Scholarship on the onomastics of the ancient Near East typically evaluates a single text corpus or collection of names from a specific region, with a focus on names of a variety of linguistic origins from either alphabetic or cuneiform source material. This dissertation serves as a compilation of Aramaic names from both alphabetic and cuneiform sources geographically delimited to Syria, Mesopotamia, and the Levant (excluding Egypt and Anatolia) during the first half of the first millennium BCE. The product of a methodic evaluation of ancient Near Eastern texts and inscriptions, utilizing both linguistic and conceptual criteria in its selection, this compilation of names is analyzed according to the established taxonomic systems that have been developed in the study of Hebrew, Akkadian, and other Semitic names throughout the 20th century and into the 21st century. Additional analyses in this volume include a comparative anthroponomy, a study of theophoric elements, an overview of names based on their morphological features, and various explorations of the elements found within them. Ultimately, this study serves to catalog the individuals with Aramaic names leading up to the time when Aramaic was the lingua franca of the greater ancient Near East, / 2021-09-07T00:00:00Z

The purpose of this essay is to describe the perception of four medieval Syriac Christians Chroniclers, i.e. Pseudo-Dionysios of Tel-Mahre, Mikhael Rabbo, the anonymous Chronicler of The Chronicle of the year 1234 and BarcEbroyo, on the emergence of Islam with regard to religion, economic and social issues in the region of Syria and Iraq, here called Aramea, where Syriac speaking communities lived. The period of the study covers the time from the Prophet Muhammad to the end of the Umayyad dynasty.   Early passages in Syriac documents give positive accounts about the Prophet Muhammad, Abu Bakr, cUmar ibn al-Khattab and Mucawiya. And indeed, the Syriac speaking community received the coming of the Arabs as a liberation from the Byzantines´ yoke, i.e. persecution and humiliation. When the Arabs conquered the region, they made a dhimmi-deal with subjugated Christians, i.e. ahl al-dhimma “people of covenant”, and gave them protection in exchange for jizya, the protection tax. Indeed, they achieved some independence, had their own civil laws, and the Syriac church ruled very freely.   But the presence of the Muslim Arabs transformed the region in terms of religion, language, demographic and political circumstances. The jizya became a heavy burden and some Caliphs treated Christians unfairly.  The Arabs showed superiority and a political power over all subjugated.   Within this change there began also a cultural interaction between the Muslims and the Christians. The Church was challenged, the Syriac language was repressed, and the Church fathers had to act to protect their communities. First, documentation of historical events of the region became a very important and central issue. Second, the chronicles were authored in order to present a disparity between Islam and Christianity to indicate distinction in religion and moral laws. Third, the Syriac church was challenged and had to act by forbidding marriage with Muslims by constituting Church Law, as many Christians chose to convert to Islam because of interactions, heavy taxes and unfair treatment.

The chronology of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Near East is currently a topic of intense scholarly debate. The conventional/orthodox chronology for this period has been assembled over the past one-two centuries using information from King-lists, royal annals and administrative documents, primarily those from the Great Kingdoms of Egypt, Assyria and Babylonia. This major enterprise has resulted in what can best be described as an extremely complex but little understood jigsaw puzzle composed of a multiplicity of loosely connected data. I argue in my thesis that this conventional chronology is fundamentally wrong, and that Egyptian New Kingdom (Memphite) dates should be lowered by 200 years to match historical actuality. This chronological adjustment is achieved in two stages: first, the removal of precisely 85 years of absolute Assyrian chronology from between the reigns of Shalmaneser II and Ashur-dan II; and second, the downward displacement of Egyptian Memphite dates relative to LBA Assyrian chronology by a further 115 years. Moreover, I rely upon Kuhnian epistemology to structure this alternate chronology so as to make it methodologically superior to the conventional chronology in terms of historical accuracy, precision, consistency and testability.