Key to Northwest European Origins
QR Code
Key to Northwest European Origins

Chapter V:


   Before concluding our study of the Cimmerian branch of the dispersed Israelites, let us examine more closely the people who were known in history as the "Celts." We have already seen that the Gauls, Cimmerians, Cymry and the Celts are all simply different offshoots of the CIMMERIAN branch of the great SCYTHIAN people.
   The subject of the physical composition of the Celtic peoples is one of the most controversial on the study of European history (Coon, Races of Europe, p. 186). Some have argued that the Celts were tall and blond; others have maintained that they were dark and short. The truth of the matter, as we shall soon see, is that the celtic peoples contained both blond and brunette elements.
   We are informed in the Encyclopedia Britannica that the ancient writers never applied the term "Celt" to any dark-complexioned person. They always spoke of the Celts as having (1) great stature, (2) fair hair, and (3) blue or grey eyes. The Greeks spoke of all fair-haired people north of the Alps as Kelts or Keltoi (11th ed., Vol. V, Art. Celt).
   The Encyclopedia Britannica mentions that the Celts were of two types:
   (1) N.W. European — with its chief seat in Scandinavia. This type of Celt has a long head, long face, narrow nose, blue eyes, very light hair and great stature. They are also known as Teutons.
   (2) Alpines — who inhabit the mountainous districts of Europe. They have a broad head, broad face, heavy, broad nose, hazel-grey eyes, light chestnut hair, medium height, and thick-set body.
   There is every reason to believe that the original Celts, like the early Teutons and Germani, were primarily of "Nordic" racial type even though a number of round — or broad-headed Alpine type were undoubtedly included among them. This name "Celt" has certainly been applied in later times to some Alpine types.
   The Teutons are universally held to be Celts (Ency. Brit., Vol. V, Art. Celt). All of the Celtae or Galatae in France had come across the Rhine. The Belgic tribes in Northern France were Cimbri who had crossed the Rhine. We are also informed that the UMBRIANS were Alpine Celts. This article mentions that the CIMMERIANS were the same as the GIMIRRI mentioned in the Assyrian monuments (ibid.).
   The ancient writers spoke of all the GAULS as CIMBRI and identified them with the CIMMERIANS of earlier date. The CELTS mixed freely with the SCYTHIANS and were called Celto-Scythians (ibid.).
   The Celts had continued to move westward from the Black Sea and Caucasus region. We have already shown that all of these Celtic or Cimbric peoples had their origin in the vicinity of the Caucasus Mountains — the very place to which Israel were deported (ibid). We are informed in this same article that the Belgae were of Cimbric origin.
   When did the Celts begin their period of expansion? According to the article just referred to in the Encyclopedia Britannica, we are told that the "general Celtic unrest" occurred in the 6th century B.C. This was about two centuries after the Ten Tribes were deported to the Caucasus Mountain region.
   Dr. Guest mentions the following points regarding the Celts: He says that the early Greeks employed Kimmeriori as a general name for the Celtic races (Origines Celticae, Vol.1, p.7). These Kimmeriori lived "to the furthest limit of the deeply flowing Ocean" (ibid., p.8). By that, he meant that they lived in the western part of Europe near the Atlantic Ocean. He mentions that the Celts or Kimmeriori lived in Spain and named a town there "Kimmeris" (ibid., p.10). The Celts also lived in the countries lying along the Mediterranean (ibid., p.17). Dr. Guest says that Herodotus stated the Kimmeriori were living formerly in the Crimea and in the steppes, stretching from the Don to the Dnieper (ibid., p.17). He then shows that the Kimmeriori were invaded by the Skuthai; and he says this took place in the 6th century B.C.! (ibid., p.17). And remember that this would have been about two centuries after Northern Ten-tribed Israel was taken captive by Assyria to the Caucasus regions.
   "Our most trustworthy authorities," says Dr. Guest, "agree in fixing these events in the LATTER PART OF THE SIXTH CENTURY B.C." (ibid., p. 17).


   The Romans called the Celtic race by the name Galli (ibid., p. 38). The Kimbroi (Kelts) were supposed to have emigrated, according to Dr. Guest, from the Pontic Scythia (Scythia north of the Black Sea) into Europe over a period of many years (ibid., p. 43). He also mentions that these Kelts were known as Kelto-Skuthai, or Kelto-Scythians. Dr. Guest says that Plutarch's (Marius II) employs this phrase "Kelto-Skuthai" to designate the Kimbric migration which had early passed from the Pontic Scythia to the western Ocean - to the territory of Jutland which we now call Denmark. He also informs us that the words "VOLCAE," "BOLCAE," and "BELGAE," all refer to the same people (ibid., p. 378). The GAELS were the same people as the GALLI, and the Belgae were a Gaelic race (ibid., p. 385).
   Other points worth noting are mentioned by Dinan in his Monumenta Historica Celtica, Volume I. He states that the Adriatic Celts came to Alexander the Great for the purpose of establishing a treaty of good will and "guest friendship." Alexander asked them what they feared most, supposing that they would answer that he was the chief object of their dread. They replied that they feared most that the sky might fall upon them. Alexander made a treaty with them, but thought they were a bit arrogant.
   It is interesting to observe that one of the Celtic tribes was called by the name "BRETTII" (ibid., p. 91). This tribe was undoubtedly related to the "BRYTHON" and other similar peoples who later came to the British Isles and gave their name to Britain.
   There was a Celtic tribe, according to Dinan, called the "OMBRI" — "The land of the OMBRI" (ibid., p. 33); he mentions also a Celtic people known as the "UMBRI" who were supposed to have led a luxurious life (ibid., pp.35,53).
   The "UMBRI" and the "OMBRI" were part of the Celtic division of the dispersed "land of Omri" or House of Omri or people of Omri (pronounced as Ghomri). They lived in North and Central Italy. One can easily see how these words are very similar in pronunciation. The Celts who lived in the far west (ibid., 43), were great admirers of the Greeks (pp. 45,51), and were on the most friendly terms with them.
   Another point mentioned by Dinan proving the affinity of the Cimbri and the Celts is that Pytheas discovered that the Cimbri spoke a Celtic tongue (ibid., p.54).
   Dinan says that according to Poseidonius of Apamea, the Galatae were of tall stature, had soft flesh and white skin, and naturally blond hair, which they often bleached still further (ibid., p. 313). Speaking of the women of Galatae, Dinan says: "Their children at birth are generally of fair hair, but as they grow up it assumes the colour of their fathers" (ibid., p. 323).
   The Galatae (Celts) were famed for their courage (ibid., pp. 323,325). He also mentions that these Galatae were formerly known as Cimmerians, Cimbri, and as Gallo- Graecians (ibid.).
   Lysons says that "The CELTS had a unvarying tradition that they CAME FROM THE EAST" (Our British Ancestors, p. 27), and we have observed earlier that these Cymric Celts came from Armenia to Britain (ibid., p. 27). Some think "Armenia" should read "Armorica," but we have seen from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that it plainly says "Armenia," and that is exactly what it means! These Cymric Celts and Gauls came from Armenia in the area of the Caucasus.
   "In addition to the Keltic invaders of Anatolia... other tribes, such as the UMBRI, began about the same time to over run Italy along with the Kelts from Noricum" (Kephart, Races of Mankind, p. 284). And on page 302 we read."..other Keltic intruders, the UMBRI from Illyria, entered the Po River valley and pushed earlier arrivals ahead of them down the eastern coast and the Apennines." We also read of the etruscans invading Northern Italy from Tyre and "driving the UMBRI to Central Italy" (ibid., p. 302). We are further informed that"..the Volsci were a branch of the UMBRI in Central Italy..." (ibid., p. 304).
   Who were these Celtic "UMBRI" or "Ombri"? Why, there can be no doubt whatsoever — they were people of Cymric or Cimmerian origin; and remember the Cimmerians were the same people as the Gimirri, mentioned in the Babylonian language on the Behistun Rock Inscriptions.
   Sharon Turner, in his History of the Anglo-Saxons, Vol. I, mentions the following important points regarding the Celts. Firstly, he equates the Celts (or Kelts) with the following peoples — Keltoi, Kimmerians (Cimmerians), and Kimmerii, Kimbri, Cymry, Kymry, Kumri, Galatai, Galli, (pp. 23-41). Secondly, he shows that the Keltoi were "one of the branches of the Kimmerian stock" (ibid., p. 36). Thirdly, he mentions that the homebase of the Celts was France (ibid., p. 41), and from France and Belgium, they spread themselves virtually over the whole of Europe, including the British Isles. Fourthly, he shows that these Kymry (or Celtae) had come from the eastern part of Europe, from Constantinople. Fifthly, he mentions that the Keltic language was identical with the Kimmerian language, proving still further that the Celts and the Cymry were all the same people. They were all branches of the great Cimmerian stock which came from the Caucasus regions in the vicinity of present-day Armenia.
   The Celts were described by the ancient writers as men of large stature, of fair complexion, and with flaxen or red hair. They were long the terror of the Romans: once they took Rome, and laid it in ashes (B.C. 390) (Smith, A Smaller Classical Dictionary, Art. Celtae, p. 137).
   Note that they occupied the western parts of Europe a few centuries before Christ. "Celtae, [were] a mighty race, which occupied the greater part of western Europe in ancient times" (ibid., p. 137).
   After mentioning that the Celtae, Galatae, and the Galli were all the same people, Turner shows that the Kelts had spread themselves over much of Europe.
   Besides the Celts of Gaul, we are informed that there were eight other different settlements of these Celtic peoples. There were:
   (1) Iberian Celts who crossed the Pyrenees and settled in Spain. They were known as the Celtiberi.
   (2) The British Celts who were the most ancient inhabitants of Britain, or Britannia.
   (3) The Belgic Celts. They were the earliest inhabitants of Gallia Belgica.
   (4) The Italian Celts. They had crossed the Alps at a fairly early period and settled in Northern Italy which was called after them, Gallia Cisalpina.
   (5) There were Celts in the Alps and on the Danube who were known as the Helvetii, the Gothini, and a number of other tribes.
   (6) The Illyrian Celts.
   (7) The Macedonian and the Thracian Celts. They had remained behind in Macedonia while their Celtic brethren had invaded Greece, and
   (8) The Asiatic Celts. They were known as the Tolistobogi, Trocmi, and Tectosages, who founded the kingdom of GALATIA (Smith, A Smaller Classical Dictionary, Art. Gatae, p. 137).
   Deniker mentions that the Trans-Alpine Celts or Galatians invaded JUTLAND in the 5th century B.C. under the name of Celto-Belgae. Also, at this same time they invaded North Germany, the Low Countries and England. (The Races of Man, pp. 321, 322). He says that:
   "The Roman conquest of Trans-Alpine Europe, effected in the 1st century B.C. and A.D. imposed the language of Latium on the majority of Celts, Iberians and Italo-Celts, and maintained the population within almost the same bounds during three centuries" (ibid., p. 322).
   This shows when and how these Celts or Gauls came to speak a Latin tongue.

   Dr. Wylie says:
   "The new-comers brought with them the tradition of their descent. They called themselves Cymry or Kymbry. They are the GIMIRRAI of the Assyrian monuments. The Greeks, adopting their own designation, styled them Kimmerioi, and the Latins Cimbri" (History of the Scottish Nation, p. 15).
   We have already seen that the "Gimirrai of the Assyrian monuments" are the same people as "Bit Humri" — the house of Omri, and we have also seen that Omri was a prominent king of Ten-Tribed Northern Israel!

   Speaking of the Celts, he says:
   "They are known in history by three names — the CELTAE, the GALATAE, and the GALLI. Their irruption from their primeval home in Central Asia was the terror of the age in which it took place. In the fourth century before Christ, after some considerable halt, they resumed their migrations westwards in overwhelming numbers and resistless force. They scaled the barrier of the Alps, rushed down on Italy, gave the towns of Etruria to sack, defeated the Roman armies in battle, and pursued their victorious march to the gates of Rome, where they butchered the Senators in the Capital, and had well nigh strangled the Great Republic in its infancy" (ibid., Chap. 5, pp. 47, 48).
   The one Cimric family was divided into the NORTHERN and SOUTHERN branches. The NORTHERN branch inhabiting "from the shores of the German Ocean to the confines of Asia, and beyond, are known by the general name of SCYTHIANS. The SOUTHERN, who dwell in Belgium and France, and overflow — for their lands were fertile — into the mountains of Switzerland and the north of Spain, were the GAULS. Both peoples, as Tacitus informs us, spoke the same language, though differing slightly in dialect, and that language was the Gallic or Celtic.
   "In process of time, the memory of their common parentage was lost, and the tribes or nations of later formation, of the Scythians and the Gauls, began to weigh heavily upon the earlier Kimbric races, by whom the various countries of Europe — empty until their arrival — had been peopled" (ibid., Chap. XX, p. 165).
   The earliest population of Britain was Cimric, according to Dr. Wylie, but three new varieties, the Pict, the Scot and the Gaul finally all made their way to the British Isles where they settled. "There exists abundant evidence," he says, "to show that all the inhabitants of Britain, from this early period onward, were all sprung from the SAME STOCK, though they arrived in our island by different routes, and are known by different names" (ibid., p. 265).
   He then mentions that the Bretons (or Cimri) and the Picts (the Caledonian Picts), the Belgae (or Gauls), and the Scots "were but four several branches from the same root, and that root was Gallic or Celtic" (ibid., pp 265,266).
   Thus it is clear that all of the various tribes who have entered the British Isles at one time or another have all been of the great Scythian or Cimmerian branches of the human race; and that branch was composed almost completely of dispersed Israelites, who had lost their identity long before arriving in North-western Europe.
   The Brut, or The Chronicles of the Kings of Britain also shows basically the same thing. Celtae, Galatai, Gaul and Gael are all considered as one people (p.250).
   There can be no doubt that the Celts, the Cimbri, the Britons and the Cymri are identical (Mallet, Northern Antiquities, fn., p. 68.
   Haddon says that the Belgae who occupied North-east Gaul and South-east Britain about the first century B.C. were not distinguished by Roman authors from pure Nordics (The Races of Man, p. 59).
   We have noticed that the Belgae, and the Celts were mainly fair and Nordic in type. Now let us see what archaeology can do to enlighten us as to the racial affinities of these Celtic peoples.
   We have earlier noted that Coon mentioned the confusion which exists over the subject of the Celts. He speaks of the CELTIC EXPANSION which began about 500 B.C.; he mentions that it was a rapid and extensive one (Races of Europe, p. 187), including Italy, Spain, Asia Minor and most of Continental Europe. The center of dispersion was Belgium and Northern France (ibid., p. 187).
   The KELTS introduced trousers into Western Europe. This garment, he says, was Central Asiatic in origin and was typical of the SCYTHS (ibid., p. 187). This is just another link showing that the Celts and the Cymry were all sprung from the Scythian people.
   Were the Celts long-headed, or round-headed? Coon says that both types were represented in the Celts (ibid., p. 188).
   In Bohemia, out of 27 crania, we are told that most were "dolichocephalic" (longheaded), but that there was a "significant minority of brachycephals" (ibid, 188). It is well to bear in mind that the Keltic Boii, who once lived in Bohemia and who gave their name to it, are no longer found there in any great numbers. He says that the skulls from the Swiss and other series were primarily a long-headed type (ibid., p. 189).
   The well-known "Dying Gaul" and similar statues are of mesocephalic or brachycephalic head form (ibid., p. 190). It may be well to add that some present-day Israelites living in the Low Countries, the Benelux countries, and in France and Switzerland are mesocephalic (medium-headed) or low brachycephalic (broad-headed).
   The original Israelites must have been both round-headed as well as long-headed though modern day descendants of Ten-Tribed Israel have more long-heads than broadheads.
   Only the NORTHERN PART OF FRANCE, says Coon, received any great amount of KELTIC blood in the early populations of what later became the French nation (ibid., p. 191).
   Blondism was by no means characteristic of the Kelts as a whole. Rufosity was common, and the hair color was essentially mixed. Caesar himself noted the contrast between the ordinary Gauls and the partly Germanic Belgae, to whom he had to turn to find real blondes, for his triumph. Furthermore, the Romans noted the Keltic practice of bleaching the hair to simulate a blonde ideal, as in Greece" (ibid., p. 192).
   According to this statement, we can see that it is not accurate to speak of all of the Celts as either blond or brunet. They were "mixed", but all historical references show that they tended more toward blondism.
   When we consider all of the points which we have seen mentioned by all of the different authors, here is the picture which emerges: The Celts, Cymry, Cimmerians, Gauls, Galatians, Gaels and other peoples who ravaged and who finally populated much of Europe in past centuries were definitely a closely related people. They were all just different branches of the same Cimmerian stock; and we have seen that, though there were brunets among them, yet most historical sources show that blondism must have been predominant just as it is today in the countries which were finally settled by these Cymric or Celtic peoples. (Remember, the word "blond" also denotes varying shades of brown, whereas brunet simply means very dark brown or black hair.)
   We have also noticed a number of references showing a very close racial connection between the Cimmerian and the Scythian branches of these peoples. They were, as we have had clearly pointed out, all of the same type or "race" of people. We have also noticed that all of these peoples trace their origin back to the region of the Caucasus Mountains — the very place to which Israel was taken in 741, 721 B.C. Most of these Celto-Scythians were different segments of Israel in exile.
   We have seen the origin of the Celtic peoples, but we have not gone into the origin of the word "Celt" or "Kelt" in this chapter.
   Let us again notice an interesting statement by Lysons regarding the Celts.
   "The chain of evidence seems to be complete. Appian... says the Cimbri were Celts. Diodorus says that the Cimbri were Gauls or Celts; the Gauls were Galatae per syncope Geltae or Keltae: The names are synonymous... The way in which Mr. Rawlinson, in the Essay from which I have quoted brings the Cymric Celts from ARMENIA TO BRITIAN is most masterly."
   According to the above statement, the word "Galatae" was also spelled as "Geltae" or "Keltae." This is seemingly according to Lysons, the derivation of the word Celt or Kelt.
   It is possible that this name "Kelt" is derived from the name of a rivulet or a brook just northeast of Jerusalem, very near Jericho. The Encyclopedia Britannica speaks of this brook and calls it "Wadi Kelt" (11th ed., Vol, XIX, Art. Palestine, p. 602).
   This same Wadi is mentioned a number of times in the Rand McNally Bible Atlas, but it speaks of it as the "Wadi el Qelt" (Chap. XIX, p. 395).
   It is highly possible that this name comes from "Wadi Kelt." The Ten Tribes of Israel would have been familiar with this Wadi since many of them from Northern Israel would have passed near it on their way to observing the annual festivals in Jerusalem.
   Kelts have never in modern times lived in the area of Jericho, but it is now abundantly evident that the ancestors of the present-day Kelts did once live in the vicinity of the "Wadi Kelt."


   What is the origin of such words as "Gaul," "Gael," "Galatian"? These and other related words are connected directly with the people of Israel from the time of their captivity!
   The tribes of Reuben, Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh, lying east of the Jordan River, in the land of Bashan, were among the first of the Israelites (the Bit-Humi or Bit- Ghomri) to go into captivity in the year 741 B.C.
   In the territory inhabited by the half tribe of Manasseh lying east of the Jordan, there was a city named "Golan." The word Golan is a Hebrew word and means "exile" or "captive." (Strong, The Exhaustive Concordance).


   Spier mentions the name by which the exiles of Israel were known, at the time of the Second Temple. He says: "The second holidays were adopted by the entire GOLAH, the communities living beyond the confines of Israel — [meaning the exiled Ten Tribes]" (The Comprehensive Hebrew Calendar, p. 11).
   This Jewish author uses the word "Golah" when referring to the dispersed Israelites who were living beyond the confines of the Promised Land. Note the similar pronunciation of the words "Golah" and "Gaul." Speaking of the territory east of the Jordan River and the Sea of Galilee, Hurlbut says, "Decapolis... embraced no less than five sections as may be seen upon the map: (1) Gaulonities, the ancient Golan now Jaulan, east of the Jordan" (A Bible Atlas, p. 94).
   This is speaking of New Testament Palestine. The city which was anciently called "Golan" had by New Testament times given its name to the district called "Gaulonities." (Ency. Biblica, Art. Golan, pp. 1747, 1748).
   The word "Golan" had been slightly changed in spelling to Gaulon-itis, the land of the Gaulon, meaning the land of the dispersed. On pages 100, 101, 104, and 105 of Hurlbut's A Bible Atlas are maps illustrating this area lying immediately to the east of the sea of Galilee.
   The celebrated Jewish historian, Josephus, speaks of a territory in the inheritance of Israel known as Gaulonitis. "He also gave Gaulonitis... to Philip, who was his son..." (Ant. Bk. XVIII, Chap. VIII par. I). See map IX.
   We now know that the people of Israel who lived in the area of GAUL-on-itis or Golan went into their captivity in 741 B.C. Those "Gaulonites" from Gaulonitis were the first to be dispersed among the nations. Since they spoke Hebrew at the time of their exile, they must have called themselves "Golah" or Gauls meaning "Captives." These East- Jordanic Gauls, the exiles, or captives, who had been taken out of their land by the Assyrians, had probably ceased to pronounce the "h" sound by this time.
   We shall see later on that these same people afterward bore the name "Gauls" in Europe and some of their kindred brethren also bore the name "Galatians," and lived in Central Asia Minor — in the heart of modern-day Turkey. The true Galatians (or Gauls) only comprised about one-tenth of the population of the territory of "Galatia."


   The reader will search in vain, however, to find one historian who will give the true derivation of the word "Gaul" though there are different conjectures. The reason why seemingly nobody has understood the derivation of this word is that Israel was to be lost and scattered among the nations. Their identity was not to be revealed until these last days.


   Speaking of the Gauls and Kelts, Funck-Brentano in his work, The Earliest Times, states that the Celts came from the north — from Jutland, Friesland and from the coasts of the Baltic. He says: "They were the Normans of the century before our era" (ibid, p. 27).
   They called themselves "CELTS," but they were also known by the name of "GALATES," and the Romans called them "GALLI." To the ancients, the designations, Galli, Galates, and Celts were synonymous. But he says that these three names may have designated three different branches of the same race originally (ibid, pp 27, 28).
   A fourth branch was the Volcae -Walah, Wallachians, Wallons, and Welsh, all being derived from this Celtic name Volcae. The Celtic branch were tall and fair with pink and white skin. The Greek artists in the third century B.C. used the Gauls or Kelts as their ideal in sculpture and paintings (ibid., pp. 27,28).
   The Gauls conquered Rome in 390 B.C. They conquered Great Britain, France except the Rhone basin, the whole of Spain except its Mediterranean coast, and north of Italy, parts of Germany, Russia, Switzerland, Hungary, Romania, and Silesia. Their empire was greater than either that of Charlemagne or of Napoleon — reaching from the Straits of Gibraltar to the Black Sea at the time when Alexander the Great was engaged in his conquest of Asia in 334 B.C. (ibid., 46, 47).
   He mentions another interesting point. "They [the Gauls] loved bright and varigated colours in their clothes, coloured stripes and checks" (ibid., p. 67). Here we can see the tartan or "Scotch Plaid" which is still used by some of the present-day descendants of the Kelts who now live in Scotland.
   There were two Roman Gauls: (1) Gallia Cisalpina (Hither), included North Italy between the Alps and Apennines, and (2) Gallia Transalpina (Further), encompassed modern France, Belgium, and parts of Holland, Germany, and Switzerland.
   "The Greek form of GALLIA was GALATIA, but Galatia in Latin denoted another Celtic region in Central Asia Minor, sometimes styled Gallograecia" (Ency. Brit., 11th ed., Vol. XI, Art. Gaul p. 532).
   It is interesting to note that Livy and the elder and younger Pliny were Celts.
   Julius Caesar in his Commentaries says that Gaul in his day was divided into three peoples — (1) Aquitani, (2) Gauls or Celts and (3) Belgae.


   Who were the Galatians? All history shows that they were a Gaulish tribe who had come from European Gaul, and had gone to Asia Minor where they finally settled. The territory in which they settled was known as Galatia. This territory was an inland district in Asia Minor, occupied by these Gaulish tribes in the 3rd century B.C. The 20,000 invading Gauls who finally settled this district were divided into three tribes: (1) Trocmi, (2) Tolistobogii and (3) Tectosages.
   This was one of the peoples and the territories with which the Apostle Paul was directly connected. But how many of the people living in Galatia were of Gaulish or Keltic descent?
   The Galatian (or Gaulish) overlords were naturally very few in number, and hardly lived in the towns at all (Ency. Brit. 11th ed., Vol. II, Art., Galatia, pp 393, 394).
   "According to the majority of scholars, it [the term Galatians] denotes the people of Galatia Proper, a mixed population, consisting of A MINORITY descended from the three Gaulish tribes..." (Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. II. Art. Galatians).
   We are informed that in the large cities such as Ancyra, the Phrygians and others probably constituted the great majority of the population, "while Gauls were found there only as a small aristocratic caste"; but in the rural districts the Gauls were more numerous. They were a "small conquering caste of barbarians" among a more numerous population.
   "It is doubtful whether so much as FIVE PER CENT of the total population was of GALLIC origin, and it is practically certain that in the great cities, an even smaller proportion of the population was of Gallic descent" (ibid.).
   These dispersed Israelitish peoples who were living in Galatia in New Testament times, constituted an aristocratic, ruling caste, and were in the minority. The main bulk of the Galatians (probably about 95%) were of Gentile descent!
   A highly developed religious system reigned over the country... Thus the government was a theocracy and the whole system, with its prophets, priests, religion, law, punishments,... presented a remarkable and real resemblance in external type to the old Jewish ceremonial and religious rule" (Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. II, Art. Galatians).
   The Keltic Gauls told Caesar that the Belgians were of "German" descent, but Dr. Beddoe shows that this was not true (The Races of Britain, p. 20). He says that those who came to Britain were not, in the strict sense, "Germans" (ibid, p. 25).
   He also says that at the time of the Roman conquest: "No Germans, recognisable as such by speech as well as person had as yet entered Britain" (ibid., p. 29).
   For a masterly discussion of the ethnology of the Gauls, Celts, Cymry, the Belgae and related peoples, study carefully Caesar's Conquest of Gaul, Part II, Sec. II — The Ethnology of Gaul, pp. 245-322, written by T. Rice Holmes.
   Holmes quotes many historians and ethnologists on the subject of the racial background of these peoples. He points out that though there have always been brunet elements among the Celts, Cymry, Belgae, and the Gauls, yet most of these peoples have tended more toward blondism. Where these peoples have mixed with Mediterraneans and other dark-haired peoples, they have tended to introduce more brunet elements into their midst.
   He then produces a number of statements from foremost ethnologists which tend to show that the typical Celtic head form was long-headed, though there were medium- or broad-headed elements among them.
   Another thing which is clear from his numerous quotations and statements is that the ancient "Germans" definitely had more of a long-headed element among them than they possess today. The dolichocephalic elements of ancient Germany have crossed over the Rhine and have in most instances moved into Northern France, Belgium, the Low Countries or have gone to Scandinavia or to the British Isles. Holmes also mentions the matter that the ancient Germans were known as very tall and had a lot of redheads among them. This rufosity is almost totally lacking in Germany today, except among the Sephardic Jews; and since World War II, there are probably very few of these still remaining in Germany. Most of the redheads who had lived at one time in Germany have moved to the countries of Scandinavia, the British Isles, or to other parts of North-west Europe. Some of the North Germans are quite blond, however, and may still represent the true Teutonic and Celtic element which has never left Germany. The dominant type in Germany today is the round- or broad-headed Alpine.


   Dr. Beddoe also mentioned that the "Volcae Tectosages of Tolosa appear to have been the same people with the Tectosages of Galatia...." (ibid., p.28). Many historians show a definite connection between these Gaulish peoples of France and those of Galatia, and they also show that their languages were similar if not identical.
   The Kelts, Gauls, Galatians (as well as the Gaels) are, racially speaking, closely related. They are, in fact, a segment of the Golah or Gaulah — the exiles of Israel!


   Before the racial affinities of the peoples of Europe can be untangled, there is one more name which must be looked into, and properly understood. That is the name "Germani" (the Germans).
   While studying the origin and movements of the Celts, Gauls, Kymry, and the other tribes who have passed at one time or another through Central Europe, a certain amount of confusion at times arises regarding the differences between Scythians, Kelts, Gauls, and Cimmerian tribes on the one hand and the proper or true Germans on the other.
   There can be no doubt that most of the peoples of present-day Germany (except in the North) and Austria, from an ethnological and historical point of view, have no close blood ties with the peoples of Scandinavia and the British Isles. There are many striking differences between the peoples of the Scandinavian countries, the British Isles, and the Lowland countries when contrasted with the peoples of Southern Germany, Austria and the Eastern and Southern Europeans.
   It is necessary to show that the majority of the present-day Germans are quite different from the British and Scandinavian types. Here are some points to keep in mind:
   (1) The Saxon and other tribes who invaded Britain had at one time or another lived in Germania, and were therefore prior to their invasion of England, known as Germans. (2) Some of the Kelts who formerly lived east of the Rhine, and who were known as Germans, later emigrated to England, Belgium, France, etc. (3) The Caledonians and others were called Germans. (4) The Goths and Teutons are often equated with the Germans, but many of them were not "German" if by that word we mean to imply the present-day Alpine type of German.
   All history attests that the Keltic, Kymric or Scythian peoples who passed through Germany en route to Britain, Scandinavia, the Lowlands, and Northern France were, racially speaking, different from the Alpine and "Slavic" types which today mainly constitute the German people.
   It would appear that some of the North Germans of the "Nordic" variety are fairly closely related to British and Scandinavian types.
   Here are some interesting excerpts from an article entitled Are We Cousin to the German? by Sir Arthur Keith.
   In the standard Atlases and school geographies the Germans colour Great Britain, Holland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden with the same tint as their own empire, to indicate that all those lands are inhabited by branches of the great Teutonic family.... It is an historical fact that the Anglo-Saxons came into lands lying on the western shores of the present German Empire. Those, however, who have studied the modern population of Britain, and Germany, have reached a very definite and very different conclusion, namely, that the Briton and German represent contrasted and opposite types of humanity (The Graphic, 4th Dec, 1915, p. 720).
   In the same issue of The Graphic, Sir Arthur Keith illustrated prevalent British and German forms of skulls. He pointed out the marked difference between the typical British skulls when contrasted with that of the average German. Speaking of the typical British and German skull form, he says:
   The radical difference in the two forms leaps to the eye. In the majority of BRITON — English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish — the hinder part of the head, the occiput, projects predominately backwards behind the line of the neck; the British head is long in comparison with its width (ibid., p. 720).
   Sir Arthur Keith says that "in the vast majority of Germans" the hinder part of the head is "flattened." He mentions, however, that this "peculiarity of the German skull" is not due to "artificial means."
   We know that the prominent occiput and flattened occiput are characters that breed true over thousands of years, and that they are characters which indicate a profound racial difference. Even in the sixteenth century, Vesalius, who is universally regarded as the 'father of Anatomy,' regarded the flat occiput as a German characteristic... He came, rather unwillingly, to the conclusion that the vast majority of modern German people differed from the British, Dutch, Dane and Scandinavian in head form (ibid., p. 720)
   It is important to keep those points in mind. There is no close affinity, judging from skeletal observations and measurements, between the "vast majority of the German people" who are different, according to Sir Arthur Keith, from the "British, Dutch, Dane and Scandinavian in head form."
   The typical German head is quite round, says Keith in comparison to the British, Scandinavian, Dutch and Dane head form. The German occiput is not nearly as pronounced as that of the North-west Europeans just mentioned.
   This is an important point to bear in mind, as we shall note later that the Scythians, the Sacae and many of the Kelts who formerly inhabited the steppes of South Russia, were in head-shape like the long-headed North-west Europeans. The Alpine and "Slavic" elements in Germany, Austria and in Eastern Europe are not the same in head form as were the predominantly long-headed Scythians, and Sacae.
   It is undeniable, from an anthropologist's point of view, that British and Germans belong to opposite European types. The explanation is easy. With the exodus of the Franks to France and the Anglo-Saxons to Britain in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries of our era, Germany was almost denuded of her long-headed elements in her population... When the Franks and the Anglo-Saxons were moving into France and England the great area now covered by the German Empire had been invaded from the east — from the regions now occupied by Russians, Poles, and Czechs — by swarms of people with flat occiputs and round heads — men of the Hindenburg type. History relates that by the end of the sixth century this type had overrun all the area of modern Germany, except the lands along the western shores (ibid., p.720).
   All history shows the general trend has been that N.W. European long-headed peoples have continually advanced westward from the area of the Caucasus, and have invariably been succeeded by the broad-headed Alpine types who were continually pressing them from the East. These "Nordics" have also been pressed northward by the Mediterraneans of South Europe; or to put it more accurately the Nordics have made many incursions into the Mediterranean lands, but have never effected any permanent settlements there. Another interesting fact worth noting is the aptitude of the dolichocephals (longheads) for the sea, and the absence of this sea-faring proclivity among the brachycephals.
   Yet there can be no doubt that certain aptitudes do belong to certain races and breed true from generation to generation. The flat occiput has never shown any aptitude for the sea. All the races which have commanded the sea — the Portuguese, Spaniards, Dutch, Norwegians and British — have long heads with prominent occiputs. It is remarkable that even at the present day the German navy recruits its crews from the western shores, where a long-headed element still manages to survive (ibid., p. 720)
   Ripley says that the ancient peoples who commanded the seas — Phoenicians, Greeks, and others were also of the long-headed type (Races of Europe, p. 387).
   The modern-day Ossetes, are racially speaking almost identical with present day Germans. Many of their customs, manners, their physical appearance and other things prove this beyond question. Many writers have held this opinion.
   ... a small and decreasing minority of blond traits among the Ossetes, a tribe whose Aryan speech is related to that of the Armenians, and who while mainly brachycephalic [broad-headed] still retain some blond and dolichocephalic [long-headed] elements which apparently are fading fast (Grant, The Passing of the Great Race, p. 66)
   Notice, the Ossetes, who are close relatives of the German people, are also primarily a brachycephalic or a broad-headed type of people, even though they include certain minor elements of long-headedness, just as does modern Germany.
   Later, we shall notice that the Sarmatians were a broad-headed people, and they are the ancestors of many of the Germans and Slavs.
   Notice, Grant shows that the true Alpine type of skull is almost totally absent in Britain.
   "In the study of European populations the great and fundamental fact about the British Isles is the almost total absence there today of true Alpine round skulls" (ibid., p. 137).
   What is the average cephalic index in England?
   "The cephalic index in England is rather low, about 78 (ibid., p. 137).


   In fact, from the time of "the 30 year's war" the purely Teutonic race in Germany has been largely replaced by the Alpine types in the south and by the Wendish and Polish types in the east. This change of race in Germany has gone so far that it has been computed that out of 70,000,000 inhabitants of the German Empire, only 9,000,000 are purely Teutonic in coloration, stature, and skull characters (Grant, The Passing of the Great Race, p. 185).
   It is indisputable from both history and personal observation that the dominant type of German is today that of the "Alpine" variety.
   There formerly lived in Germany certain Keltic and Scythic tribes who were not Alpines, but very few of these remained in Germany. Most of them settled in the coastlands of North-west Europe, or else in the British Isles. We shall see more corroborative proof of this later.
   The eastern half of Germany has a Slavic Alpine substratum which represents the descendants of the Wends, who first appear about the commencement of the Christian era and who by the sixth century had penetrated as far west as the Elbe, occupying the lands left vacant by the Teutonic tribes which had migrated southward (ibid., p. 72).
   One of the reasons why many fail to differentiate between the true or proper Germans and the peoples who passed through "Germania" and who were consequently called "Germani," is that the ancient historians did not make a distinction between the socalled, and the real Germans.


   Notice that Tacitus failed to draw a clear line of demarcation between the true Germans, as we think of them today, and those who were Germans in name only. Huxley and Haddon make the following interesting remarks regarding Tacitus' comments on the "Germani."
   Fourthly, he [Tacitus] makes no distinction between the inhabitants of Gaul and the tribes east of the Rhine. Both are for him "Germani"... Fifthly, the tribes that he describes were all or most of them driven across the Rhine by later westward movements of peoples to the east of them. Thus they cannot be the ancestors of the modern Germans (We Europeans, p. 34).
   Fleure also says that "the dominant broad-headedness of the Alpine" race has been spread over most of modern Germany. He shows that the broad-headedness has permeated from the South toward the North of Germany. He mentions that this has occurred in ancient as well as in modern times (Fleure, The Peoples of Europe, p. 42).
   Huxley and Haddon mention that, "In the Germans there is a very large Eurasiatic element which includes the Slavonic, and genes from the Mongoloid peoples have crept in via Russia" (We Europeans, p. 278).
   Dr. Guest says that certain of the Germanic tribes were called Kelts (Origines Celticae, p. 27, 37), but we have, however, already seen that some Kelts had formerly lived east of the Rhine. They were very red haired and were totally different from the typical present-day Germans. Dr. Guest mentions that the Keltic Belgae were sprung from the "Germans" (ibid., p. 390). He further states:
   It would appear, then, that as early as the third century B.C. there were certain races called Germani settled north of the Alps and in the upper district drained by the Saone... These Germani were undoubtedly Celts. In the first century after Christ there were also Germani in Spain, and there can be little doubt, that they were descended from the [Keltic] Cimbri who invaded the Peninsula in the second century B.C. (ibid., p.392).
   Again we read of certain people called "Germani" who were of Cimbric descent. Dr. Guest was of the definite conviction "these Germani were undoubtedly Celts." There can be no question that the Cimbri were a Celtic people. This shows that there were certain peoples who were called Germani, (meaning war men), who were settled not only east of the Rhine, but even in Spain.
   One can easily see this word "German" was anciently applied to many different peoples whose modern descendants are not (in most instances) closely related to the present day proper Germans.
   Dr. Dinan, says there was a Celtic tribe who were called "Germara" (Monumenta Historica Celticae, p. 81).
   Coon says, "The excessive brachycephalization which swept over central Europe in the Middle Ages, affecting especially southern Germany and Bohemia, followed the same pattern as the stature change" (The Races of Europe, Vol. I, p. 10). He again mentions the "South German Brachycephaly" (ibid., p. 538).
   This broad-headed element crept into Germany both during and since the Middle Ages.


   "The Germans were a branch of the great Indo-Germanic race, who, along with the Celts, migrated into Europe from the CAUSASUS and the countries around the Black and Caspian Seas" (Smith, A Smaller Classical Dictionary, p. 231).
   Notice carefully that the Germans were a branch of the different peoples who migrated "along with the Celts" into Europe from the Caucasus regions in the vicinity of the Black and Caspian Seas — the very area of Israel's captivity! Remember, Israel had been taken to ASSYRIA!
   It is beyond the scope of this chapter to prove that the present-day Germanic peoples are at least in great part descended from the ancient peoples of Assyria. There is, however, much historical material which clearly proves that many of the present-day Germanic peoples were included in the great horde of people called by the name of "Sarmatians."
   In regard of the Alpine broad-headedness which is today found in most of Germany, Professor Ripley says:
   Northwestern Germany — Hanover, Schleswig-Holstein, Westphalia-is distinctly allied to the physical type of the Swedes, Norwegians, and Danes. All the remainder of the Empire — no, not even excluding Prussia, east of the Elbe — is less Teutonic in type, until finally in the essentially Alpine broadheaded populations of Baden, Wurttemberg, and Bavaria in the south, the Teutonic race passes from view (The Races of Europe, p. 214).
   According to Ripley, the people of North-western Germany are related in physical type to the Scandinavian.
   Let us notice another statement showing that the English are dolichocephalic, in sharp contrast to the typical broad-headedness of the German.
   The most remarkable trait of the population of the British Isles is its head form; and especially the uniformity in this respect which is everywhere manifested. The prevailing type is that of the long and narrow cranium, accompanied by an oval rather than broad or round face (ibid., p. 303).
   He then mentions that the average cephalic indexes in the British Isles lie between 77 and 79.
   What is the meaning of the word "German?" According to Kephart, the word "German" means "warrior" (Races of Mankind, p. 380).


   Here is a very significant excerpt from The Encyclopedia Britannica:
   Of the Gaulish tribes west of the Rhine, the most important was the Treveri... the Treveri claimed to be of German origin, and the same claim was made by a number of tribes in Belgium, the most powerful of which were the Nervii. The meaning of this claim is not quite clear, as there is some obscurity concerning the origin of the name Germani. It appears to be a Gaulish term, and there is NO EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS EVER USED BY THE GERMANS THEMSELVES. According to Tacitus it was first applied to the Tungri, whereas Caesar records that four Belgic tribes, namely the Condrusi, Eburones, Caeraesi, and Paemani, were collectively known as Germani. There is no doubt that these tribes were all linguistically Celtic, and it is now the prevailing opinion that they were not of German Origin ethnologically, but that the ground for their claim was that they had come from over the Rhine (Caesar De Bello Callico ii 4). It would therefore seem that the name Germani originally denoted certain Celtic tribes to the east of the Rhine (11th ed., Art. Germany, p. 830).
   Notice the following points which were just mentioned. The origin of "GERMANI" is uncertain, but it is apparently a "Gaulish term." This name "Germani" was anciently not used by the Germans themselves. Julius Caesar records the name of four "Belgic tribes who were collectively known as Germani" in his time. Did you notice that the language of these tribes was Celtic. This article then shows that "it is now the prevailing opinion" that these Belgic tribes "were not of German origin ethnologically."
   These and many other historical sources have proven that it is wrong to speak of the bulk of the present-day Germans as close relatives to the British, the Scandinavians and related peoples. The true Germans were not Celts.
   This same article then explains that in Caesar's time the Menapii, a Gaulish tribe, lived east of the Rhine. It also says that a Celtic tribe, called Boii, was expelled from Bohemia (ibid., p. 830).
   Augustus Caesar mentions a number of Gaulish tribes living east of the Rhine, "There is therefore great probability that a large part of Western Germany east of the Rhine had formerly been occupied by Celtic peoples" (ibid., p. 830). We are told that the Volcae in the south of France and the Tectosages of Galatia were off-shoots of this people (ibid., p. 830).
   The first Teutonic peoples whom the Romans are said to have encountered are the Cimbri and the Teutoni, probably from Denmark, who invaded Illyria, Gaul and Italy towards the end of the 2nd century B.C. When Caesar arrived in Gaul the westernmost part of what is now Germany was in the possession of Gaulish tribes. The Rhine practically formed the boundary between Gauls and Germans, though one Gaulish tribe, the Menapii, is said to have been living beyond the Rhine at its mouth. (ibid., p, 831).
   Bear in mind that the Kelts and the Gauls were different in race from the present-day proper Germans.
   Mallet informs us that the Germans and Gauls were two distinct people" (Northern Antiquities, p. 7).
   It is true, the Gauls and ancient Germans resembled each other in complexion, and perhaps in some other respects, as might be expected from their living under the same climate, and nearly in the same manner — yet that they differed sufficiently in their persons, appears from Tacitus, who says that the inhabitants of Caledonia resembled the Germans in features, whereas the Silures were rather like the Spaniards, as the inhabitants of South Britain bore a great resemblance to the Gauls (ibid., p. 9).
   It is hoped that the numerous reference cited will give the reader a sufficient knowledge of the "Germani" to enable him to see that many peoples in North-west Europe are today spoken of as though they were of "German" or "Teutonic" descent who are quite different ethnologically from the true Germans who now inhabit Central Europe.
   We have observed that the name "Germani" was never applied by the Germans to themselves, but was first used by Gaulish (Keltic) tribes. Also we have seen clearly pointed out that many different peoples once inhabited territories in "Germania" and were, therefore, called Germans, who are not proper Germans as we think of them today.


   Robert Graves makes an interesting comment:
   Arianrhod's giving of arms to her son is common Celtic form; that women had this prerogative is mentioned by Tacitus in his work of the Germans — the Germany of his day being Celtic Germany, not yet invaded by the patriarchal square-heads whom we call Germans nowadays (The White Goddess, p. 318).
   This statement that "Celtic Germany" in the time of Tacitus had not as yet been invaded by the "Patriarchal square-heads whom we call Germans nowadays" shows that Germany was once inhabited by a Celtic population, which has long ago been supplanted by the Alpine brachycephals.
   Here is one final quotation on the subject of the "Germani" from Huxley and Haddon:
   "Fifthly, the Keltic tribes that he (Tacitus) describes were all or most of them driven across the Rhine by later western movements of peoples to the east of them. Thus they cannot be the ancestors of the modern Germans" (We Europeans, p. 34).
   They conclude:
   Hence their physique, despite their vast numbers, is identical: fierce blue eyes, red hair (rutilae comae), tall frames... Historical and archeological investigation, however, has failed to support Tacitus. It may be noted that red hair is rare among modern Germans, save among those of Jewish origin (ibid., p. 36).
   One must continually bear in mind that many peoples (especially certain non- Germanic Kelts, Gauls, Belgae and Scythians) have been called Germans who are not proper or true Germans as this term is used today.
   If one does not continually bear this in mind when studying the ancient histories mentioning the various "German" tribes, he will never be able to properly understand the racial connections between all of the various people who have, at one time or another been called "Germans."


   We have considered the backgrounds of most of the peoples of North-west Europe. It has been pointed out that, generally speaking, all of these peoples were related to one another.
   Here are some of the names which these bore when they arrived in Europe: (1) Cimmerians, Cymri, and Cimbri. (2) Kelts, Gauls, and Gaels. (3) Scythians, Teutons, and Goths. (4) Angles and Saxons. (5) Tuatha de Danaan, Danes, etc. (6) Other names such as Belgians, Fir-Bolgs, etc. have been considered.
   It has been proven that many of the early Germans were of Celtic or Cimbric origin and were not therefore closely related to the proper Germans of today.
   We have also seen clearly demonstrated that all of the afore-mentioned peoples are related, and are all from the great Scythian people or nation.
   What is the origin of the peoples of Scandinavia? Did they also come from Scythia as the other North-west Europeans whom we have previously considered?
   We shall but briefly consider Scandinavian history, but we shall examine it thoroughly enough to show that these Scandinavians were merely another branch of the Scythian peoples.
   The following quotation supports the belief that Denmark, one of the countries of Scandinavia, was of Scythian origin:
   It is very probable, that the first Danes, were like all the other Teutonic nations a colony of Scythians, who spread themselves at different times over the countries which lay towards the west. The resemblance of names might induce us to believe that it was from among the Cimmerian Scythians (whom the ancients placed to the north of the Euxine Sea) that the first colonies were sent into Denmark; and that from this people they inherited the name of Cimbri, which they bore so long before they assumed that of Danes (Mallet, Northern Antiquities, p. 60).
   All Scandinavian literature records the acts of a celebrated person by the name of ODIN. The traditions and chronicles of all the northern nations inform us that this extraordinary person formerly reigned in the north. He made great changes in the government, manners and religion of all of those northern countries.


   His [Odin's] true name was sigge son of Frieulph; but he assumed that of Odin, who was the Supreme God among the Teutonic nations: either in order to pass among his followers for a man inspired by the Gods, or because he was chief priest, and presided over the worship paid to the deity (ibid., p. 79, 80).
   From what country did Odin and his people come? Odin and his followers, the Aesir, were from a country which was situated between the Pontus Euxinus (Black Sea), and the Caspian Sea (ibid., pp. 79, 80). The principal city of this former country was Asgard. Odin united the youth of the neighboring nations and marched towards the north and west of Europe, subjugating all the people he found in his passage, and giving them to one or the other of his sons to govern. Many regal families of the north are said to be descended from these princes. Thus Hengist and Horsa and the other Anglo-Saxon chiefs, who conquered Britain in the fifth century, considered Odin, or Wodin as their illustrious ancestor. This word Odin signified, as seen above, the Supreme God of the Teutonic nations.
   A number of points in the foregoing quotation need to be emphasized. Firstly, it was mentioned that Odin and his followers came from a territory between the Black and Caspian Seas. Remember, this is in the general vicinity to which the Ten-Tribed House of Israel had been deported. Secondly, notice that the Anglo-Saxon British princes, Horsa and Hengist, were descendants of Odin. In a later chapter, we shall see historical proof that the Anglo-Saxons were the descendants of Sceaf or Shem. Odin must have been a descendant of Shem likewise since he was the ancestor of so many of the Anglo-Saxon kings!
   After having conquered many territories between the Black and the Baltic Seas, Odin directed his final energies in subduing all of Scandinavia, "After having disposed of so many countries, and confirmed and settled his new governments, Odin directed his course towards Scandinavia, passing through Cimbria, at present Holstein and Jutland" (ibid., p. 80).
   He then subdued the rest of Denmark and Sweden. He extended his conquests over all the north, and governed all of this territory with absolute dominion. He enacted new laws, and introduced the customs of his own country, and established at Sigtuna (not far from Stockholm) a supreme council or tribunal, composed of twelve judges or pontiffs. All of the petty kings among whom Sweden was then divided were quick to acknowledge him as a sovereign and a god. He levied a poll-tax or impost upon every person through the whole country.
   "The desire for extending farther his religion, his authority and his glory, caused him to undertake the conquest of Norway." (ibid., pp. 81, 82). He had great success in his campaigns against Norway and this kingdom quickly obeyed a son of Odin name Saeming. We are told that Odin was "the most persuasive" of men.
   After subduing the whole of Scandinavia, Odin retired into Sweden where he assembled his friends and companions and gave himself a mortal wound which resulted in his death. This suicidal act was brought about by a lingering disease which had overtaken him. He had bravely hazarded his life on the battlefield countless times, and could not bare the thought of falling victim to disease.
   What had fired Odin with this unquenchable ambition to conquer such a vast territory?
   Driven from his country by those enemies [the Romans] of universal liberty; his resentment, say they, was so much the more violent, as the Teutonic tribes esteemed it a sacred duty to avenge all injuries, especially those offered to their relations and country. (ibid., pp. 82, 83).
   Odin's chief aim was to stir up the Northmen of Scandinavia so that Rome's injustices could be avenged.
   It was these hardy northern barbarians (if we may call them that) who later did more than any other people to overrun the Roman Empire and lay it in the dust.
   The men of the North who settled and conquered part of Gaul and Britain, whose might the power of Rome could not destroy, and whose depredations it could not prevent, were not savages; the Romans did not dare attack these men at home with their fleet or with their armies. Nay, they even had allowed these northmen to settle peacefully in their provinces of Gaul and Britain (du Chaillu, The Viking Age, Vol. I. p. 3).
   The above statement shows that even Rome knew that these Northmen were powerful enough to prevent her assault on their homeland. Were these men of the north savages or barbarians in the true sense of the word?
   Know, the people who were then spread over a great part of the present Russia, who overran Germania, who knew the art of writing, who led their conquering hosts to Spain, into the Mediterranean, to Italy, Sicily, Greece, the Black Sea, Palestine, Africa, and even across the broad Atlantic to America, who were undisputed masters of the sea for more than twelve centuries, were not barbarians (ibid).
   Du Chaillu mentions that the facts show both Britain and Gaul were conquered by the Romans and later by the Northmen. It is also interesting to see that these Northmen had come from Southern Russia, had advanced to the Baltic, and finally to Scandinavia.
   The manly civilization the Northmen possessed was their own; from their records, corroborated by finds in Southern Russia, it seems to have advanced north from about the shores of the Black Sea... (ibid., p. 4).
   We have noted earlier that many (if not most) of the Franks who settled in France were of Celtic, Cimbric or Scythian Origin. They were a totally different people from the Germanic Franks who remained east of the Rhine. The Anglo-Saxons were also a different type from the Old Saxons who remained in Saxony.
   Many of the Northern tribes swarmed into England under such names as Angles, Saxons, Danes, Vikings, etc.
   A few years after the time fixed as that of their first supposed appearance we find these very Danes swarming everywhere with their fleets and warriors, not only in England, but in Gaul, in Brittany, up the Seine, the Garonne, the Rhine, the Elbe, on the coasts of Spain, and further eastward in the Mediterranean (ibid., p. 21).
   The Swedes as well as the Danes were called Northmen, as were also the people of Norway: "The Sueones, or Swedes, reappear at the close of the eighth and commencement of the ninth centuries by the side of the Danes, and both call themselves Northmen" (ibid.).
   We have earlier noted, according to Mallet, that the people of the North came from the regions of the Black and Caspian Seas — the general vicinity to which Israel was first deported. Now let us notice that such an origin is also corroborated by du Chaillu:
   The mythological literature of the North bears evidence of a belief prevalent among the people, that their ancestors migrated at a remote period from the shores of the Black Sea, "through South-western Russia to the Baltic. This belief seems to be supported by a variety of evidence" (du Chaillu, The Viking Age, Vol. I, pp. 25, 26).
   Du Chaillu then mentions that archaeological data in the graves in the neighborhood of the Black Sea contain similar material to Frankish, Russian, English, and Arabic records, showing that the Viking Age must have lasted from about the second century to about the middle of the twelfth century A.D.
   In The Viking Age, is also given an account of the life of Odin. He is called "the predecessor of the Norsemen" and is supposed to have come from the south or southeast of Europe, from the shores of the Black Sea. He, as we have already noted, extended his sovereignty over all of the North.
   Some have asked if Odin was a real man, or a mythological figure, or was he a god?
   Putting all the historical evidence together, there must have been a real person by the name of Odin, or according to some historical sources, he assumed this name Odin as a title to inspire fear, reverence, and loyalty in his subjects.


   What is the origin of this word "Odin"?
   "Adon is one of the three titles (Adon, Adonai, Adonim), all generally rendered Lord; but each has its own peculiar usage and association. They all denote headship in various aspects. They have to do with God as over-lord" (Bullinger, The Companion Bible, app. IV). Dr. Bullinger then proceeds to give a more lengthy explanation of these three words as found in the Hebrew.
   One of the names of God in the Hebrew language is "Adon." This word is usually translated as "Lord" in the authorized version.
   Since the people of Scandinavia are today known to be some of the descendants of the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel, need we be amazed if we find this name of God still being used by the cast-off people of God? Remember in the Hebrew language all of the words were written with the consonants only. The vowels were added or supplied by the reader. Thus we see that the basic sound of the word "Adon" and "Odin" is exactly the same. The vowels could be varied considerably and still not change the meaning or the basic sound of this word.
   There must have existed, then, a real personage by the name of Odin, who assumed the name of Odin in order to secure the awe, respect, and obedience of his followers.


   In this chapter on Scandinavia, it is fitting that we briefly consider the Goths. Who were the Goths, and what was their origin?
   Many historians equate the Goths with the Getae. In a later chapter we shall see that the Getae (and their various branches) were of Scythian origin.
   Goths, a Germanic people whose original homeland may have been in Scandinavia. At the beginning of the Christian era, however, the Goths were living on the south shore of the Baltic just east of the Vistula River. Subsequently they moved southward to the Black Sea area where in the third century A.D. they held territory stretching from the mouth of the Danube to the Dnieper (Ency. Brit., 1960 ed, Vol. XIII, art. Goths).
   In A.D. 272 the Emperor Aurelian surrendered to the Goths the whole of Dacia. It was about this same time that the Goths were divided into two divisions — the Ostrogoths or East Goths, and the Visigoths or West Goths. The Visigoths remained for some time north of the Danube, but under Alaric they invaded Italy and plundered Rome in A.D. 410. Not long afterward they settled permanently in Southwest Gaul, and founded a kingdom of which Tolosa was its capital. From this kingdom which they had established in South-west Gaul, they invaded Spain and founded a kingdom in that country which lasted for over two centuries, until it was overthrown by the Arabs.
   The Ostrogoths settled in Moesia and Pannonia; but they later extended their dominions very nearly to the gates of Constantinople. Under their king, Theodoric the Great, they occupied the whole of Italy in A.D. 493. See A Smaller Classical Dictionary for a brief resume of the history of the Goths.
   Turner says: "That the Getae were Goths cannot be doubted" (History of the Anglo- Saxons, Vol. I, p. 95).
   The Goths were also called Scythians: "In the war which followed, the Goths, whom the historians would with characteristic pedantry, call Scythians, used boats to harry the coast not merely of the Euxine..." (Minns, Scythians and Greeks, p. 126).
   Professor Coon asserts that the Goths were from Sweden. "The Goths claimed to have crossed the Baltic from Sweden (not from the island of Gotland) to the mouth of the Vistula. The Vandals and the Gepidae presumably had the same origin" (The Races of Europe, p. 205). Some of these Goths, according to Coon, established "an important kingdom on the north shore of the Black Sea."


   What were the characteristics of the Goths?
   A series of Goths from the Chersonese north of the Black Sea, dated between 100 B.C. and 100 A.D. includes three male and eight female skeletons. All of these are long headed, and they belong to a large powerful Nordic type which reflects their Swedish origin..." (ibid., p. 206).
   He then points out: "The same conclusion results when one examines the Visigothic skulls from northern Spain which date from the sixth century A.D." (ibid.).
   Many historical sources can be produced showing that different peoples in the British Isles as well as in Scandinavia were called Teutons and Goths.
   It would appear that many (if not most) of the Goths were not, racially speaking, true Germans as we think of them today, but were more "Nordic" in type than are most Germans. It is indisputable that the Goths were certainly not of the Alpine or "Slavic" type of the German stock.
   It thus becomes clear that the Scandinavian peoples had their origin in the vicinity of the Black and Caspian Seas — the very place where we find the dispersed people of Israel living shortly after their final captivity of 721 B.C. They must have lived in this area for at least a few centuries before migrating into the countries of present-day Scandinavia.
   We have previously noticed that the modern typical German is not of the same general racial type as the Scandinavian and British peoples, but there is great resemblance between these latter peoples (Keith, The Graphic, Dec. 1915, Are we Cousins to the Germans, p. 720).
   Some of the North Germans are closely allied to the Danes, Dutch and other Northwestern Europeans. The exact racial affinity of the northern Germanic type to certain other Nordics of North-west Europe yet remains to be clearly demonstrated. But many North Germans have mixed to some extent with their neighbors, thus producing a people closely related to the racial type of Scandinavia, the British Isles, and the Low Countries.
   Now that we have learned to differentiate between the original Keltio-Scythian "Germans" and the present day "Alpine" and "Slavic" Germans, we are better able to understand the racial connections of the different waves of peoples who have passed through (and temporarily inhabited) parts of Germany at one time or another!
   With this knowledge kept firmly in mind we need never confuse the "Nordic" Northwestern type Europeans with the Latin, Alpine or Slavic types!

Previous      Chapter V      Next
Publication Date: May 1963
Back To Top