From the book

 The ”Lost" Ten Tribes of Israel...Found!

bySteven M. Collins

Israel’s  migrations

The link between the Scythian/Parthians and the Saxons is well-established. R. H. Hodgkin, in History of the Anglo-Saxons, elaborates further on Ptolemy's comment on the Saxones. He states:

"After Ptolemy's statement that the Saxons were to be found 'on the neck of the Cimbric Peninsula,' we have to wait for more than a hundred years before we hear of them again. Then about 286 A.D. they are mentioned along with the Franks, first as pirates who infest the coasts of Gaul and later as allies of Carausius, the Roman admiral who revolted and established himself in Britain. "39

It is noteworthy that the Saxons were first recorded as being "on the neck of the Cimbric Peninsula [modern Denmark]" over a century prior to 286 A.D. Since the Scythian Sacae were well-established in eastern Europe by that time, it is hardly surprising that a group of Scythians (called Saxones by Ptolemy) would have travelled into Central Europe as far as modern Denmark. These were likely a small advance guard of Scythians (explorers or traders) who had not arrived in large numbers. After the fall of Parthia, great masses of Sacae poured into Europe as refugees in search of homelands. It is significant that the Saxons were never present in large numbers in Europe until after the fall of the Parthian Empire. However, by 286 A.D., large numbers of Saxons and Franks are found as pirates in Northern Europe, just six decades after Parthia's fall. The conclusion is inescapable that masses of refugee Parthians (Sacae) had migrated to Northern Europe, and were called Saxons by the Romans. That they resorted to piracy indicates they were nomads not yet able to support themselves by traditional means (agriculture, trade, etc.), and were supporting their families in any way possible. This lifestyle would be appropriate for a large mass of arriving refugees. Refugee Sacae would also be expected to be anti-Roman, which these Saxons were. They preyed on Roman shipping and allied themselves with a Roman admiral who was willing to oppose Rome.

Alfred Church wrote in Early Britain that the pirate tribes who allied themselves to Carausius were the "Franks, Saxons, Danes and Normans," and that Carausius was not actually a Roman, but "was a native of the country now known as Holland."40 This indicates that the Franks, Saxons, Danes and Normans were all related tribes who jointly migrated into the area from a similar location. Many of these tribes were often called "Germanic" tribes by the Romans. While the Saxons bore the name of Isaac, the "Danes" bore the name of the Israelite tribe of Dan (which had attached its name to the major ivers entering the Black Sea during Scythian times).

R. H. Hodgkin recorded that the Saxons:

"began to molest the Island (Briton) some time in the latter half of the third century... After 250 A.D. the Imperial authorities began to construct defenses along the coast...the Saxon raiders are not mentioned...till the last quarter of the third century. "41

These dates are extremely significant. The Parthian Empire fell in 226 A.D., precipitating a massive migration of Sacae to the northwest, through Armenia, south Russia and then across Europe. It is acknowledged that the Saxons were migrating out of the east in a westward direction when their migrations brought them into Europe.42 In the time frame 250-300 A.D., the Saxons and related tribes are recognized as coming into Europe in great numbers. Could anything be clearer? The homeless Saxons were none other than the Sacae who had been dislodged from their homelands by the fall of Parthia just decades previous to their appearance in Europe. While the Goths struck directly at Rome, the Saxons and their allied tribes migrated into Europe around the northern edge of Rome's European Empire, in search of a new homeland.

Rome's hold on Britain grew steadily weaker, and Rome eventually had to abandon Britain altogether. The native Britons at first invited Saxons from the European mainland to assist them as mercenaries, but the Saxons began to displace the native Britons.

The armaments of the Saxons included spears (pikes), bows and arrows, and defensive armor (mail-coats and helmets).43 The fact that they wore metal armor on their bodies indicates that the Saxons were a people skilled in metallurgy, not ignorant nomads. Their use of the bow and arrow and pikes for offensive weapons, and their use of mail armor for defense attests to their Parthian origin. In chapter eight the Parthians were described as having a light cavalry which fought the Romans with bows and arrows, and a heavy cavalry which charged with long pikes (spears). The heavy cavalry (and their horses) were clad with mail armor and metal helmets. The Saxons, while retaining traditional Parthian weaponry, had to fight on foot instead of on horseback. The horses were needed for hauling their families and possessions, and may have been eaten during the privations of migration. The initial Saxon dependence on piracy or hiring out as mercenaries indicates a measure of desperation on their part to support and feed their families (typical of a migrating nation).

The migratory experience of the various peoples leaving Parthia and Asia for Armenia and Europe was not pleasant. They were in dire need of new homelands to grow food, build homes, etc. While Armenia and the historically Scythian areas around the Black Sea would have been hospitable, there was not nearly enough room in those areas to support the masses of people displaced by the fall of the Parthian Empire.

These migrations took place at the speed of an oxcart, and took decades or centuries to accomplish. These migrating people needed to stop periodically to grow crops, hunt game or steal from other nations to feed their families. Undoubtedly, a large percentage of the elderly and the infirm died along the way. Wars (with native populations or each other) would have caused more casualties. Since the number of mouths to feed was at times greater than the food which was available, some starved. During severe shortages, they may have had to eat their horses, livestock, and seed grains. A nation on the move has few options. If it cannot obtain food peacefully, it has no choice but to take it by warfare or piracy from someone else. If its people have success in warfare, they can prosper for a time. However, if it displaces another nation, that other nation must then look for a weaker nation to displace. Some tribes had to accept mercenary service to other nations in order to feed their own people. A tribe could think it had found security in a new location only to be dislodged by a stronger tribe moving in to their area. It was a difficult time, as many nations and tribes were migrating and jostling each other for living space.

While some Gothic outposts had long existed in Northern Europe,44 the Goths were principally located in the Black Sea region when they began to invade the Roman Empire. At the beginning of the third century A.D., they were divided into the Ostrogoths (or Eastern Goths) and the Visigoths (or Western Goths). These two Gothic groups lived on each side of the Dniester River on the shores of the Black Sea.45

The Goths, Germans, Saxons, etc. have been collectively referred to as Teutonic people. Henry Bradley, whose book The Goths was published in Great Britain in the late nineteenth century, wrote:

“The Gothic very much like the oldest English, though it is still more like the language that was spoken by the ancestors of the Swedes and Norwegians. There is little doubt that in the first century all the Teutonic peoples could understand one another's speech, though even then there must have some differences of dialect, which grew wider as time went on...the old Teutonic speech—developed into the different languages which we call English, German, Dutch, Swedish and Danish.”46

These tribes separated as they spread over Europe, and their Teutonic ("Gothic") dialects developed into distinct national languages. The original Teutonic or Gothic speech gradually fell into disuse and was last recognizable in its original form in the Crimea in the sixteenth century (the original Black Sea region from which they poured into Europe).47

There is evidence that the word "Goth" comes from the Gothic word "Guth," which meant "God."48 The consonants of both Goth and Guth are "G-TH." Both words have identical consonants, supporting the concept that we are dealing with the same root word. Also, languages descended from the Gothic language (i.e. English, German) use words descended from the word "Goth" or "Guth" to describe the deity ("God", "Gott"). Since the descendant words still directly refer to the deity, there is every reason to believe the antecedent Gothic word did as well.

In chapter six it was noted that Col. J. C. Gawler, an official of the British Government in the nineteenth century, in quoting an book by M. Sailman (written in 1818) entitled Researches in the East; an Important Account of the Ten Tribes, wrote:

"It states on page 25, that 'on the authority of several Armenian historians, the ten tribes passed into Tartary.' It also quotes Ortellius, who, it says, 'in his description of Tartary, notes the kingdom ofArsareth, where the ten tribes retiring...took the name of Gauthei' because, he says, they were very jealous of the glory of God."49

This record that the Israelites, when fleeing into the Black Sea region from the Assyrians, took the name "Gauthei" out of a zeal for God argues that the Gauthei (or Goths) did name themselves after God. Since the Goths lived in the same region in which the term "Gauthei" originated, it follows that the term "Goth" was a more recent form of the word "Gauthei." Bradley also cites Gothic literature in which is found the word:

"Gut-thiuda, [meaning] 'people of the Goths.' The word thiuda is the same as the Old-English theod, meaning people..."50

There is good reason to conclude that the Goths considered themselves to be the ''people of God." Once it is understood that they were the descendants of the ten tribes of Israel, this becomes a logical terminology as their ancestors (the Israelites) literally were the "people of God."

The Gothic people, according to Jordanes (a Gothic historian of the sixth century), had migrated through Scythia. Jordanes describes how the Goths arrived in Europe as follows:

"the Goths...and some other kindred peoples, united into one great body, first wandered...through what is now Western Russia, till they came to the shores of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, and then spread themselves westward to the north bank of the Danube."51

The Gothic-Scythian connection is also noted by the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which asserts that the Goths "migrated into Scythia."52 Both the Britannica and Bradley discuss the assumption that the Goths migrated into Scythia from the north, out of Scandinavia. However, the Britannica expresses doubts about a Scandinavian origin for so many Goths in these words:

"The credibility of the story of the migration from Sweden has been much discussed by modern authors... [however] so many populous nations can hardly have sprung from the Scandinavian peninsula."53

How true! While there were some Goths in Europe prior to the fall of Parthia, they were not known for great numbers or strength until their ranks were swelled by the masses of Parthians, Scythians and other Semitic people who fled from the fallen Parthian Empire. Some Goths had settled as far north as Scandinavia, but Scandinavia was not the original homeland for the masses of Goths who pressured the Roman Empire. There is no historical record of massive populations of Goths in Scandinavia before their appearance in Europe in great numbers. The main "Gothic homeland" had been Parthia, Scythia, and the region around the Black Sea.

Since modern history almost completely ignores the history of ancient Parthia's massive empire, it doesn't address the pressing historical question of where its hordes of Semitic people went when their empire fell. If modern history gave the Parthian Empire the kind of prominent attention its position in the ancient world merits, the Parthian origin of the masses of refugee Semites (Caucasians) pouring into Europe would be impossible to miss. We know the Goths were part of the white race (Semites) which migrated in huge numbers out of Asia into Europe. We know the Parthians had a Semitic culture when they exited Parthia (their Semitic culture is what drove the Persians to expel them). Parthian coins and Scythian artwork show their people had white (Caucasian) features. Only Parthia could have provided the masses of refugees which poured into Europe soon after the fall of the Parthian Empire. Yet history texts seem unwilling to connect the fall of the huge Parthian Empire with the arrival of many tribes of white refugees arriving in Europe from Asia almost right after Parthia's collapse. Curious, isn't it?

The very fact that the Goths risked the lives of their families to seek new homelands in Europe (in spite of military opposition) proves that they had no other choice! If their former homelands had been available to them, they would not have risked their entire civilian population in this mass migration. The only recently-fallen empire large enough to generate such a mass of refugees was the Parthian Empire. These migrating nations included the descendants of both Israelites and non-Israelite nations who had been their vassals in the Parthian Empire. These non-Israelites included such nations as the old Assyrians, Elamites and Aramaeans.

The history of the ten tribes of Israel has been obscured by artificial gaps in their migratory history. The first artificial gap occurs with the fall of the ten-tribed kingdom of Israel ("the Phoenician Empire") in about 741-721 B.C. Historical accounts imply that these Israelites "suddenly disappeared" into Asia, or became "lost." Yet we have Scythians, Parthians, Gauthei, and related peoples "suddenly appearing" in Asia with Hebrew names and customs just after the Israelites migrated to Asia. During the early Christian era, an educated Jewish historian such as Josephus did not regard the ten tribes of Israel as ever having been "lost" or difficult to find.

The next artificial gap in Israelite history occurs in the third century A.D. when history texts (if they mention Parthia at all) depict the Parthians as disappearing from their Asian homelands, although there are records the Parthians fled to the northwest in the direction of South Russia and the Black Sea. Just a few years after the Parthian collapse, we find the Anglo-Saxons, Goths and related Germanic tribes suddenly appearing in vast numbers as they migrate in search of new homelands, entering Europe from the regions of South Russia and the Black Sea. Is it really so hard to make the obvious connection between these events?

While the classical writers of Greece and Rome had much to say about Parthia, and extensive histories of Parthia were written in the late nineteenth century, twentieth-century history texts have increasingly ignored Parthian history.

Let us now document some striking commonalities between the tribes which formed ancient Scythia and Parthia and those who settled in Europe after the Parthian Empire fell. As noted earlier, the Scythian "Sacae" and the "Saka" who settled in Parthia also bore the name of "Saxones." As they migrated into Europe, they left their name on various portions of the European mainland, such as several regions of Germany named "Saxony" and the modern French province of "Al-sace." Also, it was noted earlier that the German word for the Saxons is based on the "Sac-" root word that was brought to Europe by the Sacae.

Other Parthian names were brought to Europe as well. One Parthian province was named Carmania, the home of the Kermans. The Sassanian Persians attacked these people along with the Parthians, so the Kermans also had to flee Persian persecution. Indeed, since the Kermans were one of the first nations attacked by the anti-Semitic Persians, it is logical that the Kermans were Semites. As the "Kermans" migrated into Europe with the Parthians, they were called "Germans." The name "Carmania" was transplanted into Europe as "Germania," a general name used by the Romans to describe many similar, tribes.54

There is an account of Herodotus which supports the conclusion that the Kermans and the Germans were the same people. Herodotus cites that the "Germanii" were a subject people in the old Persian Empire of the Achaemenids, which predated the existence of either the Roman or Parthian Empires.55 The Encyclopaedia Britannica, in commenting on this passage of Herodotus, states that the "Germanii" and the "Carmanians" were two names for the same people,56 linking the Germanii to the Kermans or Carmanians in the Parthian Empire. Clearly, the term "German" originated in the region, and later spread to Europe. As the reader can see, the ancient term "Germanii" was virtually unchanged as it became "Germany" or "Germania" in Europe.

It is this book's opinion that the Germanii or Kermans were originally the Assyrians. When Assyria was crushed by the Scythians (circa 620 A.D.), they were attacked from the north and west. Their obvious option was to flee to the south and east (toward Persia). The territory of the Kermans was located to the southeast of the territory of ancient Assyria. Even today, the name "Kerman" is attached to a city in southern Iran. As the centuries passed, the land of Kerman was dominated by Persia, Alexander the Great, the Seleucid Greeks and, finally, the Parthians. Since the Assyrians were Semites, descended from Shem's son, Asshur (Genesis 10:22), they had a racial bond with the Parthians (fellow-Semites) that did not exist with any of their previous rulers. The fact that the Sassanian Persians began their anti-Semitic crusade by attacking the Kermans is strong evidence that the Kermans were Semites.

There is a record that the ancient Mesopotamians explored and settled in Europe as long ago as 2800 B.C. A cuneiform record from approximately 800 B.C. was found in the Assyrian capital of Assur which recorded that Sargon I claimed to rule "the tin land which lies

beyond the Upper Sea (or Mediterranean)."57 If the "Upper Sea" of Sargon I was the Mediterranean (which seems logical), the most famous "tin land" beyond the Mediterranean Sea was in Cornwall of ancient Briton. As seen in earlier chapters, ancient mankind was quite able to travel great distances in maritime expeditions, and voyages from the eastern Mediterranean to northwest Europe were easily accomplished. The Assyrians could easily have established settlements in Europe during the time of Assyrian power. However, a more recent overland colonization is also possible.

At its zenith the dominion of the Assyrian Empire extended as far as the ancient territory of Armenia. The Assyrians defeated a number of people in this region, and following the usual Assyrian custom, they deported "great numbers of the inhabitants... while Aramaeans from Babylonia were brought to take their place."58 The Aramaeans were also Semites (descended from Aram, the son of Shem), and this account shows them being placed in the region of ancient Armenia. Afterward, the region acquired the name of "Armenia." It is likely that the name "Armenia" resulted from either the placement of large numbers of Aramaeans in the area by the Assyrians (compare "Aram" and "Armenia") or was named after the Carmanians themselves (compare "Armenia" and "Carmania").

If the above is correct, it further explains why the Parthians and Kermans of Carmania would both flee toward Armenia when threatened by a Persian "jihad" against Semitic people. Both the Parthians and Kermans would have known that Armenia and Europe contained groups of related Semitic people. The flight of Semitic people from the fallen Parthian Empire toward Europe was not an historical accident. Migrations toward Armenia, the Black Sea and Europe were deemed the most hospitable direction in which to seek refuge and new homelands.

The Assyrians were a militaristic, warlike nation. Strabo records that the Carmanians (also named Germanii or Kermans) were a warlike people.59 Also interesting is the fact that Strabo records that an area of Asia Minor (into which Assyria had moved whole populations) was named "Prusa."60 When Hannibal the Carthaginian (in the second century B.C.) was defeated by the Romans, he fled to Armenia and was given refuge by a king "Prusias."61 Were the residents of Prusa called "Prusians?" If we see in their name the ancestors of the warlike Prussians who later settled in eastern Germany, it is possible that they were descendants of Assyrians who had been settled there during Assyria's period of dominance in the region.

The term "German" eventually came to be applied to many tribes of people migrating into Europe. In the first century A.D., the Roman historian Pliny wrote concerning the Scythians in Europe:

"the   name   of   the   Scythians   has   altogether   been transferred to the Sarmatae and the Germans."62

This is a most important historical observation.  It confirms that many Scythians, as they migrated out of Asia into Europe, became known as "Germans." The Encyclopaedia Britannica notes that the Greek writers Herodotus and Hippocrates regarded the Sarmatae (or Sarmatians) as related to the Scythian tribes.63 The above sources confirm that the Scythians were not "lost" in history, but became known as "Germans" when they migrating into Europe (we also have seen that many Sacae Scythians were also known as "Saxons" when they entered Europe). Pliny's comment also indicates that the Romans were calling the Scythians "Germans" as early as the first century A.D., long before Parthia fell! It follows logically that when great masses of Parthians and Scythians poured into Europe seeking new homelands, the term "German" would be applied to many of them as well.

As the Saxons migrated into Europe and the British Isles, they were closely allied to the "Jutes." History records that after their entry into the British Isles, they settled in Kent, the Isle of Wight and parts of Hampshire.64 The Jutes left their name (Jute-land) on the Danish peninsula of "Jutland." Where did they come from? Is there evidence of their name in Asia? There certainly is, and, even then, we find them closely identified with the Sacae (who became the Saxons).

When describing the Sacae Scythian tribes who migrated out of Asia in the second century B.C. to merge with the Parthian Empire, George Rawlinson notes that the greatest tribe, the Massagetae, was also named the "great Jits, or Jats."65 

These migrating Sacae (or iSaka) gave their name to the Parthian province of Sacastan and to the Saka kingdoms of Northwest India. The term "Jat" has survived as a caste-name in Northwest India into modern times, attesting to the ancient dominance of the Jats in that region. The Encyclopaedia Britannica gives their origin as being either with the "Getae of Herodotus...[or] Scythians or Indo-Scythians."66 Collier's Encyclopedia adds that "They are believed to be descended from the Saka or Scythians, who moved into India in a series of migrations between the second century B.C. and the fifth century A.D."67 As discussed in a previous chapter, the Massagetae tribe of Sacae were most likely the descendants of the Israelite tribe of Mannaseh, and the suffix "getae" indicates a common origin with the "Getae" of the Black Sea region.


To be continued