Assyrians, Kurds, and Ottomans: Intercommunal Relations on the Periphery of the Ottoman Empire
Powered By Xquantum

Assyrians, Kurds, and Ottomans: Intercommunal Relations on the Pe ...

Chapter 1:  The Homeland and Origin of the Independent Assyrian Tribes of Tiyari and Hakkari
Read
image Next

Each tribe had its own ruler or chief, known as the malik, who was appointed by Mar Shimun, where the office was not hereditary. Mar Shimun was the patriarch of all the Nestorians, whether they were independent, semi-independent, or Ra’aya. He was the temporal and spiritual head of his nation, and they recognised no leader but him. Mrs. Bishop closely examined his status and authority:

Mar Shimun is not only a spiritual prince but the temporal ruler of the Syrians [Nestorians] of the plains and of the mountains of Central Kurdistan, as well as a judge…He appoints the Maleks or lay rulers for each district, where the office is not hereditary, and possesses ecclesiastical patronage. For four centuries the Patriarch has been of the family of Mar Shimun, which is regarded as the royal family; and he is assisted in managing affairs by a ‘family council’.47

Maclean and Browne found that ‘Mar Shimun exercises temporal as well as spiritual jurisdiction, especially over the tribes of independent Syrians [Nestorians] of Tiyari and Hakkari’,48 while Dr. Grant’s assessment was that ‘he is in an important sense the temporal as well as the spiritual head of his people’.49 Wigram put the political status of the patriarch above his ecclesiastical authority, stating that ‘Mar Shimun is accustomed to think of himself rather as a chief of his nation than as Patriarch of his Church (or to be accurate not to separate these two offices in his mind)’.50 As has been noted, it should be remembered that the civil authority of the patriarch was limited to the independent tribes, while the rest of his followers recognised only his religious authority, as they had done since their split from the Church of the East in 1580.

Rich also described the political conditions in great detail and referred to the tribes’ state of independence. He affirmed that they were the only Christian body in the East who maintained their independence by force of arms, acknowledging their bravery and ability to defend their freedom, as did many other Europeans who got to know the same region afterwards.51