) and then all language should be intentionally softened and made vague/inconclusive (with all changes to this to express the actual scholarly reality and even the content in the article itself being constantly reverted) is misleading as to level and kind of opposition and support and simply inaccurate to the information in the article even as it is currently. The presentation of a clean divide of "Assyriologist vs Syriacist" that does not really exist and overstates the role and importance of Syriac studies aloe or singularly in determining the facts.

No proposed changes to the article are removing what reliable sources including opposition is saying. All changes have been aimed at reflecting what is objectively the scholarly consensus and not overblowing opposition or conflating the type of debate that exists today, and this has been damaged by reversions.

The serious opposition that exists to Assyrian continuity, which is not based on reliable sources from the 18th-19th century demonstrably shown to be mistaken and later abrogated even in the article as it is today, is genuinely comparatively fringe and essentially entirely concerning cultural-identity continuity- not demographic continuity and is an open debate that is not really offensive to Assyrians, by the way. But in any event, nobody has claimed or said that the sources should be hidden or removed or information rewritten simply because it is offensive to Assyrians or detrimental to their cause at all. Obviously, allowing for anything that is untrue or misleading about any people group to be posted and portrayed as fact is offensive and has real-world consequences, and for opposition to be branded a 'nationalistic fever dream' that 'barely exists outside the context of Assyrian nationalism' by the proponents of the sweeping wholesale changes as seen today on an article about the Assyrian continuity is inevitably biased and simply congruent with the scholarly reality even as the article presents it currently. Neutrality is not a forced 'equal weighting' of both sides but a neutral presentation of what has happened and what is being said, by who, and with what evidence and in what sense.

The article needs to be reverted as it was on JUNE 25 and the correct sources need to be added as discussed here and previously as soon as possible, also so that the structure and information elsewhere in the article can continue to be clarified and cleaned. TruthInMesopotamia (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Almost all sources on the subject, including proponents of the thesis, mention the scholarly opposition against the thesis. Removing such mention from the lead and presenting the subject as entirely uncontroversial is therefore simply non-neutral.

As for scholarly consensus, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Academic consensus: "a statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view, such as: 'There is an academic consensus that climate change is caused by human activity' requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view". As a Wikipedia editor, you should substantiate your repeated claims that there is an objective scholarly consensus on the subject with sources saying exactly that.

In general, please write less long comments (cf. Wikipedia:Wall of text) with more backing (ideally in the form of quotes) from sources. It's clear what your convictions are, and that you disagree with those expressed by other editors on this talk page including me, but if we want to move forward we need to be looking at and trying to follow reliable sources, because that's what every Wikipedia editor ultimately wants. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:36, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I did not use the word 'consensus' in my last June 25 edit but broadly stated the fact that it became 'widely accepted after new research and developments in genetics, linguistics, and regional demographic patterns.' for which I have provided a plethora of sources from the article as it is now and an a explanation of the signpost above.

This opening sentence for the lead was focused on presenting the historical arc and information regarding a genetic & demographic shift, but I can agree that the difference between the debate within Syriac studies about the level and kind of cultural continuation and self-identification and the largely settled debate and history concerning demographics/ancestral descent and genetics (the sources for which I say largely settled are above & in the article under genetics and academia-politics) is important and should be put in the lead.

For example, Adam H. Becker’s work focuses specifically on the question of identity continuity rather than continuity in general. He argues that the modern use of the term “Assyrian” derives from relatively recent historical developments and “not from a continuity of identity” (Becker 2015, p. 328). Similarly, he notes that identification with ancient Assyria emerged in its modern form in the late nineteenth century in connection with missionary and intellectual influences. This does not address demographic or geographic continuity, which other scholars explicitly affirm, but instead reflects a narrower debate over how identity is defined and constructed. The disagreement in the literature concerns different kinds of continuity (identity versus population) rather than a simple binary of continuity versus discontinuity.

I added the mention of Assyrian identity and also culture/heritage being an important part of the heritage throughout history because the article read like it only became important after the 19th century, when the article itself talks about how Assyrians throughout history identified with and named kids after ancient Assyrias and identified themselves as and with the ancient Mesopotamian civilisations (not necessarily a claim that they were right, just that they did, because it is apart of Syriac Christians' self-identity.)

I am happy to revert to my edit to JUNE 25 which also corrected so much else throughout the article and effectively cleaned the language elsewhere with better prose and clarification of the major beats/debate and significance of why this is even a wikipedia article, and specifically rewrite this line to clarify the different kinds of continuity being discussed in the article, the history of scholarly debate against and now for genetic/demographic continuity and the continued modern debate in the Syriac studies about cultural and self-identification continuity which continues to this day. I will cite the relevant sources already used in this article about genetics and Syriac opposition/continued debate around cultural/identity continuity.

This proposal should be sufficient to address the concerns for neutrality and will help to effectively clarify what kind of continuity is widely settled and what kind continues to stir debate today, and ensure that it is clear that opposition exists and what kind of opposition that is. TruthInMesopotamia (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Your comments here are still too long, and still do not bring up enough sources explicitly backing your reasoning, which seems to be mostly original research-based. What source explicitly states that the thesis is now widely accepted after new research (please quote from the source)? What source explicitly distinguishes between identity continuity and demographic or geographic continuity, and argues that Assyrian continuity primarily concerns the latter (if this is your own analysis, it is important to know that this has no place on Wikipedia)? Without sources explicitly backing up your proposed changes, including most importantly the removal and downplaying of opposition against the thesis (what sources state that the existing opposition from Syriac scholars including the leading scholar Sebastian Brock is irrelevant?), they will not meet the concerns I brought up in my reversion. Without addressing these concerns your edits are not likely to find wp:consensus. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:56, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

It is not original research or my own analysis, its a simple synthesis of what already exists in the article and the reliable sources that are being cited (that is, a clear difference in the kind of continuity a field is concerned with— genetics with genetics, Syriac studies with Syriac language and identity, demographics with demographics) written as a signpost for the article wherein all of this is. I am not trying to say anything new. If that is contentious because this topic is contentious or unacceptable, then I understand that and think it is important how it is written moving forward.

There is of course no basis for the systematic removal and downplaying in language and content of sources in support of Assyrian continuity and the article reflects the assumptions that Assyrian continuity is a nationalistic fever dream of its writers, rather than any neutral presentation of all the sources and history of the academia.

Sebastian Brock is not irrelevant. The problem was that the first revisions of this article devoted 3 sentences and a paragraph-long quote to his opposition in the lead while giving no mention or balance with the Assyrian continuity arguments, and seems so obviously intended to render Assyrian continuity as a ridiculous myth— not because Assyrian continuity is mythical or invented, but because the presentation was just biased content-wise. This has since been corrected, but the removal of the fact that Assyrians are ethnically and culturally distinct is unfounded as well, as that is useful and key information regarding connected claims that Assyrians are Arab Christians. Or calling it an 'idea' rather than using the word 'position', another example of a neutralising term that is removed in favour of making the continuity seem more fringe or mythical. Choosing to call the Assyrians one of several contemporary civilisations in ancient Mesopotamia is strange too, as they were of the Sumero-Akkadian culture that was the indigenous/native major culture of ancient Mesopotamia, and ends up seeming to downplay even the importance of the ancient Assyrians to the region/history and is irrelevant.

If my synthesis is too strong, then simply mentioning that some opposition from Syriac studies resists Assyrian continuity of identity rather positing that a Syriac Christian identity was forefront and then separately stating that modern research in genetics and demographics demonstrates a population continuity in Upper Mesopotamia should be sufficient, and each sentence sourced by the same citations used to say the same thing later in the article.

"Assyrian continuity is the position that the modern Assyrians are directly descended from the ancient Assyrians of ancient Mesopotamia. The modern Assyrian people are a genetically and culturally distinct ethno-linguistic and Christian religious minority in their ancestral homeland in Upper Mesopotamia, in what is today apart of modern Iraq, northeastern Syria, southeastern Turkey, and northwestern Iran. Some opposition against Assyrian continuity exists in Syriac studies, positing that a Syriac Christian identity was historically prevalent rather than an explicitly Assyrian one.(117) Modern genetic and demographic research has supported population continuity from Bronze and Iron Age populations and the genetic distinction of Assyrians from surrounding ethnic groups (272,273). A continuity of ancestry and cultural heritage from ancient Mesopotamian civilisations (such as Assyria, Babylonia, Akkadia, and Sumer) has been a major aspect of modern Assyrian identity and culture throughout history."

That proposal for the lead should satisfy your concerns and present both of the major positive and negative positions right in the lead neutrally and carefully, without endorsing either side or making Assyrian continuity into a fringe position. I have been open to learn and amend the June 25 revision and still think it should be reverted back to that and then edited because there, but I am also willing to simply amend the article here as is if that is simpler and easier. TruthInMesopotamia (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

One of the problems with Assyrian continuity discourse is that it is often hard to know what is even being talked about. For example, I think all objections centre on the notion of identity. Nobody objecting to Assyrian continuity is concerned with the question of demographic replacement. Let modern Assyrians be "directly descended from the ancient Assyrians", whatever that means. It has no bearing on the objection, which is concentrated in Syriac studies precisely because it is within Syriac literature that one would expect to see continuity of identity if it were real. This is why Apaugasma states that the question of continuity depends precisely upon what happened during the intervening period studied in Syriac studies. Of course, if you are concerned with demographics and you have genetic studies, what do you care about what the sources say happened? On the question of identity, the section "Pre-modern self-identities" is the linchpin of the article. Statements like A reluctance of the overall Christian population to adopt ʾĀthorāyā as a self-designation and āthorāyā is not the typical self-designation in pre-modern sources give the game away. The first sentence currently defines Assyrian continuity as the idea that the modern Assyrians are directly descended from the ancient Assyrians. Is that really what is being debated? I would be surprised if scholars of Syriac had much to say about that one way or the other. Srnec (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

That is precisely what I am saying. That what is up for debate today has changed and is distinct, the discourse and what is being discoursed has changed A LOT since the advent of Assyrian nationalism in the late 19th century.

However, the question of self-identity and naming throughout history is genuinely complex and there is are notions amongst the east Syriac christians about their descent from assyria and many prevailing cultural things, as the article says. Some of those which have probably been since reverted though. In all premodern societies there is a distinct lack of care and emphasis for ethnicity or race before nationalism, and religion and local region was the major source of self-identity especially Jo following the classical era. So its very much not surprising that they identified foremostly as Syriac Christians and would be uncomfortable with a potent secular identity (as many still are today amongst Assyrians and in other conservative groups even in Europe), just like Muslims from Iran to Iberia saw themselves as one ummah under one caliphate and to this day often oppose nationalism as contrary to Islam and like how medieval Europe certainly saw itself firstly as Christendom rather than primarily as Romans or French or Polish or English. Especially with Assyria's bad behaviour in the Bible and the many names that Sumero-Akkadian culture took on throughout history like from Akkadian to Babylonian to Chaldean to Assyrian, there's a lot to why and how the Assyrian people identified as they did, even to this day. I think its pretty clear that a lot of Syriac studies' pushback was against early Assyrian nationalists who were probably trying to emphasis lines of continuity of culture and identity in a way that overemphasised its historical prominence and secularity (to galvanise a movement for the Assyrians to view themselves in a secular nationalistic way comparable to European trends at the time), and less so to dispute a demographic or real descent from the Assyrians especially as time went on. I think the article's language shouldnt be judging that as negative as illegitimate or a factual wrong, when really we should be simply neutral (and really, changes in self-identity and the core facets of how communities' beliefs and priorities forge their identities and can change are just history and human nature). TruthInMesopotamia (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

We could add the caveat/clarification: "Assyrian continuity is the position that the modern Assyrians are directly descended from the ancient Assyrians of ancient Mesopotamia, by ancestry, culture, or historical self-identity. The modern Assyrian people are a genetically and culturally distinct ethno-linguistic..." continuing as my previous proposal above said? TruthInMesopotamia (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

If you would like to change or add something, please also include the inline sources together with the text. See WP:V: any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. And please do not refer to the numbered sources of the article, because those numbers can change in the future.

You included a source for this line: Some opposition against Assyrian continuity exists in Syriac studies, positing that a Syriac Christian identity was historically prevalent rather than an explicitly Assyrian one.(117), which refers to . On page 363, Frahm does not mention Assyrian continuity nor other scholars. So this source is not suitable. --wimmel (talk) 08:47, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• In the lead paragraph proposed by TruthInMesopotamia, "genetically and culturally distinct" needs a source (please quote here from the source where it explicitly states that Assyrians are genetically distinct).
• I'm fairly neutral on replacing "idea" with "position", although calling Assyrian continuity itself a "position" is a bit weird (it's a thesis or theory, on which one can have a position).
• The removal of "were one of several contemporary civilizations in Mesopotamia" is uncalled for (Babylonia was a separate state with their own dialect of Akkadian and their own religious and political culture, and in any case there is the chronological succession of the Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian and Babylonian civilizations; maybe replace with "one of several civilizations in ancient Mesopotamia"?).
• Removing the framing that this whole subject revolves around a claimed heritage is absolutely detrimental, because it will be clear to most readers that certain claims are in fact involved, and failing to mention that will give them the impression that the article is trying to present these claims as facts.
• As mentioned by Wimmel, the line about opposition in Syriac studies needs a source that directly verifies what it is saying.
• Finally, while I think that mentioning this opposition in the first paragraph is not necessary, in any case the current last paragraph of the lead detailing the opposition should not be removed. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:06, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

References