The Origins of Syrian Nationhood

Histories, Pioneers and Identity

Adel Beshara

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• Print ISBN: 9780415615044
• eBook ISBN: 9781136724503
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: 19th Century History
• Index: History

The 'Syria idea' emerged in the nineteenth century as a concept of national awakening superseding both Arab nationalism and separatist currents. Looking at nationalist movements, ideas and individuals, this book traces the origin and development of the idea of Syrian nationhood from the perspective of some of its leading pioneers.

Providing a highly original comparative insight into the struggle for independence and sovereignty in post-1850 Syria, it addresses some of the most persistent questions about the development of this nationalism. Chapters by eminent scholars from within and outside of the region offer a comprehensive study of individual Syrian writers and activists caught in a whirlwind of uncertainty, competing ideologies, foreign interference, and political suppression. A valuable addition to the present scholarship on nationalism in the Middle East, this book will be of interest to many professionals as well as to scholars of history, Middle East studies and political science.

Part 1

Essential Background

1 The Name of Syria in Ancient and Modern Usage

Lamia Rustum Shehadeh

Geographical names have often had preposterous histories (cf. West Indies, Great Britain, and for that matter Arabia and Palestine). It is important to document these names properly to prevent possible misconceptions and confusion. For, as we shall see, this is exactly what has happened with our understanding of the term “Syria.”

The term “Syria” has been used inconsistently throughout history, thereby creating serious confusion regarding its geo-political connotation. It has been applied at various times and by different writers to a region of varying sizes and boundaries, depending to a large extent upon whether the name is used in a political or in a geographical context. It is my intention in this chapter to clarify the application of the term “Syria” during the different periods in history and up to the present, and to demonstrate that the term “Syria” never alluded to a uniform or a constant welldefined geographic or political entity, but remained labile through the centuries until the emergence of present day Syria, which is only a part of what is popularly referred to as “geographic Syria,” extending from the Taurus Mountains in the north to the Sinai Desert in the south.

Etymology

The name “Syria” is Greek in form. Several suggestions as to its ultimate derivation have been proposed. The most common and widely accepted etymology is that it is the shortened form of the name Assyria. Herodotus gives this etymology when he says, “‘Syria’ is the Greek, ‘Assyrian’ the barbarous form.”¹ When the Greeks came into contact with the Assyrian Empire in the eighth century BC, they began to apply the term “Assyrian” to all subjects inhabiting the area that extends from the Mediterranean eastward to the Euphrates and beyond. The name “Syria,” however, occurs for the first time in the late sixth and early fifth centuries bc.² Strabo, quoting Pindar in relation to the “White Syrians,” says that the Amazons “swayed a Syrian army that reached afar with their spears.”³

The absence of any serious phonetic problem that could arise from such an identification; the confusion of the two terms “Syria” and “Assyria” and their use interchangeably, according to the admission of the Greek writers themselves (e.g. Herodotus, Xenophon, Eratosthenes, Lucian and even Strabo);⁴ the complete absence of the terms “Syria” and “Syrian” from the Hebrew Scriptures, yet their appearance, true to form, in the Septuagint;⁵ and the use in Persian inscriptions of the term Eber-nari, i.e. “Beyond the River,” make the Greek etymology of the term “Syria” the most plausible.⁶

Moreover, the other possible etymologies suggested by different scholars such, as the Cuneiform Su-ri,⁷ Ugaritic sryn,⁸ Hebrew Siryon⁹ are found only once or twice in the literature and denote a small locality or village rendering the possibility of their being the origin of the Greek name “Syria” very tenuous.¹⁰ This is made even more evident when we find that not only did the indigenous population never call this land “Syria,” but that they always referred to themselves as Aramaeans, Phoenicians (Canaanites) and Israelites or Judaeans, but never Syrians.

The Graeco-Roman Period

The borders of “Syria” varied considerably throughout the different periods in history. The variety in usage, however, was not limited to different periods in history, for the classical sources themselves show differences between the authors of the same period. This is best manifested by such occurrences as the use of the term “Syria” to mean the whole region from the Euxine to Egypt; its confusion with the name Assyria; or its use to denote Aram and the Aramaeans, or Persian Ebernari;¹¹ or when it is used synonymously with Coele-Syria. But it has always been distinguished from Phoenicia and at times from Judaea. Needless to say, this variety in the representation of the term “Syria” indicates the fluidity and vagueness of the term in the minds of the writers themselves.

Thus, whereas we find the term “Syria” always used in juxtaposition to Phoenicia as, for example, by Hecataeus (c. 500 BC), who distinguished between Syria and Phoenicia, “myriads more migrated to Egypt and Phoenicia in consequence of the disturbed condition of Syria,”¹² Ctesias (c. 390 BC), Jambulos and the historical source of the Diadochi in Diodorus, as well as Berossus, mention “Phoenicia and Coele Syria.”¹³

Pseudo-Scylax (c. 350 BC) on the other hand, referred to the coastal area from Thapsacus to Ascalon as “Syria and Phoenicia”;¹⁴ and a century later, Theocritus wrote that Ptolemy II ruled over “the Phoenicians, the Arabs and Syrians.”¹⁵ Josephus also distinguished between Syria and Phoenicia when he said, “the King of Babylon subdued Syria and the whole of Phoenicia.”¹⁶ Strabo seems to have distinguished between the people of this area as well. He writes, “as also much of the country on the far-side of the Euphrates, which is occupied by Arabians, and those people who in a special sense of the term are called by the men of today Syrians, who extend as far as the Cilicians and the Phoenicians and Judaeans.¹⁷ Quoting Poseidonius and Josephus, he also states that “the people whom we call Syrians are by the Syrians themselves called Arimeans and Arameans,”¹⁸ and “Aramus ruled the Aramaeans, whom the Greeks term Syrian.”¹⁹ The Septuagint and New Testament also distinguished Syria from Phoenicia as well as Samaria, Judaea and Idumea, and always referred to “Aram” of the Hebrew Scriptures, as “Syria.”²⁰

Furthermore, Herodotus, Xenophon, Eratosthenes, Lucian and even Strabo confused or used the term “Syria” interchangeably with that of “Assyria”²¹ and designated the fifth satrapy of the Persian Empire“Syria,”²² although the Persians and the inhabitants of that area called it Ebernari, i.e. “Beyond the River.” This term was first used in Hebrew sources to refer to the region west of the Euphrates, i.e. Palestine and Syria. Ebernari corresponds to the cognate Akkadian expression ebernari which makes its first documented appearance during the reign of Esarhaddon (681–669 BC).

Moreover, although the term ebernari was used by them as the official title on Semitic documents of the Satrapy, the Persians called this area Athura (Assyria). The term, thus, assumed for the first time a specific and administrative significance. This is reflected, also, in post exilic biblical sources, both in Hebrew (Ezra 8:36; Neb 2:7,9; 3:7) and Aramaic (Ezra 4:10–11, 16–17,20; 5:3; 6:6,8,13). Coins issued at Tarsus by a satrap of the fourth century include both Ebernari and Cilicia; and the Gadates Inscription renders the title in Greek “Beyond the Euphrates.”²³

Delimitation of “Syria”

The confusion, however, was not limited to the application of the term but is evident in the delimitation of the area, as well. Thus, Strabo in the first century BC, admits that different divisions of “Syria” were possible, for he says, “some writers divided Syria as a whole into Coele-Syrians and Syrians and Phoenicians and say that four other tribes are mixed up with these: Judaeans, Idumaeans, Gazaeans and Azotians, and that they are partly farmers as the Syrians and Coele-Syrians, and partly merchants as the Phoenicians”;²⁴ and he himself delimits “Syria” by Cilicia and Mt. Amanus in the north, the Euphrates in the east, Arabia Felix and Egypt in the south, and the Egyptian and Syrian Seas as far as Issus in the west. He then divides it into the four regions of Commagene with Samosata as capital; Seleucis of Syria with the four important cities of Antioch on the Orontes, Seleucia on the Tigris, Apamea on the Orontes and Laodicea on the sea; Coele-Syria, formed by the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon and the valleys in between; Phoenicia, extending from Orthosia in the north to Pelusium in the south; and finally Judaea, which formed the interior above Phoenicia, as far as the Arabians, between Gaza and Anti-Lebanon.²⁵

Pliny, on the other hand, c. AD 11, includes, in addition to the above, “Babylonia,” “Mesopotamia” and even “the district beyond Mt. Taurus, Sophene.” He, like Strabo, is aware of the existence of other delimitations of “Syria,” when he says “those who divide the country into smaller parts hold the view that Phoenicia is surrounded by Syria, and that the border is the sea coast of Syria of which Idumea and Judaea are a part, then Phoenicia, then Syria. The whole of the sea lying off the coast is called the Phoenician Sea.” Pliny then proceeds to describe “Syria” in detail according to its smaller divisions.²⁶

The information supplied by the ancient sources on the administration of this region during Alexander’s time is rather confused and may be corrupt in certain places. Alexander the Great seems to have adopted the Greek usage of the term “Syria” to represent the province “Beyond the River” or Ebernari. Thus the first reference to “Syria” is made by Arrianus when he uses the term “Satrap of Syria” to refer to the governor of the region called otherwise Ebernari, in Akkadian, and Abarnahara, in Aramaic, and Athura, in the official lists from Persia.²⁷ It remained one administrative unit even after the death of Alexander.²⁸ The cities of Phoenicia, however, retained their autonomy and their kings.²⁹ This nomenclature persisted under the Diodochi. When the satrapy, however, was divided between the Ptolemies and Seleucids c. 300 BC, the Ptolemies called their truncated province “Syria and Phoenicia,” and the Seleucids ruled their portion, north of the Eleutherus river under the dynastic name Seleucia.

The administrative system according to which northern Syria was divided under Seleucus and his first successors cannot be traced with any clarity; all we know is that the Seleucis consisted of four satrapies: Antiochia, Seleuceia, Apamea and Laodicea, with Cyrrhestice and Commagene to the north.

When, in 200 BC Antiochus III, after what is known as the Four Syrian Wars and the battle of Panium, took Coele-Syria and Phoenicia from the Ptolemies, he kept Seleucis independent and gave the new acquisition the name “Coele-Syria and Phoenicia.” This administrative entity continued until 145 BC. One result of this change was the introduction of the satrapal system. Poseidonius tells us that there were four satrapies, two of which were perhaps Phoenicia and Coele-Syria, the third was, probably, Idumea, and the fourth, whose official name is unknown, seems to have comprised Palestine, but he does not define them.³⁰

The first instance where the term “Syria” was used to designate a definite geo-political entity was in 64 BC when Pompey conquered this whole area and reunited it under one command. He gave it the names Provincia Syria or Syria et Phoenicia, which existed until AD 194. The Roman Province of Syria extended from the Euphrates to Egypt, with its eastern boundary being a line from the head of the Gulf of Suez past the southeast end of the Dead Sea, the east of Gilead, the Hawran and Palmyra, to the Euphrates. East of this line was Arabia. It was, however, far from being brought under one uniform, and regular administration. The Roman policy appears to have kept all these petty principalities dependent upon Rome, while granting them only nominal sovereignty. They were successively and slowly, by degrees, absorbed under the imperial administration. It was only during the reign of Trajan (AD 98–117) that the Province of Syria could be considered as forming a complete organic whole, with Antioch as its metropolis and where the government usually convened.³¹

This, however, did not last long, for under Septimus Severus (AD 193–211), the Roman Province was divided into three main districts retaining the name “Syria” in all three: Syria Coele with Laodicea as its chief city, Syria Phoenicia, whose governor resided in Damascus, and the consular province of Syria Palaestina, representing the Je...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Introduction
• Part 1: Essential background
• Part 2: The forerunners
• Part 3: The diasporian pioneers
• Part 4: Twentieth century crusaders
• Bibliography
• Index