EARLY HEBREW COLONIES IN THE BRITISH ISLES BLAZING THE TRAIL FOR WESTWARD-BOUND ISRAEL
THE EXISTENCE and movements of the main body of the Hebrews have almost invariably tended to be overlooked by Bible students, who naturally have focused their attention more particularly on the history of the Israelites, though these were originally quite a small section of the Hebrew peoples. It is nevertheless most essential that the migrations of the parent stock of the Israelites should be kept in mind if the Bible record of race origins and movements is, to be reconciled with the researches of modern ethnologists.
In the present article first-class evidence is submitted to show that some of the Hebrews moved westwards from Bible lands via the Mediterranean and Atlantic coastlands, to reach the British Isles as colonists about or not long after 2000 B.C. Irrefutable testimony of migrations from Palestine, Jordan and Sinai to these shores is found in the trail of stone monuments – menhirs, dolmens, stone circles, etc. – which marks an unmistakable path between these widely separated points.
There is good reason to believe that the religion of the British Druids, in its original form, resembled closely the patrirachal worship of Abraham and the earliest descendants of Shem who under various names played a notable part in the advancement of ancient civilisation.
The migration to Britain of these early Hebrew colonists blazed the trail for later waves of immigrant kinsfolk and laid a foundation for the virile community which was destined ultimately to develop into the unique group of English-speaking peoples which has done so much for the civilisation of modern times.
LOOSE TERMINOLOGY
A correct understanding of the movements of peoples in and from Bible lands has, until the present century, been almost impossible owing to the fact that the terms used to describe those peoples have been so ambiguous and so carelessly and indiscriminately applied as to render it highly difficult to follow their movements. In particular the consistent misuse of the term Semite has thrown investigators off the track. Until quite recently it has been generally considered that this was a racial term, involving a conglomeration of ‘Arab’ peoples with hooked noses. It is now realised that the so-called Semitic nations comprised elements of several races whose languages were related; just as the term Indo-European denotes a group of peoples, in different ethnic categories, whose languages have a common base – the so-called ‘Aryan’.
The terms Phoenician, Amorite , Hittite and Hebrew have been equally sadly misused. A brief glossary of these terms in their Correct usage may be useful.
PHOENICIAN. An ancient Greek term, used to describe peoples who dwelt, and who had dwelt, in Palestine, Syria and Asia Minor during the first two millennia B.C. These people included Canaanites, Hebrews and Israelites, the last-named having, of course, derived from the Hebrews.
Racially, the so-called Phoenicians embraced both Nordic and Mediteranean elements. Linguistically they have been divided into Semitic and Indo-European groups. Some of the Semites were Nordics whilst the Indo-Europeans were probably not all Nordic.
SEMITES. Peoples of several racial types whose habitat was the Bible lands in general Palestine, Syria, Arabia – and who spoke related languages called Semitic. It is worthy of note that there are authorities who now feel that these Semitic languages were actually evolved by ‘Aryan’ peoples who had sojourned in Sumeria possibly as early as the fourth millennium B.C.
AMORITES. (a) An indigenous Canaanite people residing in Palestine at and before the period of the Exodus.
(b) A Semitic-speaking people, now shown to have been Nordics, and close kinsmen of the Habiru who had moved from the Tigris-Euphrates area, about 2000 B.C. to Amurru – the land of the West (Palestine).
HITTITES. (a) Hatti – stated by Weill to be pre-Indo European, indigenous peoples of Asianic stock. Their Armenoid physiognomy is reflected in modern Levantine peoples, and is often erroneously referred to as ‘Jewish’.
(b) Archaeological research into the great ‘Hittite’ civilisation which centred on Boghaz Keui, in Asia Minor, has revealed that an Indo-European aristocracy had, long before the Israelites entered their Promised Land, imposed its culture upon the native Hatti (who possibly were the same people as those Hittites whom the Bible calls ‘children of Heth’).
The Indo-Europeans spoke a totally different language (Nesite) from that of the indigenous Hittites. Waddell is quite positive that the Indo-European section of the Hittites (whom he names ‘Catti’) was of the Nordic race and this view is held by other modern authorities.
HEBREWS. According to Scripture, the Hebrews were the descendants of Eber, great-grandson of Shem. (The terms Semite and Shemite are by no means synonymous for instance, the Canaanites, who mostly were descendants of Ham, have been classified as ‘Semites’). Thus the Hebrews were only a portion of the great Shemite race. Their original language is now the subject of some controversy. Though most authorities hold that they spoke a language now called Semitic, some scholars have expressed the view that their parent tongue was related to the lndo-European. The Habiru of secular record have been positively identified with the Hebrews of the Bible.
THE LANGUAGE PROBLEM
It cannot be too strongly emphasised that similarity of language is not a proof of racial kinship. Conversely, because peoples now speak different languages it does not by any means follow that they are necessarily of different ethnic types. There are many examples of this. For instance, the coloured people of the U.S.A. lost their own languages within a few score years of leaving their native lands. Though they now speak English, they are not racially akin to the Celto-Saxons and though they would not now be able to converse with their long lost kinsmen in Africa and elsewhere, they are still Negroid in the ethnological sense.
On the other hand, similarity of language is proof positive of contact between races, and may therefore be used to support acceptable evidence of racial affinity.
WHEN EXPERTS DIFFER
It must be stressed most positively that there is great divergence of view among the authorities who have written about the migrations of ancient man. It is probably true to say that no two of them agree on all points. On some fundamental matters the opinions of authorities with the highest credentials are diametrically opposed, and frequently they are highly critical of each other. When experts disagree it is the layman’s privilege to accept the opinions which support his case and, where Scripture is involved, the Bible-lover is entitled to quote the evidence of the authorities whose views align themselves with the Bible record.
THE CRADLE OF CIVILISATION
There are divergent schools of thought as to the place of origin of civilisation as we know it. A considerable section of modern scholarship has concluded that civilisation first arose in the Tigris-Euphrates basin. A second school is of the opinion that it was on the banks of the Nile that culture commenced. A third theory is that the ‘civilising’ element of mankind spread from an original homeland in the more northerly parts of the ancient world – eastern Europe or Western Asia.
Tradition comes down generally on the side of those authorities whose researches have led them to hold that civilisation arose in the Tigris-Euphrates basin, and Christians have gladly availed themselves of their testimony, although they have readily agreed that civilisation spread almost immediately to the Nile valley, where it progressed on lines somewhat similar to that of Sumeria. Those who hold that the ‘civilisers’ originated in the north would seem to have more difficulties to explain away than their opponents. In reviewing this matter, however, it must be borne in mind that the Bible itself is by no means explicit in defining the lands in which Noah and his descendants first settled. The Ark came to rest on ‘the mountains of Ararat’ (creation). This locality may have been in fairly close proximity to Sumeria. On the other hand, it may have been at a distance from Bible lands. The record says that some of Noah’s descendants journeyed from the East (margin: or eastwards) and came to the land of Shinar, this having from ancient times been identified as Babylonia. On the other hand, some traditions have associated Mount Ararat, in Armenia, with the Ark’s resting place. Thus the georgraphical terms mentioned in the 10th chapter of Genesis should be construed in the light of positive evidence only and not identified with a particular area merely on long-held traditional beliefs. There are many who feel that the Adamic world lay far to the east and that the first settlements of the families of Noah were made in the vast area between there and the Caspian Sea, where their cities may still lie buried. This view would not necessarily be unscriptural.
Whether or not the ‘civilisers’ originated in the northern lands, lndo-European migrants undoubtedly left a northern habitat and broke in at a very early period (c. 2000 B.C.) not only on the so-called ‘Semites’ of Bible countries, but also on the indigenous peoples of Asia Minor, Crete, and the Aegean. These invaders were the Indo-Europeans. Their period of residence in northern homes (doubtless of centuries) had produced a virile and dominant group, speaking languages which had a common ‘Aryan’ base, which, according to Waddell derived originally from Sumeria. They appear to have had little difficulty in subduing the southern peoples and imposing their own culture. The most advanced of these invaders were those of the Nordic section. Under various names (Hatti or Khatti, Mitanni, Kassites, Achaeans, Dorians, Amorites, Habiru) they had founded empires in Sumeria, Asia Minor and the Aegean before Abraham left Ur. It is considered by some authorities that the Hyksos or ‘Shepherd Kings’ (who dominated Egypt during a period ending in c. 1830 B.C.) were the rulers of a section of these same irresistible Indo-Europeans, who had overthrown (for a time at least) the might of Egypt.
