The Armenian term Asori

By: Hanna Hajjar

This article is in response to Mr. David Dag's paper about the name "Asori" (A.K.A. "Asory",

"Asuri", "Asury"), it also covers the claims of Mr. Johnny Messo, Professor John Joseph, and

Professor Sanjian, mentioned in that article.

Before tackling this issue I would like to explain Aramean logic so the reader can understand

their state of mind that generates their twisted logic! As I mentioned in my earlier posts, one

of the problems with Arameans is that they start with a preset assumption; an assumption that

only they believe in as being the absolute truth! And then they build their ideology based on

that false (or partially true) assumption which is only true in their own imagination! That

generates a flaw in their logic, as well as their conclusion, because they are not analyzing the

issue subjectively, but rather they have decided the outcome upfront, and they are just trying

to patch things to look convincing to their illiterate ignorant followers who lack the interest in

research, thus they take their word for granted. And that is what the Arameans have been

trying to do with the name Syrian and even Asori.

The name Syria, and Syrian was used over a long period of time, covering different territories

at different times, also covering different ethnic groups as I explained in my previous article.

If someone doesnt understand the difference between Greek-Syria and Roman-Syria, he is

not qualified to discuss this topic, simply because he is not familiar with the history of the

region and usage of the terms. Example: Any person familiar with Geography would know

that there are two places called Georgia; one is a country in the Caucuses Mountains along the

Black Sea, and the second is a State in the USA. So if someone says Im Georgian that is not

enough information to know which of the two Georgias he comes from, and a follow up

question is needed to clarify that. The same applies to Syria, since it is a muti-ethnic country,

hence saying Im Syrian (or Suryoyo/Suryaya in Syriac), is not enough to know the ethnicity

of the person, or which Syria he is coming from. Common sense should be applied to narrow

down the identity of that person, and that involves the knowledge of geography, and historical

timeline.

It is very confusing to figure out who is who in Syria, especially for a foreigner, and even the

uneducated natives have that problem too. It is because Syria is on the crossroad between

Europe, Asia, and Africa; hence its strategic location was a stop for every conqueror through

the ages. This is why I will try to facilitate the understanding of what Syria and Asori means

through pointing out the ins-&-outs of how to approach and tackle this issue through logical

thinking, and following its historical timeline, pointing out the pitfalls that even famous

scholars had fallen into, so they can be avoided.

The logical approach, with a logical way of thinking:

There are several theories about the origin of the name Syria, some logical, and some not, first

we start with some facts.

Well start with Greek-Syria: 1. The majority of scholars realize that the name Syria was the Hellenic derived form

Assyria, and Seleucid Greek-Syria covered roughly the territories of the Assyrian Empire.

https://ayunion.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/the-armenian-term-asori-and-its-misinterpretation.pdfhttp://www.assyrians.n.nu/1

2. They also realize that just like the Assyrian Empire, Greek-Syria was made of multi-ethnic

peoples.

3. Additionally realize that since the Neo-Assyrian Empire adopted the Aramaic language as

of 700 BC and enforced it all over the empire, then different ethnic groups spoke the same

Aramaic language, and in the process that diffused and killed the Aramean national and ethnic

identity.

Even Dr. Sebastian Brock, agrees with this point, in his book "The Hidden Pearl", Volume 1,

Page 8:

"Although the term aramean originally aimed at an ethnic group it lost it's meaning and came

to mean "a person who speaks aramaic""

4. In other words as of 700 BC speaking Aramaic wouldnt prove that the person was

Aramean. Hence a person living in Syria could be anyone of the following 20 groups of

people: Assyrian, Aramean, Chaldean, Hurrian, Mitanni, Akkadian, Amorite, Hittite,

Phoenician, Canaanite, Hebrew/Jews, Sumerian, Eblaite, Subartian, Nabatean, Philistine,

Greek, Arab, Persian, or Roman, so the odds of that Aramaic speaker to be an Aramean is 1 in

20 or 5% to say the least.

On the other hand, we have Roman-Syria: 1. Although Roman-Syria was the same size as the Levant, (the Levant is the land between

the Mediterranean Sea and the Euphrates River. This territory is roughly the land of Aram,

(excluding Mount Lebanon and the coastal region). Yet with the policy of population

movement practiced by the Assyrian Empire, any of the above ethnic groups (mentioned

above) could also have been living in Roman-Syria too.

2. Nevertheless, people intermarried and intermixed throughout the ages, and some even

changed their religion and/or their language, but any ethnic group of the above would

constitute the majority of the mix in the heartland of their nation, (i.e. in the Land of Assyria,

[upper Mesopotamia] the probability of being Assyrian is higher. With the same token, in the

Land of Aram, [Levant] the probability of being Aramean is higher. And similarly in the Land

of Phoenicia [Mount Lebanon and its coastal region] the probability of being Phoenician is

higher. The same applies to the rest).

Aramean Twisted Logic:

Now lets look at how the so called Aramean approach this issue through their twisted logic:

1. They start by equating Syrian to Aramean as synonyms, (this is their First Mistake; since

they already erased 20 ethnic groups from existence).

2. Then they conclude that Syrian = Aramean = Suryoyo/Suryaya, crossing over to a second

language, (this is their Second Mistake; since Greek and Roman became popular in Syria

back then.

3. Then they look for any mention of the word Syrian (i.e. Suryoyo/Suryaya in Syriac

manuscripts), it is not necessary for one to say I am Aramean in that quote, instead all that

concerns them is that someone is mentioned to have spoken Aramaic, (or Syriac at later

dates), (this is their Third Mistake; since the speaker could have been anyone from the

above 20 ethnic groups).

4. That is enough for them as a proof for his Aramean ethnicity! In other words if it was an

India monk from India of a Hindu ethnicity, where a Syriac manuscript mentions him to have

spoken Syria in conducting Church Liturgy, then that Indian person is considered Arameans

to them. As you see three mistakes in definitions and we are still in the foundations of

Aramean ideology.

5. Additionally, although the territory of Roman-Syria was roughly equal to the territory of

the Levant, which overlapped the territory of the Land of Aram, yet to Arameans the borders

of Roman-Syrian are like a rubber band, they stretch them as they like, move them backward

and forward in time as they please, extrapolate and/or retro back in time, or move to the future

labeling each and every Aramaic speaker (or later as Syriac speakers) to be a full bred

Aramean with unaltered DNA from the days of Aram the son of Sam (the grandson of Noah).

However reality is different, because according to historical facts and common sense here is a

summary of Terms and Territories definitions, (a detailed Territorial Terms, and Borderlines,

is coming soon).

Greater Syria = Greek-Syria = Roughly the Assyrian Empire.

Little Syria = Roman-Syria = Levant = Roughly the Land of Aram.

Aramaic became the Lingua Franca of Syria since 700 BC, hence many nations spoke it.

At least the following 20 different nations lived in different regions of Greek-Syria:

Assyrian, Aramean, Chaldean, Hurrian, Mitanni, Akkadian, Amorite, Hittite, Phoenician,

Canaanite, Hebrew/Jews, Sumerian, Eblaite, Subartian, Nabatean, Philistine, Greek, Arab,

Persian, or Roman.

When Aramaic (Syriac) became the Lingua Franca of the Ancient World, the above list got

larger adding 8 more nations to the above list: Indians, Mongolians, Chinese, Turkmens,

Armenians, Afghanis, Azerbaijanis, and Egyptians.

There is a difference between Aramaic (and later Syriac) speakers, and ethnic Arameans,

because as of 700 BC, not every Aramaic (or later Syriac) speaker was ethnically Aramean.

The Arameans dont realize that a person speaking Aramaic could be any of the above list of

20 nations in Syria, plus 8 nations outside Syria. And in order to claim that a person is

ethnically Aramean. The burden of prove is on the Arameans, and claiming that someone

spoke Aramaic is a lame proof! Because 28 ethnicities spoke Aramaic, so to claim that a

person is an Aramean they have to prove that he does not belong to any of the other 27

ethnicities above. (i.e. proving that a person was Aramean ethnically after 700 BC would be

much more difficult that proving that a person was Aramean prior to 700 BC, because prior to

700 BC only Arameans spoke Aramaic).

It is very important to understand this, because the so called Arameans are taking this very

lightly, since they assume that any Syriac speaker is automatically an Aramean ethnically. To

claim that every Aramaic speaker is an Aramean, would be like claiming that every English

speaker living in the USA to be an Anglo-Saxon tracing his roots to the British Isles, when it

is obvious that the USA is a muti-ethnic nation, (just like the Assyrian Empire before it).

So logically speaking, if the question is: Are there Anglo-Saxons in the USA? The answer is YES.

Are all Americans Anglo-Saxons? The answer is NO.

And similarly: Are there Arameans in Syria? The answer is YES.

Are all Syrians/Syriacs Arameans? The answer is NO.

Whenever they hear the term Syriac, Syrian, or Aramaic (note Aramaic, not Aramean), they

think that it is about them (i.e. the Arameans), when in fact it could be about others! Or a 1/20

[or 1/28 later] chance to be about them, (i.e. a 5% [or 3.5% later] probability of being

ethnically Aramean).

Sure their probability increases if they are in the Land of Aram or the Levant west of the

Euphrates River, but region we are talking about is in Upper Mesopotamia in the Land of

Ashur, hence the chance of being Aramean drops.

With this as a backdrop, let me get into the subject of the term Asori used by Armenians,

which three Arameans (namely: David dag, Johnny Messo, & Professor John Joseph) had

written about, ironically none of the three understand a word in Armenian, and all of a sudden

they claim to be experts in that field!

Here is an Example: The opening paragraph by Mr. David Dag, discussing the name Asori.

QUOTE: Sometimes you can hear and read Assyrianists (Assyrian Nationalists) using the

argument that the Indo-European Armenians have always called the Arameans (Syriacs)

people by the name Asori in the Armenian language. UNQUOTE.

Notice David Dags pre-decision equating Arameans to Syriacs, thinking that they are talking

about Arameans, when in fact those Assyrians were talking about themselves and the way

Armenians called them. Then David Dag continues

QUOTE: They draw that conclusion based simply on their personal interpretation of the

Armenian exonym nomenclature Asori from the Aramean (Syriac) people (without any

knowledge in the Armenian language itself). UNQUOTE.

The funny thing is that David Dag doesnt speak a word in Armenian! And he wants to teach

us what Armenians are saying, and in what context they are using certain names!

Additionally, the term Syriac means Assyrian too, go check the writings of Mar Mikhael

Rabo who was a professional historian from the Syriac Orthodox Church.

Well, I speak Armenian, and the above quote of David applies to him, Johnny Messo and

Professor John Joseph, and not to me, since Assyrians from Urfa spoke Armenian in addition

to Turkish. So my question is: why is David giving himself the right to discuss a topic without

having knowledge in the Armenian language yourself?

The title of Daivd Dags article was The Armenian term Asori, and its Misinterpretation,

yet he spent 5 pages discussing what Georgians and Russians called Assyrians? The topic

wasnt what Indo-Europeans called Assyrians! If this shows anything, it shows that he is

unfocused, and is diverging from the main topic! So please David, STICK to the topic, and

discuss Armenians! Oh I forgot you dont speak Armenian!.

As to using misinterpretation, well it is funny coming from someone who doesnt even

speak Armenian! And that includes Johnny Meso and Professor John Joseph who none of

them speak a word in Armenian! It is like a blind man teaching colors! As to quoting an

Armenian Professor Sanjians letter, well they are forgetting that Armenian has two dialects,

Eastern and Western, (somehow similar to Eastern and western dialects of Syriac), their

Eastern dialect is spoken in the Republic of Armenia, and their western dialect was spoken in

Anatolia, by Armenians and some Assyrians. In other words the dialect of Armenian that

Suryoye interacted with was their western dialect. And just like Syriac, there are expressions

and terminologies used by easterners that are not used by westerners, and vica versa.

Therefore what counts about the term Asori is the context in which the Armenian-Speaking-

Assyrians used it, and interacted with West-Armenians, specifically in towns like Edessa,

Amed (Diyarbakir), Severak, Kharput, Adyaman, Malatya, Adyaman, Adana.

To understand the following please take a look at the map of Turkey and locate the above

cities I mentioned, and notice that none of them are located inside Roman-Syria. Also

remember that David Dag, Johnny Messo, and John Joseph, none of them have any

knowledge about the Armenian language, and they are solely relying on a letter from an

Armenian professor Sanjian written in response to a request by Professor John Joseph.

Fact #1: The first time Assyrians and Armenians interacted was between the Assyrian Empire

and the kingdom of Urartu. Later Armenians interacted with Assyrians was AFTER (note

after) the collapse of the Seleucid Greek-Syria Kingdom, where due to the power vacuum

created; the Assyrian kingdom of Osroen was created, and the Armenians expanded slightly

to the west, putting both Assyrians and Armenian kingdoms adjacent to each other. In other

words The Assyrians in upper Mesopotamia were earlier under Seleucid Greek-Syria, and so

were the Arameans of the Levant.

This was immediately followed by a Roman invasion during the year 64 BC, where the

Romans took over the Levant and named it as the Roman-Syria Province. In other words

Assyrians and Armenians interacted when Syria was a Roman province located in the Levant

(i.e. when Roman-Syria was the Levant, and almost the same as the Land of Aram), and that

is where Professor Sanjian was wrong! Because if Armenians meant Syria when they said

Asorik, and they meant Arameans when they said Asori, then that name would have applied

to Roman-Syria in the Levant (that was the only Syria during the Roman times).

Additionally none of the cities listed above (of Armenians-Speaking-Assyrians) fell inside the

territories of Roman-Syria, but rather inside Asoristan (or in geographical terms in Anatolia,

way outside Syria).

So how can Asorik apply to Syria, when those cities were not part of that Syria, but rather

inside Asoristan, and that Asori was used to mean Assyrians living outside Roman-Syria in

Asoristan! In other words Assyrians were not called Asoristantsi, but rather Asori. And this

can also be confirmed by the Persians, because when you compare the terminology used by

the Sassanids and Parthians for the same region of Mesopotamia you will notice that it was

Asoristan, where the people were called Asori (i.e. Assyrians), and their land was called

Asoristan (or Asori-Stan = Land of Assyrians).

Fact #2: Lets assume (just for the sake of argument) that the name Asorik was used by

Armenians BEFORE 64 BC, to mean Syria during the Seleucid Greek-Syria kingdom, then

again Professor Sanjian is wrong one more time! Because back then Greek-Syria was much

larger, it included 20 different ethnic peoples, and it also engulfed Asuristan (Mesopotamia

which is located East of the Euphrates River), in other words if Asorik was applied ti Greek-

Syria, then it would have been also applied to Asoristan, because Asoristan was inside Greek-

Syria, and Asori would have applied to 20 different ethnic groups of people not just

Arameans. So what does David think that when Asori is mentioned by Armenians, they mean

Arameans? Wake up David, they are not talking about Arameans, they are talking about

Assyrians!

Fact #3: If Asori really meant Aramean, as David Dag and Johnny Messo are claiming,

shouldnt they be proud calling themselves Asori? Hey guys, if you truly believe that Asori =

Syriac = Suryoyo = Aramean, then by all means, call yourself ASORI and prove us wrong!

Fact #4: In other words Professor Richard Nelson Frye (mentioned in Davids article) is

correct when he said that Assyrian and Asori are synonyms, and the language name Syriac,

Suryoyo, and Asoriner are synonyms too, since Syriac was developed by Assyrians in upper

Mesopotamia, it was derived from Aramaic that was adopted by Assyrians as the official

language of their Empire. As of 700 BC the Aramean identity was dissolved and absorbed

within the Assyrian Empire, after which Aramaic survived as a language, but ethnic Aramean

identity disappeared.

Fact #5: Horatio Southgate, visited the Middle East in 1834, (also mentioned by David)

thinking that the members of the Syriac Orthodox church were Syrians, but when he

interacted with them, he was surprised to know that they called themselves Asori (singular

Assyrian), Asoriner (plural Assyrians). David Dag claims that this was invalid because among

Arabic speakers (such as Mardin) they use Suryani not Asori, and he also assumes that Asori

was a name given to them by Armenians, not realizing that those Assyrian Jacobites of

Kharput called themselves Asori, they spoke Armenian as their everyday language at home,

and knew exactly what they were talking about, and the proof is very simple: Ashur Yusuf a

very famous Syriac Orthodox Kharputli lived during that period, and he was a professor at

Antab university, he published a multi-lingual magazine called Murshid Ashuri in Turkish,

Arabic, Armenian, and Syriac. Notice the title is very clear Ashur in Turkish and Arabic,

and Asori in Armenian, and his name was Ashur. He is considered the father of modern

Assyrian Nationalism, and was the first Assyrian (Syriac Orthodox) executed during Seyfo-

1915 for his Assyrian nationalistic publications. Malfono Naoum Fayeq was his student, and

he has piles of poems in Ottoman Turkish (i.e. using Osmanli Arabic script) talking about the

glory of Assyria, where the term Asuri was extensively used in Turkish, plus the poems of

Malfono Yusuf Namek of Urfa, again with Turkish poetry using the term Asur, and Asuriler,

all in Ottoman script. So definitely those Assyrian Jacobites who were multi-lingual speaking

Turkish, Armenian, Arabic, and Syriac, and were the most educated of the Syriac Orthodox

community, they knew exactly what they wrote about when they used Asur, Asuri, and

Asuriler, or Asori and Asoriner, etc. and the context in which they spoke meant Assyrian,

Assyrians, Assyria. Only illiterate people cant understand that.

QUOTE: But I have already proven, this Armenian nomenclature is confusing for those who

dont know the difference between Asori (Syrian) and Asoristantsi (Assyrian). Notice that the

Armenians said Asori not Asoristantsi. In other words it doesnt prove that we are Assyrians,

but rather a misinterpretation and a misunderstanding UNQUOTE.

And you figured all that because you dont speak a word in Armenian? Are you serious? You

dont speak a word in Armenian, and you are writing a paper about the term Asori used by

Armenians and Armenians speaking Assyrians, who are well versed in Armenian, and know

exactly the context in which they speak and even read and write. You want to teach them

Armenian? you are not only insulting the intelligence of an Armenian speaker, but you also

never used the term Asori in your life, you dont speak a word of Armenian, and all of a

sudden you are trying to teach Armenian speakers how to understand Armenian? Let me see

you presenting an oral speech in Armenian to prove your point!

Armenians are consistent in their naming with respect to both Assyrians and Armenians,

notice the parallel:

Asoristan = Assyria

Asoristantsi = Assyrian

Asori = Assyrian

A parallel in Armenian is:

Hayastan = Armenia

Hayastantsi = Armenian

Hay = Armenian

By the way, the Ottomans also used the name Gavur when they were talking about your

people, would you conclude that Gavur and Aramean are synonyms?

No one is talking about Arameans, but rather Assyrians who lived in Upper Mesopotamia are

talking about themselves, they belonging to the Syriac Orthodox Church, they are Jacobites,

(not Nestorians, and they dont belong to the Church of the East). Those are Suryoye-

Othuroye from Urfa, Diyarbakir, Kharput, Malatia, Adyaman, Antab, Severak, they spoke

Armenian prior to 1915 (and some still speak it till today), and they call themselves Asori in

the language they speak/spoke (i.e. the Armenians called them Asori because they (those

Suryoye) called themselves Asori, and not the other way around). Upper Mesopotamia is their

homeland, it was called Matu-Ashur-Ki, which means Land of Assyrians, it was

translates to Asoristan in Indo-European languages and literarily means Land of

Assyrians too. They were the neighbors of Armenians, so if there is anyone who knows who

they are it is their neighbors. The Arameans were on the other side of the Euphrates River,

and not in direct contact with Armenians, so the Armenains wouldnt have heard of them or

maybe confused the Arameans of west of the Euphrates in the Levant with the Assyrians,

since they look similar, and talk similar languages, just like the Greeks did labeled all as

Syrians, after all the Assyrian Empire, which covered the land of Aram too, and in that case,

then the key to know who is who, is to know which region we are talking about! Upper

Mesopotamia is Assyrias, Lower Mesopotamia is Babylonian, Levant is Aramean,

Phoenician, Jewish, or Nabatean. And the region that we are talking about in Upper

Mesopotamia the Land of Ashur, hence when the term Asori is used there it means Assyrian,

just like when the term Turk is used in Turkmenistan means Turk.

By the way, when you are in the Land of Greeks (Hellas), you would find Greeks, and when

you are in the Land of Assyrians (Asoristan) you would find Assyrians.

Now let me address this issue from an angle that you wouldnt comprehend as a person who

doesnt speak Armenian, but Suryoye-Assyrians from Urfa, Severak, Diyrabakir, Malatia,

Adyaman, Antab, Kharput (who spoke Armenian and Turkish prior to 1915) would

comprehend.

When an Armenian meets an Assyrian who speaks Armenian, the conversation is carried on

in Armenian, and eventually the discussion will lead to the famous story of The Assyrian

Queen Semiramis and the Armenian king Ara. The Armenian would say:

"Tser Asori Takuhin Samiramisa, sirets mer Ara Keghtsik Hay Takavora".

Meaning: Your Assyrian Queen Semiramis (Shamiram), loved our Armenian King Ara the

beautiful. Furthermore as the discussion progresses, the Suryoyo-Assyrian person would

respond referring to Samiramis/Shamiram as Mer Asori Takuhin (i.e. Our Assyrian Queen).

Notice the context in which that statement is said: Armenians would say "Tser Asori Takuhi"

(meaning: Your Assyrian Queen). And Assyrians would say Mer Asori Takuhin (meaning:

Our Assyrian Queen). So David, is Samiramis your Assyrian Queen? If she isnt, then stop

thinking that they are talking about Arameans! Now if the Armenians were addressing an

Aramean, or an Arab, or a Kurd, they wouldn't use the term "Your Queen", because they

know that Samiramis wasn't their queen. They would only use Your Queen when

addressing Assyrians. And only Assyrians would address Samiramis as Our Queen, because

Samiramis is our Assyrian Queen Shamiram.

It is when they associate the "Assyrian Queen", and address the Suryoye (Syriacs) of Upper

Mesopotamia, as being (Your Queen) that implies that Asori (Assyrian) and Suryoyo are

exactly the same or synonyms. Hence the context in which the term Asori is used clearly

indicates that the dialogue is being conducted between Assyrians and Armenians, (and not

Arameans and Armenians).

After all the Armenians were the neighbors of Assyrians since the dawn of history, and upper

Mesopotamia borders Armenia, while Aram was not in contact with Armenian, The

Arameans were on the other side of Assyria, and beyond the Euphrates river, a region that the

Armenians didn't reach till the time of the Crusaders 9in the Middle Ages). So can you supply

us with Armenian manuscripts referring to the Levant as Asorik, and its people as Asori? Can

you get us an Armenian manuscript stating that when an Armenian went for pilgrimage to

Jerusalem he would go to Asorik? If that is the case, then Jesus was born in the land of Asorik

(the Roman Province of Syria), hence according to you, then Jesus was an Asori too!

The same name issue arises with Herodotus where he labels King Ninos who built Nineveh as

Syrian. So obviously the context in which Strabo was speaking Syria means Assyria, since

Ninos was an Assyrian king, and Nineveh was the capital of Assyria. But somehow the

Arameans define Syria = Aram, hence Ninos becomes their Aramean king and Nineveh

becomes the capital of Aram! That summarizes Aramean logic! If that doesnt imply Aramean

stupidity, I dont know what will!

Additionally the Assyrian identity can be linked to the term used by Suryoye in upper

Mesopotamia using their own Syriac language, and prior to them to transitioning to the

Armenian language (after the Crusaders invasion). This can be seen in the writing of a book in

Syriac titled Wars and Catastrophies in Edessa and Amed (i.e. Urfa and Diyarbakir).

Narrated by an eye witness monk named Yeshu from Edessa, and recorded by the monk

Sergius of Edessa too. It talks about the conflicts between the Romans and Persians armies in

which Edessa and Amed was the battle ground and suffered a lot. The interesting thing is that

they mention the Assyrian king Xenon of Edessa, specifically spelling it out as Asoria

written in Syriac (which corresponds to Assyria in English, and in Arabic), the document also mentions that his officers were Assyrian too. Translated by Mr. Burhan Hanna

Elia President of the Syriac Orthodox School in Aleppo, (the original Syriac manuscript is

stored in the Vatican).

Therefore we can conclude that the Asori name was derived from the Syriac term Asurya and that Suryoye-Assyrians who lived in Edessa and Amed (Urfa and Diyarbakir)

identified themselves with their own name in their own language which was not imported

from the Armenians. In other words, Asori was a name that Assyrian-Suryoye coined and

called themselves, and later the Armenians copied it from them, and when those Assyrian

Suryoye started speaking Armenian after the Crusaders invasion, they kept that name Asori

all the way to the present time.

By the way in recent time the Armenian Embassy in Stockholm Sweden was asked about the

term Asori and Asorestantsi and they replied that the Armenian word Asorestantsi refers to

the ancient Assyrian Empire (meaning a person from Assyria). Asori again on ethnicity, ie the

Assyrians. Both residents of the ancient empire and today's Assyrians called unequivocally

Asori, you can read more about it in this article.

Asori = Assyrian = Suryoyo/Suryaya = Suroyo/Suraya (the People) &

Asoristan = Assyria = Asurya = Othur/Atur = Ashur (the Land)

This is also in line with what George V. Yana explained about the terms Asori, Asoristantsi

and Asoristan in the book "Ancient and Modern Assyrians: A Scientific Analysis'':

http://www.hujada.com/article.php?ar=2582

Even Henri Bedros Kifa has come to the same conclusion here is his Masters Essay at the

University of Lebanon:

Note: The cover page of Henri Bedross Thesis (translated from Arabic)

The Lebanese University School of Literature and Humanities Fanar (a suburb of Beirut)

History Department The disaster of the Edessian Assyrians (i.e. Edessa, Urhoy, Al-Raha,

Urfa, a city in south Turkey) A thesis prepared for Masters Degree Preparer Henry Bedros

Supervisor Dr. Elias Al-Qatar Fanar 1982 Note: The handwriting on the cover page is the

signing of the book to Malfono Abrohom Nuro, dated: October 28th 1982.

Note: A quote from Henri Bedross Thesis at the Lebanese University, (translated from

Arabic)

QUOTE: A third opinion and that is the most important, sees that the name Syrian came

from the Assyrian name Ashur, which the Greeks called the whole region with this name

(Syrian) because it was under Assyrian control. The Greeks had Hellenized the name and it

became Assyrian. The Arabs on the other hand took this name from the Greeks adding the

(definite article) prefix Al, where the letter S being a Harf Shamsi saying Al-

Syrian, (Explanation: Harf Shamsi in Arabic means Sun Letter, when it occurs at the

beginning of a word, that Shamsi Letter is Doubled replacing the l, example: Al-Syrian,

the S is doubled (i.e. becomes ss), and replaces the l in Al, hence Syrian is

written Al-Syrian, but pronounced as Assyrian). It is difficult to decide in an absolute way

among those three opinions, but we believe in the third opinion especially that the Armenian

language preserved the name Asori for us, because the Armenians to this date still apply

the name Asori to every Syriac and Assyrian. UNQUOTE

Note: The images from Mor Mikhael Rabo's history book. Note how Othur/Atur is written as

Osur/Asur, which brings us to "Asori"