The Monthly is pleased to introduce the eminent archaeologist Dr. Hassan Salameh Sarkis, who will contribute a series of articles for The Monthly under the heading “Flashes of History.”

The attempt to interpret the name “Lebanon” on one hand, and shed light on its exceptional position as “a linking and communication platform between the old world’s three continents” on the other hand, have become two refrains that are being repeated over and over in geography books and tourist publications.

Despite efforts to explain the name “Lebanon” in reference to some relatively recent Semitic roots, whether Hebrew, Syriac or Phoenician, it does not make sense to link its the meaning of this word with “laban” (yogurt) or “louban” (gum), or any other of its derivatives! Such kind of toponymic explanation would be flawed and desperate, and would not constitute a sound base for this kind of analysis. In fact, the different locations were always considered as landmarks by the people who inhabited them and this even before languages were differentiated between “Indo-European”, “Semitic” or “Hamitic” and their derivatives. More specifically, we do not know exactly which branch of those languages and dialects were used at the beginning of the Neolithic era or even before. Moreover, there is no doubt that, during those eras, populations undoubtedly used to refer to these sites by certain names and terms deriving from some languages or dialects, that used to have some specific meaning for them, and may have nothing to do with what was later called Semitic or other languages.

The roots of these names go back to ancient civilizations that have now disappeared. They were transmitted through the ages and modified or transformed to make them more comprehensible for consecutive civilizations according to their own concepts, terms and mentalities. Sometimes, these names remained unchanged and at other times, their meanings and pronunciations were adapted or altered even if their original meanings were not understood by the new comers or occupants.

The second refrain relating to Lebanon being the “linking platform between the three continents”, does not make sense and remains meaningless. In fact, every site or location in the world is in the middle of two or more regions! Therefore, what is being said about Lebanon’s uniqueness and geographical position can actually be applied to all regions and countries of the world, so there is no need to expand on such trivial matters!

Irrespective of where the roots and original meaning of the name “Lebanon” come from, it has always referred to a part of the mountains aligning the eastern Mediterranean coast and never had any geo-political meaning. It was only after the declaration of “Greater Lebanon” at and the aftermath of the First World War that the name of the mountain was applied to the new geo-political entity “The Lebanon” and its borders were defined as such.

However, the areas that would later on constitute the entity of “Greater Lebanon” were part of different political units across history, with continuously changing borders, as all other borders did. In fact, these political “terms” are neither fixed nor definitive. Rather, they are subject to the circumstances of war, peace, politics, administration, society, religion and a series of ethnic, cultural and linguistic facts.

Here, one should consider all the groups and populations that settled or crossed Lebanon in the pre-historic eras and over thousands of years ago, whether for short or long periods seasonally or permanently. What were their “languages”, “dialects”, “religious beliefs”, and “social systems”? Who were their prehistoric “ancestors” and their Canaanites, Amorites, Phoenicians and other “successors”? Who among them conserved the “purity” of its “race”, not mixing or assimilating with the people, tribes and groups that crossed the region? Who among them preserved “sound” relationships with those groups and tribes, staying away of any “legitimate” or “illegitimate” contact? One should also consider the role of women who left or joined these societies carrying their own cultural and genetic patrimony. What was the role of “strangers” who arrived, fought, and settled in, or crossed this land throughout history; whether they were Egyptians, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Armenians and Byzantines, in addition to Kurds, Turks, French, British, Australians, Algerians, Senegalese and others? For this reason, one should consider the biological and cultural reactions, mixtures, mutations, and derivations carried in their genes and chromosomes. Having said this, would it be right to say that “Lebanon remained and all these groups have gone” leaving no genetic footprints in contemporary Lebanese veins?

Some radicals may be annoyed by this analysis; however, we cannot but have an objective look at the reality of Man and the historical influence on himself. As such, one must move away from a mythical and impotent imaginary history to a factual, scientific and objective one.

2009 - ISSUE 85

Add comment