The Migrations of Israel---Part II
(Where the "Lost Tribes" Ended up)
By Liaf
Upon discovering that only the house of Judah returned to the land of Palestine, we must try to discover where the ten tribes of the house of Israel went in their captivity. Whether one wants to realize it or not, there are basically four positions one must take regarding the Lost Tribes. The first position is that they were never really lost, but returned with Judah. I believe that both the Bible and history adequately proves this was not the case. The second position is that the tribes were lost and assimilated with their captors. Most historians and Liberal Christian groups hold the second position. The Liberal Christian groups "spiritualize" the promises of Israel to the believer in Christ. Needless to say, this position denies end-time prophecy when all the tribes will be present and return to the land. In addition, holding this position seems to short-circuit the rightful position of the Jew who is the physical seed of Abraham (since the promises now apply to the believer instead). I see this as a subtle form discrimination against the Jewish people as to their rightful privileges. (If that is the case, why do the Jews exist today? Why doesn’t God have them lost as well since the promises are spiritual instead of by race?) However, these groups do not seem to be concerned. They make everything abstract to keep God "out there". The Bible was never meant to be understood this way. Such interpretation involves some very created wresting of the Scriptures. The third position that one can take is that the tribes are lost, but these people are peppered throughout the nations, perhaps a little Indian tribe here, or another tribe over there. At least people who believe this are a little more honest with historical facts, but they only see the punishment that Israel received, and not the promised blessings. The tone of these blessings is such that they must take place before Christ’s Second Coming, although I agree they can be continued into the millennium. Therefore, the last and forth position that one can take is that the tribes have been lost to history, but these people became people of other nations and ultimately to arise to greatness. It is this position I want to take, and to show a summary of some important "links" to the Israelites in their captivity.
One artifact that was found regarding the Israelites was the "black obelisk." This obelisk depicted Shalmaneser’s victories where Jehu (one of the Kings of Israel) was called the "son of Omri" instead of referencing him or his people as "Israelites". In other words, Assyrians came up with their own names for the captive Israelites. Hebrews pronounce "Omri" with a gutteral "h" sound and in Assyrian translates over to "Kh" or Khumri instead of Omri. The Assyrains used that name for the Israelites until about the time of Sargon II of Assyria (722-705 BC). Later on, cuneiform writing clay tablets were discovered in the mid-1800’s in buried rooms of an Assyrian palace (where Ninevah was). They were scrambled up with some being broken and others intact. Upon deciphering the tablets, they were found to contain mathematical calculations, astronomical works, medical information, religious, business, and historical texts. You get the idea. This was an old Assyrian library that was discovered. Some of these tablets contained correspondence with the Assyrian king by spies and monitors regarding enemy movements. When Sargon inherited the Kingdom, rebellions were very problematic. These tablets made reference to the Israelites, but due to the state that the tablets were in when discovered, historians failed to recognize the reference to the Israelites (compounded by the fact the Assyrians and others called the Israelites by other names). Some of the tablets of interest tell of a spy’s report of the movements of the people of Urartu. The rebellious people were plotting military maneuvers when in another tablet there was a report of their defeat by Assyrian forces. The Urartians took a disastrous route in the land of "Gamir" which was Southeast of Urartu in the territory of Mannai. Now you may be asking, "What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?" You are correct. The subject of interest is not the Urartians per se, but the unsuccessful route in the land of "Gamir". This area was the very same area the ten tribes of Israel were placed a few years earlier by the Assyrians. In addition, Sargon claimed that he invaded this same region earlier and deported many of the Mannai to Syria. This in effect created a vacuum in this same area to place the Israelites. You see the strategy here? The vacuum created would be an ideal location to place captives to act as a buffer between people such as the Urartians and the Assyrians. However, these Israelites were called "Gimera" instead and in another (similar) tablet they are referred to as "Cimmerians".
In another tablet, a battle prayer of King Esarhaddon when he fought the Cimmerians had the statement "Teushpa, the Gimera, a barbarian whose home was afar off…." This effectively was a statement that these Cimmerians were apparently exiles from another land. In another spy report to Esarhaddon, he refers to the Gimera or Cimmerians as "offspring of outcasts" as if to say they came from another land. So it seems that Gimera were recognized as outcasts and they populated the same area that the Israelites were placed. These are strong links that the ten tribes of the house of Israel and the Gimera were one and the same people, albeit the Assyrians called the Israelites by their own naming convention (which was already adequately proven by the "black obelisk" and the "Khumri" name).
Were these the only names that the Israelites had? No. There were others. In Amos 7:9,16 the Israelites were referred to as the "house of Isaac". "Isaac", or "Isaaca" as they would say, would be translated to "Iskuza" in Assyrian. Historians also recognized the name "Iskuza" equals "Shuthae" by the Greeks and variations in Persian are "Sacae", "Saka" or "Sakka". The Greek historian Herodotus said that the Persians also called the "Sacae" "Scythians". The Medes and Persians would have been in closer social contact with the Israelites and would have called them more by their "Isaac" name variations since that would have been what the Israelites used. However, the Assyrians used names such as "Gimira" and "Iskuza" which the Israelites would not have chosen. These links and similarities of names demonstrate how countless Israelites disappeared and Scythians and Cimmerians appeared out of nowhere in the same place and time in history.
In the apocryphal book of II Esdras, Ezra had a vision of the returning ten tribes of Israel in the latter days to the land. In verse 41, the chapter states their migrations beforehand. But they took councel among themselves, that they [the ten tribes] would leave the multitude of the heathen, and go forth into a further country…(v43) And they entered into Euphrates by the narrow passages of the river…(v45) For though that country was a great way to go, namely, a year and a half: and the same region is called Arzareth. This passage indicates that the Israelites, placed near the Khabur river, escaped through the gorge in the Euphrates. This would indicate their presence West of the Euphrates River. Strabo, the Greek geographer, claimed the Cimmerians overran the area which is now South of the Black Sea (the same area II Esdras described). And Herodotus described the partial capture of Sardis, the capital of Lydia by the Cimmerians. Greek cities of Smyrna, Ephesus and Magnesia were also involved. These Israelites were some powerful people to be reckoned with. These same people eventually occupied "Arzareth" which geographically is recognized as a region Northwest of the Black Sea (still across the Euphrates).
The Cimmerians Israelites were not the only ones to migrate. Some Israelites of the "Scythian" background migrated. These people separated into two parts comprising of the Eastern Central Asian Scythians and Western Scythians (when they were still South of the Caucasus mountains). Besides being warrior people, they were plundering bands of robbers. Conventional evangelists will tell you that these Scythians were as Gentile and heathen as they could get. The apostle Paul mentioned them in one of his epistles, and when we see who these Scythians really were, Paul’s statement makes more sense. The Scythians east of the Caspian Sea (near where modern day Northern Afghanistan is located) were called "Sakkas" but the Western Scythians South of the Caucasus Mountains were called "Sacae" and "Scythains". And to throw in a bonus here, some of the white race were called "Caucasians" (that is before political correctness came about). Getting ahead a little, what nations predominantly have "Caucasians"? This conjures up images of those dreaded WASP people that some minorities dislike. Strabo (in his referencing earlier sources) called the Scythians "Massagetae" meaning the "Great Sakka Horde" which would have been the main body of Sakkas as distinguished from splinter groups. These Massagetae would later be driven out by the Persians, but not after bloody battles that many Persians perished in. They almost wiped out Cyrus’ army in one of the confrontations. Besides the study of their migrations by the usage of names, I want to convey the idea that these Israelites were not poor, destitute people roaming aimlessly. They were organized forces to be reckoned with in spite of their being driven out of these areas.
One of the greatest (literally) archaeological clues linking the Israelites is called the "Behistun Rock". This Rock (a limestone mountain) is located on the old caravan road from Babylon to Ectabana which was the ancient capital of Median. When Darius subdued the Scythians by taking some "Sakkas" as prisoners, he had this event inscribed on this rock as a public testimony. The rock was well polished, and lead was used to fill in any voids in the rock. The inscriptions were made about 515 BC in three languages: Babylonian, Elamite, and Persian. The same thing was stated in all three languages. Indeed, the rock’s memorial inscriptions measure about 150 feet long by 100 feet high on the side of this mountain. Now this is where I shake my head when some people mock the idea of "lost tribes". Talk about missing the broadside of a barn, they miss this mountain! How can a "mountain" of evidence be swept aside? There are not only inscriptions in a language on this rock, but figures as well. The main features I want to point out are that of King Darius with captives (and associated language panels stating the history of each captive). One panel is about a captive "Sarocus" the "Sacan" who has a Hebrew form of headdress. It shows nine other people tied by a rope while the tenth man is on his back with Darius’ foot on him. These very well could be ten chiefs of the ten tribes of Israel. In the panels there are numerous mention of "Kana" and "Armenia". Now I’ll let the reader do a little of his or her own etymology here. What does "Kana" maybe sound like? This is where the prisoners were taken from, the same area that the Israelites were placed by the Assyrians. Among the lists of nations whom Darius ruled included the "Sakkas". "Sakkas" was the translation in the Persian and Elamite version. But in the Babylonian version of the same people, Sakkas were called Gimiri! Again, a solid link was established that the Israelites were called by different name, and the cross-referencing of languages shows that one language called them one thing, while another language called them something else.
In the tomb of Darius, another tri-lingual inscription shown that in each case that the word "Sakka" was translated as "Gimiri" in Babylonian. So the whole point in these past few paragraphs were to show the relationship of Israelites to "Iskuza", "Sakka", "Scythians" or "Cimmerians". You may be saying, "Big deal." Well, I’m no more interested in all these odd names than you are. So why am I teaching all this? The answer is simple. We can now understand why countless Israelites disappeared from history and countless Scythians and Cimmerians appeared in the same place and time. That is the connection that is important. Because once we’ve established that the Israelites were the Scythians and Cimmerians, we know where they ultimately ended up. Tracing the migrations of the Scythians and Cimmerians is simply history from this point (and for that reason, I will not go into great detail).
The Cimmerians had somewhat forced migrations throughout the years from the Southern areas of the Black Sea before the Scythian migrations, and they moved westward being known as "Celts" and "Gauls" (by the Romans). Many of these Cimmerians moved up the Danube through what is now Hungary and Austria and into the region of Southern Germany and France. Actually, it was in these regions that they became known as "Celts" by the Greeks. These Celtic tribes were not to be confused with the prototype Celtic people that migrated into such regions earlier. The influx of these Cimmerians merged and otherwise fused into the same regions. By the end of the third century, these Celts and Gauls filled most of central Europe, Northern Italy and from Apennines to Brittany. What is also interesting to know is that these Celts (about 280 BC) invaded (or maybe we should say re-invaded) western portions of Asia Minor. The region of these folks became known as "Galatia". Although the target of the area of Paul’s Galatian letter is still disputed, it very well could have been that Paul was writing to Celtic people (and hence Cimmerian Israelites). One Bible dictionary I have clearly identifies the Galatians (the land of "Gaul") with Celtic tribes and any serious historian no longer disputes such information. [Nelson’s Quick Reference Bible Dictionary]. In addition, some migrated to Spain from central Europe, and from there up to "Hibernia", a name that still clings to Ireland today and a word that has its etymology in the word "Hebrew" (from the Gaelic name for Hebrews--- Iberes). See the message about the three overturns of the throne of David regarding similar migrations and the king’s daughters.
In Caesar’s time, France was called "Gallia" and divided into three large tribes: the Belgae, Gauls and Aquitanae. We don’t have to look too far to see what country the name "Belgae" became. In the apocryphal chapter of Acts 29 (see the message about the Lost Ten Tribes), the Belgae are mentioned as being visited by the apostle Paul in his later years. Another name "Scoti" and "Scotia" were names derived form the queen mother of the Milesians named "Scota" and hence the name "Scots" of today. What we must realize is that "Celts" used in our study of Israelite migrations encompass a vast group of people that migrated different directions. The name "Celts" today conjures up images of some lad or lass from Ireland, Scotland or Wales. To be sure, many of these people ended up there, but their migrations took them around and about different places as well.
Now for a few words about the Scythian migrations. Sakkas migrated eastward towards China (circa. 175 BC) but resistance pushed these people over to India. These people are some of whom may have been absorbed by the rest of the population and hence the conclusions by historians that Israelites were assimilated with the rest of the population and totally lost their identity. Perhaps some did, but as we have seen, a vast majority remained intact but were known by other names. Nevertheless, it is these migrations into India and surrounding regions that little tribes pop up claiming to be the exiled Israelites. I remember watching a television program awhile ago about such a tribe of people who called themselves the "Manassi" (I am spelling the word the way I heard it so I am not certain of the spelling). They claimed to be from the tribe of Manasseh. I believe them, although I do not believe these folks are the bulk of the people of Manasseh. According to a Jewish dictionary I own, some people claim that the Lost Tribes were amongst the high-caste Hindus of India, and amongst the Shinto priests of Japan (who have practices that indicate Biblical origin). [Information from Dictionary of Jewish Lore and Legend by Unterman] If some of these people migrated to India, this explains why the apostle Thomas had the reputation of going there. See my message about the Great Commission.
In this great country of ours, I really believe that the diverse population we have is the result of God’s "filtering" of the Israelites to bring together again (Amos 9:9). I’m jumping ahead a little here, but I think my readers can see where I’m going with this.
As for the other migrations of the Scythians, these people moved northwestward. In the course of their migrations, they moved into the region of the Carpathian Mountains and hence were known by the Romans as the "Sarmatae" and "Germani". We can easily see that the "Germani" were also the "Germans" and these people ultimately invaded Britain. Historians agree that the Romans originally called the Anglo-Saxons that came to Britain "Germans". Again, we can look at the etymology of words. "Anglo" is a word that has the meaning "calf" or "bull" in Hebrew. The northern house of Israel was known for its idolatrous calf worship. Even today, we recognize variations of this word to mean a bull and many of us love to go to "Angus Steak House" to eat. [I threw that quick promotion in as a bonus J ]. Likewise, "Saxon" is a variation of "Isaac". Sometimes the Hebrew dropped what we call the first letter or syllable in a name. For example, King Jeconiah was shortened to simply "Coniah" in the curse of Jeremiah 22:30 that I already had a message about. Isaac would become Saac. So who are Saac’s sons? That’s what we’ve been saying. "Saac’s sons" are "Saxons".
These several pages are just an overview of the migrations of the Israelites, and from these we see that they settled over in Europe, namely, the British Isles, and the Northwest region of Europe near them. The United States, in turn, had its roots mostly in the peoples of the British Isles. In part three of these messages, we shall look at some Biblical prophecies that show the characteristics of these Israelites, and their migrations. We shall see from their description that Britain has the characteristic of the tribe of Ephraim, and the United States has the characteristic of the tribe of Manasseh. I will focus primarily on these two tribes because they are the dominant birthright tribes of the ten tribes of the house of Israel. However, other surrounding nations originated from the rest of the Israelites as well.