The first born son of Shem is Elam. We have discussed his relationship with Japheth’s son Madai and his identity as the people of Turkey in Chapter IV Central Asia – Madai & the Medes. The impact of Turkey’s influence and culture on the peoples that live adjacent is palpable in names and language, particularly on the Central Asian Republics descended from Madai.
The Elamites were known as Persians and in the Bible, it is Elam that is being referred to and not the Persians of the nation of Iran which dwells in the region today. We have learned in the preceding chapter that Iran is Lud and Lud is associated closely with Phut, Cush and Persia in the Bible. The nations of Pakistan, India and Turkey today. The regional powers of Lud and Elam, Iran and Turkey have crossed swords. They are both descended from Shem and due to their location, have similarly intermingled with other people’s – from the Middle East for Iran and Central Asia for Turkey – to produce a complex ethnicity as shown by their Haplogroups.
Iran with a son of Mizra from Ham and Turkey with the sons of Madai, a son from Japheth. Of the five sons of Shem, Elam and Lud are the closest genetically and so it is not a surprise that they should dwell in close proximity and thus share the same Islamic faith, having one foot in two different worlds, geographically and philosophically.
Dr Hoeh continues in his 1957 article – capitalisation his, emphasis & bold mine:
‘Elam was a son of Shem (Genesis 10:22). Elam settled east of the ancient city of Babylon. Daniel the prophet spent some time in Elam (Daniel 8:2). The Elamites named the most famous mountain in their land Elwend (Rawlinson’s SEVEN GREAT MONARCHIES, chapter 1. Media). No wonder the Elamites were called the “Wends” in Europe.
Elam early invaded the Palestinian Coast of the Mediterranian (Genesis 14:1). There they named a river Elwend – the Greeks called it the Orontes. Some of them migrated into Asia Minor where they were named the people of Pul (Isaiah 66:19). From the word “Pul” comes P-o-land – the land of Pol or Pul! From Asia Minor they migrated into South Russia, then into Eastern Europe. Another tribe in ancient Elam was called KASHU (ENCYCLOPAEDIA BIBLICA, map. page 4845) In Poland we find the Kashub living today! (ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITTANICA “Kashubes.”) The Greeks in ancient times said that the Elimaei dwelled northwest of them – in what is Southern Yugoslavia today (SMITH’s CLASSICAL DICTIONARY “Elimea”).
The word Elimaei was also used by the Greeks to refer to the ancient land of “Elam” near Babylon. The Latins called the Elamites or Wends “Eneti”. Strabo, the Roman geographer wrote about the migration “of Enetians from Paphlagonia in Asia Minor TO THE ADRIATIC” – modern Yugoslavia! (GEOGRAPHY OF STRABO, page 227). Surely there is no mistaking where Elam is today.
… ”Siberia!” The same word was used to refer to a part of ancient Elam, and today we have the Serbians in Yugoslavia – part of the land of Elam today! In Bible times Elam was divided between East and West, that is, between Media and Babylon. The same is true today! The Elamites are divided between East and West – between Western Europe and the Russian Iron Curtain [refer Chapter XXIV Arphaxad & Joktan: Balts, Slavs & the Balkans].’
The former Yugoslavia and Poland do descend from Shem, though not from Elam. Pul is not a mistranslation for Phut, nor does it refer to Poland, but rather a King of Assyria as already touched upon.
Israel a History of – emphasis & bold mine:
‘The first of Shem’s sons listed is Elam. The Elamites are recurrent throughout Scripture, and many monuments attest to their prominence in the region. Genesis 14 describes a confederation of Kings that waged war in Canaan during the times of Abram.
One of the leaders of this alliance was Chedorlaomer, King of Elam. The Elamites capital city was Susa, or Shushan. This archaic city was located east of Mesopotamia. The Noahic Prophecy of Japheth dwelling in the tents of Shem is fulfilled through the Elamites. They later merged with other peoples, namely the Medes. The Medes were descended from Madai, a son of Japheth. These two peoples joined forces to form the Persian Empire. Thus, the descendants from two of the sons of Noah, Shem and Japheth, joined together to form one of antiquity’s most powerful empires.’
The meaning of Elam in Hebrew is ‘hidden’, from the verb ‘alam ‘to be hidden.’
Abarim Publications – emphasis & bold mine:
- A region named Elam is first mentioned in the War of Four Against Five Kings, when Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, enters into an alliance with kings Amraphel, [Arioch] and Tidal to battle an alliance of five Canaanite kings (Genesis 14:1).
- The Persian province named Elam, or Elymais, mentioned by the prophets Jeremiah 49:36… and Isaiah (21:2). The author of Acts seems to distinguish between Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia [Sumer] (Acts 2:9), and Ezra equates the Elamites with the men of Susa (a Persian city – Ezra 4:9).
- The first mentioned person named Elam is a son of Shem… It’s assumed that the Biblical narrative identifies this Elam as the ancestor of the Persians.
- A gatekeeping Korahite (1 Chronicles 26:3).
- A Benjaminite (1 Chronicles 8:24).
- An Elam among the signers of the covenant (Nehemiah 10:14).
- Two heads of families that came back from exile, both named Elam (Ezra 2:7 and 2:31). One of these is possibly the same as the next:
- The father of Shecaniah, son of Jehiel, who confessed to Ezra that Israel’s marriage to local women was contrary to the stipulations of YHWH (Ezra 10:2).
- A priest present at the dedication of the Jerusalem wall (Nehemiah 12:42).
‘The verb (‘alam)… can be derived of any of the following: to be hidden or concealed and noun (ta’alumma) describes a hidden thing, but all this with an emphasis on a potential coming out rather than a hiding for, say, safety or mysteriousness. Noun (‘elem) describes a young man, (‘alma) a young woman, and (‘alumim) youth(s) in general, which appears to appeal to the still “hidden” potential of youth. Likewise the noun (olam), which means forever or everlasting, appears to refer to the potential of any present situation, which may realise when time is unlimited.
For the meaning of the name Elam, NOBSE Study Bible Name List reads Hidden, and Jones’ Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names reads Hidden Time, Eternity, but the name Elam means just as much Young Man or Always [Strong’s Concordance adds ‘distant.’]
Persia: from the verb (paras), to splitor divide.
The name Persia once belonged to a huge empire, and is today mostly used to refer to the geographical area in which the much smaller derivative state of Iran (… which was named after king Aryaman, who lived around the time of David in 1000 BC)is situated, as well as its culture, history and language (Farsi, from the same root as Persia, which is spoken in Iran, Afghanistan, Tajkistan and some other formerly Persian regions).
Cyrus descended from Achaemenes (born around 700 BC, or so the story goes) who had founded the Achaemenid dynasty of rulers of Persis (now Fars province of Iran; its ancient capital was called Parsa or Persepolis by the Greeks), and was named after his paternal grandfather Cyrus the First. Cyrus the Second’s maternal grandfather Astyages was a Median king and Cyrus may actually have spent his early childhood at the Median court.
For some obscure reason, the mean Median king Astyages went to war with his noble grandson Cyrus, who by that time had just ascended the modest and feudal throne of Persis. The ensuing victory was Cyrus’, but was also strikingly reported due to a mutiny on the Median side. Cyrus marched onto to the Median capital, and kept going until he had conquered Lydia [Lud] and Babylon… Cyrus the Great, had liberated and united their countless tribes and peoples into the largest empire the world has ever seen, stretching from the Balkans to India.
Persia’s signature quality was its promotion of religious and cultural diversity via a centralized administration, and for many centuries, Cyrus’ Persia was remembered with great nostalgia as a time of worldwide peace. It was that international nostalgic memory of Persian global freedom that paved the way for the copy-cat empire of Alexander of Macedon.
The origin of the name Persia appears to be not wholly agreed upon, but an excellent candidate is the ancient root far-, from whence come the Farsi word fars, meaning horseman, and the Arabic word farash, meaning stable [for horses]. The original Persians were either part of or developed close to the Eurasian nomads of the steppes, who are credited with the domestication of the horse. Tamed horses did wonders for the advancement of civilization, as well as for warfare and the centralization of large territories. For better or worse, the horse culture was exceedingly dominant in Eurasia, and it stands to reason that the Persians proudly dubbed themselves The Horse People.
This far- root may even be related to the Greek word (peri) and Avestan pairi-, meaning “around”, from which comes the modern Persian and Arabic word firdaus, meaning garden, and ultimately our word “paradise”. This very common Greek word (peri) is also the root of words such as the adjective (perissos), meaning exceeding, and the noun (perisseuma), meaning abundance. The Greek name for Persia was (Persis), which to a Greek ear probably sounded like Land of Plenty. This is not so strange since even in our time the word Persia brings to mind surplus and luxury (think of Persian rugs, Persian cats and even the peach, or “persic”).
The roots (paras)… most basically speak of a sudden bursting forth in a wide spray of elements of something that was previously well concealed [see meaning for Elam]. Verb (paras) means to break and divide in equal shares. The name Persia probably literally means Land Of The Horses*, but because the horse became known as “one hoofed” and then simply as “a hoof” and the hoof in turn began to be known mostly for its cloven variety of domesticated cattle, the name Persia in Hebrew adopted the additional meaning of Land Of Divisions.’
An important element in Persia’s rise to immense power was their terrifyingly effective use of cavalry. Cyrus the Great’s marriage allowed Persia access to the renowned Median horses; the Persians also adopted a variety of military tactics from the Medes – as well as the Scythians. Many breeds were used and colours ranged from black to light chestnut.
No mixed colours, light colours or white markings were allowed as these horses were prone to bad hoofs and becoming lame. The situation could not be solved prior to the advent of horseshoes. The Median horses were noted as being exceptionally powerful, with larger heads and proud necks. Stunning white Nisean horses – carefully trained – were used for kings and generals to stand out; denoting wealth and authority.
Persian cavalry soldiers used large bright, heavily embroidered saddle cloths. Stirrups and saddles were not yet in use, so they were essentially riding bareback. In time, horses acquired armour of barding – a leather and metal apron to protect their chest, a bronze plate to protect their head and a parmeridia which was a curvature of the saddle to protect the rider’s thighs. The Assyrians and the Sakaehad used horse armour from the seventh century BCE, though the Persians first mentioned using it in 401 BCE with Cyrus the Younger’s Guard Cavalry. Cyrus the Younger was the son of Darius II of Persia and a prince and general Satrap of Lydia and Ionia from 408 to 401 BCE, when he died during a failed attempt to oust his older brother Artaxerxes II from the Persian throne.
The Nisean* or Nisaean horse is mentioned by Herodotus circa 430 BCE: “In front of the king went first a thousand horsemen, picked men of the Persian nation – then spearmen a thousand, likewise chosen troops, with their spearheads pointing towards the ground – next ten of the sacred horses called Nisaean, all daintily caparisoned. (Now these horses are called Nisaean, because they come from the Nisaean plain, a vast flat in Media, producing horses of unusual size.)” They were the most valuable horse breed, with a more robust head compared to Arabian breeds and the royal Nisean was the preferred mount of the Persian nobility.
The Nisean horse was so sought after, that the Greeks – particularly, the Spartans – imported Nisean horses and bred them with their native stock and many nomadic tribes, such as the Scythiansalso imported, captured, or stole Nisean horses. Nisean horses had several traits, which they passed on to their descendants. One of them were bony knobs on their forehead often referred to as horns. This could have been due to prominent temple bones or cartilage on their forehead and is reminiscent of a unicorn. Pure white Niseans were the horses of kings and in myth, the gods. The Assyrians started their spring campaigns, by attacking the Medes so as to take their horses. The Medes were the breeders of the first Nisean horses; though the Nisean eventually became extinct by 1200 CE.
We have studied earlier a number of scriptures regarding Elam, when we read verses on Madai [refer Chapter IV Central Asia – Madai & the Medes]. The Turk and Turkic-Mongol relationship now established, we will concentrate on Elam; though we shall return to Madai towards the end of this chapter.
English Standard Version
“Elam is there, and all her multitude around her grave; all of them slain, fallen by the sword, who went down uncircumcised into the world below, who spread their terror in the land of the living; and they bear their shame with those who go down to the pit.
In this vision I saw myself in the capital city [or fortress city] of Susa, in the area [province] of Elam. I was standing by the Ulai Canal [or Gate].
The capital of Elam was Susa or Shushan, where the first name Susan derives. Today, the capital of Turkey since 1923 is Ankara. Historically, it was Constantinople – changed to Istanbul in 1453 – and it is this city that equates with ancient Susa.
In the Book of Jasher 7:15, we learn of the sons of Elam:
… and the sons of Elam wereShushan, Machul and Harmon.
Turkey – in Asia Minor or Anatolia – is located at the crossroads between Europe and Asia and thus has had a pivotal geographic role. The city of Troy, famous in Greek literature, was located on the present western Turkish coastline.
There were numerous city states in the region, though the first major empires were the Hittite Empire to the west and the Assyrians to the east. The Persian Empire followed, then Alexander the Great of Greece and Macedon and of course the Roman Empire. In 330 CE, Byzantium became the new capital of the Roman Empire under Roman Emperor Constantine I. The city was renamed Constantinople and was the capital of the Byzantine Empire for hundreds of years.
In the eleventh century, the Turks began to migrate into the area. The Seljuk Sultanate defeated the Byzantium army at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. The Ottoman Empire was founded by Osman I in 1299. It would become a powerful empire and rule for just over six hundred years. In 1453 the Ottomans, under Sultan Mehmet II the Conqueror, defeated Constantinople after besieging it for fifty-five days bringing an end to the Byzantium Empire. From 1520 until 1566, Suleiman the Magnificent ruled and he expanded the empire to include much of the Middle East, Greece, and Hungary. In 1568, the first war between Russia and Turkey initiated a series of Russo-Turkish conflicts that endured until 1878.
After World War I, the Ottoman Empire collapsed and Turkish war hero Mustafa Kemal founded the Republic of Turkey in 1923. He became known as Ataturk, which means ‘father of the Turks.’ Turkey has the second largest standing military force in NATO, after the United States Armed Forces. The population of Turkey is 86,609,150 people, almost exactly the same as Iran.
‘The following export product groups represent the highest dollar value in Turkish global shipments during 2021.
- Vehicles: US$25 billion
- Machinery including computers: $20.8 billion
- Iron, steel: $17.1 billion
- Electrical machinery, equipment: $12 billion
- Gems, precious metals: $11 billion
- Knit or crochet clothing, accessories: $10.8 billion
- Plastics, plastic articles: $10 billion
- Articles of iron or steel: $8.8 billion
- Mineral fuels including oil: $8.5 billion
- Clothing, accessories (not knit or crochet): $7.5 billion
Iron and steel represent the fastest grower among the top 10 export categories, up by 94.1% from 2020 to 2021. In second place for improving export sales was mineral fuels including oil which rose 80.5% led by refined petroleum oils. Turkey’s shipments of gems and precious metals posted the third-fastest gain in value up by 63.8%, propelled by higher international revenues from gold.’
Turkey is the 19th largest economy in the world, with a GDP of $761.43 billion in 2019. Turkey has a mainly open economy, containing large industrial and service sectors. Major industries include: electronics, petrochemicals and automotive production. Ever present political turmoil, with involvement in regional armed conflicts result in financial and currency market instability for Turkey; raising questions on its economic future.
Oxford Bible Church, Derek Walker – emphasis & bold mine:
‘The nation’s geography is a mirror of its political and military position… [and] it is being pulled both ways. Turkey covets recognition by the West – even to the point of desiring inclusion in the European Union. Turkey as part of NATO regularly cooperates with the United States in military operations in the region. But Turkey is still a Muslim nation. The Turkish government pays the salaries of 60,000 imams and dictates the contents of their sermons, often down to the last word.
In the years following World War I, Kemal Ataturk aggressively transformed Turkey from a theocratic autocracy into a Western-oriented democracy. In 1922 he abolished the Sultanate. In 1924 he abolished the Caliphate and religious courts. In 1925 he made it illegal to wear the fez (a symbol of backwardness). Having rid Turkey of the trappings of Islam, he adopted Western ways. In 1925 Turkey adopted the Western calendar; in 1926 the Swiss civil code and Italian penal code; in 1928 [Turkey] switched to the Latin alphabet; in 1931 the metric system; in 1934 all Turks were obliged to take a surname, and women were given the vote. After World War II Turkey joined all the main Western institutions: the UN, IMF, OECD, Council of Europe and NATO. Turkey received associate membership in the EU in 1963. A crisis began to loom as Turkey applied for full membership in 1987. Although full membership was held out as an eventual goal, it began to become clear that Turkey was not being welcomed by the EU.
Turkey’s rejection has understandably clouded its course and strategy. Turkey is still viewed by many as a Middle Eastern nation with no place in Europe. This is an affront to the Turkish people who have, for many years, rejected much of their own past in favour of becoming members of the West. While full membership negotiations continue (since 2005) their future as part of the EU is still very much in doubt.
… up to quite recently, Turkey has been an ally of Israel, trading the use of air bases while the generals signed military assistance pacts with Israel. The generals have also made sure that Turkey remains a strictly secular state according to its constitution. But their power in Turkey is now waning. Islam has again become a rising influence in Turkey, particularly through the Directorate of Religious Affairs, which is attached to the Prime Ministry and has substantial resources (including 90,000 civil service personnel) under its control.
The Directorate supplies imam (mosque prayer leaders) to every village or town; it writes the sermons the imam must preach; it organises the pilgrimages to Mecca; it provides commentaries on religious themes and publishes the Koran and other works; it pronounces judgements on religious questions and monitors mosque building; and it provides teachers and advisors to Turkish citizens living abroad and helps oversee official religious ties with other countries. The secondary education system, the Ankara University faculty, the police force, and the media are all becoming increasingly Muslim controlled. In each succeeding election, conservative Islamic elements seem to be gaining more power.
Turkey has been integrated with the West through membership of organizations such as the Council of Europe, NATO, OECD, OSCE and G-20. But [Turkey] has also fostered close cultural, political, economic and industrial relations with the Eastern world, particularly with the Middle Eastand the Turkic states of Central Asia, through membership in organizations such as the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and Economic Cooperation Organization. Since Turkey is linked to Central Asia both ethnically and linguistically, it has a natural relationship to these nations, and since the breakup of the former Soviet Union she has been able to strengthen her relationship with them greatly. [Four of the five] former Soviet Central Asian republics are Turkic speaking (Tajikistan is the exception, with a Persian dialect).
There has been a recent rise of political Islam… Since gaining power they have gradually been moving Turkey away from the west and towards the east, partly because of the Party’s Islamic roots and partly because of the EU’s rejection of Turkey. If this continues, Turkey will pursue its destiny more towards Eurasia and the Islamic Middle East. If [Turkey] moves away from the West [it] will come under Russian influence, who covets Turkey as it is strategic, giving Russia control of the vital ports on the Mediterranean and the ability to outflank much of Europe.’
Turkey is becoming more like Iran and is increasingly adrift from any real connection with Europe. The Bible supports this role for Elam and its eventual alliance with the nations of Iran and Pakistan in particular. We will look at the Old Elamite period from 2700 to 1500 BCE, when we study a prominent Biblical Elamite king, Chedorlaomer in the next chapter.
The Middle Elamite period began with the rise of the Anshanite dynasties circa 1500 BCE. Their rule was characterised by an ‘Elamisation’ of language and culture in Susa, and their kings took the title ‘king of Anshan and Susa.’ Anshan was located in the mountainous north of Elam’s territory and Susa in the lowland south. The relationship between the two akin to the one today between Ankara the capital and Istanbul. The city of Susa, is one of the oldest in the world – a a past forerunner to the future Constantinople – dating back in records to at least 4200 BCE. Since its founding, Susa was known as a central power location for Elam and then later, for the Persian dynasties. Susa’s power peaked during the Middle Elamite period between 1500 to 1100 BCE while the region’s capital.
Some of the kings married Kassite princesses. The Kassites were also a Language Isolate speaking people, arriving from the Zagros Mountains who had taken Babylonia shortly after its sacking by the Hittite Empire in 1595 BCE. The Kassite king of Babylon Kurigalzu II – who had been installed on the throne by Ashur-uballit I of the Middle Assyrian Empire – temporarily occupied Elam circa 1320 BCE. We will look further into the link between the Hittites and Assyria, as well as the association of the Kassities with the Arameans. Kassite-Babylonian power waned and was defeated in 1158 BCE, by a combined force of Elam and the Middle Assyrian Empire and their king, Ashur-Dan I.
A couple of decades later, the Elamites were defeated by Nebuchadnezzar I of Babylon [1125-1104 BCE] – not to be confused with Nebuchadnezzar II included in the scriptures [605-562 BCE] – who sacked Susa, thus ending the greatest period of Elamite power during the Middle dynasties; but who was then himself defeated by the Assyrian king Ashur-resh-ishi I. The Elamite king – Khutelutush-In-Shushinak circa 1120 to 1110 BCE – fled to Anshan, but later returned to Susa and his brother, Shilhana-Hamru-Lagamar may have succeeded him as the last king of the Middle Elamite dynasty. The last part of Shilhana’s name, ‘Lagamar’ is also the end suffix of Chedor-laomer. We will study this in significantly more detail. Following Khutelutush-In-Shushinak, the power of the Elamite empire began to wane quickly and Elam disappears into obscurity for over three centuries.
The darkening shroud enveloping Elam’s history from 1100 to 770 BCE included their migration northwards to Lake Urmia after their defeat. They resurfaced in the region as the Parsu. Assyrian sources circa 800 BCE distinguish the ‘powerful Medes.’ Medes was a broad term and included a number of peoples such as the Parsu Persians, who would cause the Elamite’s original home in the Iranian Plateau, to be renamed Persia.
In the 653 BCE, the Assyrian vassal state of Media fell to the Scythians and Cimmeriansand caused the displacement of the migrating Parsu peoples to Anshan which their king Teispes had captured that same year; turning it into a kingdom under Asshurbanipal’s rule, which would a century later become the nucleus of the Achaemenid dynasty. King Asshurbanipal drove the Scythians and Cimmerians from their lands, while the Medes and Persians remained vassals of Assyria.
We have discussed in our study on Madai, how the Persian Cyrus the Great [576-530 BCE], defeated Media at the Battle of Pasargadae in 551 BCE and became king of both kingdoms. The Median-Persian Empire lasted from 550 to 330 BCE, when it was eventually conquered by Alexander the Great.
After the fall of Persia, Elam migrated north again and now we will find them some seven hundred years later in that melting pot region of Central Asia. Madai migrated to the region known as Mongolia, east of central Asia. We would expect to find both Elam as Persia and Madai as Media in Asia and then track them both to their present locations of Turkey, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan.
We will now investigate the proposition, that the Persians of Elam are included in the Hunnic peoples of Asia and were therefore the principal body of people known as the Huns; who in turn ultimately, settled in Asia Minor evolving into the mighty Ottoman Empire, the precursor to the modern nation of Turkey. As with many discussions on peoples of the past and their link with modern nations, there is much debate and polarisation of viewpoint on the Hunnic-Turkic association. Ultimately, there is an accurate explanation and this is what we are endeavouring to discover with each and every identity.
The Huns invaded southeastern Europe circa 370 CE and for seven decades built an enormous empire in central Europe. The Huns appeared from behind the Volga and the Don Rivers. They had overrun the Alani [refer Chapter XV The Philistines: Latino-Hispano America], overthrew the Ostrogoths [refer Chapter XXV Italy: mayor & the Chaldeans] and defeated the Visigoths [refer Chapter XXIV Aram & Tyre: Southern Italy, Spain, Portugal & Brazil], in present day Romania by 376. ‘As warriors, the Huns inspired unparalleled fear. They were amazingly accurate mounted archers and their complete command of horsemanship, their ferocious charges… unpredictable retreats and the speed of their strategical movements brought them overwhelming victories.’
The Huns extended their power over many of the Germanic peoples of Europe and fought for the Romans. By 432 CE the leadership of the Huns had been centralised under a single king, Rua, or Rugila, who ruled for two years. Rua died in 434 and he was succeeded by his two nephews, Bleda and Atilla. About 445, Attila murdered his brother Bleda and in 447 continued his assault on the Eastern Roman Empire. He decimated the Balkans and forged south into Greece.
The Huns acquired gold from their treaties with Rome, plunder and also by selling prisoners back to the Romans.
This wealth altered the nature of their society. The military leadership became hereditary in Attila’s family and Attila assumed autocratic powers both in peace time and war. Atilla administered his impressive empire by means of loyal men, logades, whose function was the governing of and the collection of, the food and tribute from subject peoples.
In 451 Attila invaded Gaul but was defeated by Roman and Visigoth forces at the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains or according to some authorities, of Maurica. This was Attila’s first and only defeat. In 452 the Huns invaded Italy but famine and pestilence forced them to abandon the campaign. In 453 Attila died and his many sons began quarrelling among themselves, whilst embarking on a series of costly struggles with their subjects who had revolted. The Huns were finally routed in 455 by a combination of Gepidae, Ostrogoths, Heruli and others in a great battle on the unidentified river Nedao in Pannonia. From there, they receded into the historical background.
The Huns, reminiscent of the Turks over a thousand years later, were able to push deep within civilised Europe, but weren’t able to subjugate all of southern Europe. As the Turks pressed deep into eastern Europe and encroached on the Austro-Hungarian Empire, they were not able to penetrate any further west. The dominance of the Huns is shown by their name left in the country of the Magyars, Hun-gary.
The Origins of the Huns – A new view on the eastern heritage of the Hun tribes. Text edited from conversations with Kemal Cemal, Turkey, 1 November 2002 – apart from Editor’s note, emphasis & bold mine:
“Editor’s Note: When it was published in 2002 the subject of this article was somewhat controversial, and is even more so with hindsight. The views expressed here are the author’s own. They are presented here as the ‘opposition’ view of Hunnic origins, a view which did not fully tie in with prevailing thought on the Huns, and does so even less today.”
‘Although in the past the Huns are thought to have been Mongolian emigrants [Madai for instance], it is far more likely that they were of Turkic origin [descended from Elam]. This point has been repeated by thousands of historians, sinologists, turcologists, altaistics, and other researchers. Let me try to state how this idea began with Sinology researchers.
While the Mongol Empire was in the ascendancy, the power of the Catholic Church seemed to be fading, and the power of the Pope was somewhat shaky. At the same time, the Mongols opened the eastern roads for travel, and the Pope decided that there were now so many evident non-Christians that his power in the West was under severe threat. If he could convert these non-Christians he could regain power. As a result, Jesuit missionaries started to head east. Before spreading Christianity, they researched Chinese beliefs. They examined Chinese history and philosophy. There were some missioners who stayed twenty or thirty years in China, and built up healthy relations with Chinese scholars. They also started to translate Chinese books about both history and philosophy into Western languages.
The first translations were made in Portuguese. Then this was translated to the other languages; Spanish, Italian and French. So the West started to learn about China from these Jesuit missionaries.
Sin means China in Latin and Sinology means “sciences of China.” Sinology mainly started with these translations in the sixteenth century, and Turk history became part of this study. Later, the number of Sinology studies increased with many travellers from the West heading to China. The book written by de Guinness in the eighteenth century is accepted as one of the important collected studies about Turkish history. De Guinness did not know Chinese but he wrote the history of the Turks [Elam-Turkey], Mongols [Madai/Turkic-Mongols] and Tartars [Madai/Turkic-Mongols] by using Jesuit missionaries’ translations. It was printed under the name of “General History of Turks, Tatars and Mongols.”
All the information obtained to this point by the researchers showed that the Huns were of Turkic origin.We learn nearly all our current knowledge on the Huns from the information left to us by their contemporary neighbours. For example. It is pretty definite that their language was Turkic. Chinese annals reveals that the Hunnic language was very close to that of the Toles, a Turkic tribe. The Byzantine Empire said that the language of the Huns was the same as the languages of the Bulgars, Avars, Szeklers and other tribes which were flooding into Eastern Europe from Central Asia. The historians of that period accepted that these Turkic-speaking tribes were no different from the Huns because their languages were the same.
There are many words written in Chinese chronicles which were used by Huns in daily life. These are Turkic words. K Shiratoriy, reading a Hunnic sentence which has survived to the present day, has proven that it is Turkic. Hunnic-runic writings belonging to European Huns in Cafcasia has been read and has been proven to be of Turkic origin.
One area for backing up this claim is that of Hunnic names. It is difficult to explain the names belonging to Asian Huns because of [the] fact that they were translated into Chinese in the form of Chinese names.The meanings of the names of European Huns can be comfortably explained in Turkish. One of the most striking features related to European Hunnic names is that they can’t be explained by any language but Turkish. Some of the names belonged to the German language due to cultural interaction, but the majority of them were Turkish. The author W Bang has proven the name of Attila’s wife was Arikan in Turkish in the result on his researches.
There are many names and captions belonging to Hunnish leaders which were written down in a document at Duro-Eropas, a border castle in Doma which was captured by the Persians in 260 BC. These names and captions are Turkish names and captions. Aramaic writing in present-day Georgia appeared in the period following the Huns’ penetration into the Caucuses. This writing was also used by the Bulgars. It is estimated that this writing was proto-Turkic and appeared before the Orkhun inscriptions in Mongolia.
The word “Hun” comes from the word “kun” in Turkish… It means people, or nation.
Tengri also means ‘God’ or ‘Heaven’ in Mongolian
A book written by Gyula Nemeth, the world famous Hungarian historian is recommended for further reading on this subject, and will greatly expand on this short feature. There are many Turkology institutes which study… the origins of the Turks in many European countries from Denmark and Germany to Russia and Japan. All of these contain a great number of resources regarding the origin of the Huns.
As stated, many sources claim the Huns were of Mongol origin, since European Huns were somewhat mongoloid in appearance. Some historians also accept Turks as Mongols. All of these views are somewhat back-to-front. The Chinese annals say the Mongols [Madai] always lived to the east of the lands in which the Huns [Elam] dwelt. The Mongols originate from what is now known as Manchuria [and Mongolia].
The Mongol Empire was based on Turkic elements rather than Mongol elements. The governing structure of the empire was based on Turkic ideas of governing. The official language of the Mongol Empire was Uigrian, which is a Turkic language. Eighteen Turkish tribes played an important role in the founding of the Mongol Empire. There are many more examples that show the effects of Turkic elements on the Mongol Empire. For example, the Indian Moghal Empire was established by Turks. But many scholars still hold the belief that the Moghals were of Mongol origin. The truth is that the language of the Moghals* was Turkic, and that the founders of this empire were proud of being Turk.’
The Moghuls* may have actually been a Turkic-Mongol mix of people as scholars profess, with their offspring deriving from inter-tribal wars and the intermixing of the various Central Asian tribes. For they possessed not only a Turkic physiognomy but also included distinct mongol features. More indicative of the line of Madai than Elam; who were already a mixture of the two peoples. Generally aggressive towards their enemies and competitors they were known as excellent horse riders. Their descent seems to be via Timur-i Lang – or Tamerlane, founder of the eastern Iranian Timurid dynasty – and Chagatai Khan of the Chaghatayids.
From 1519, as the ruler of Kabul, in Afghanistan, their leader Babar led a great many raids on Delhi, in India. In 1526, he was invited by the nobility to invade the sub-continent. Babar created a Moghal empire which eventually sacked and controlled Delhi, making it the heart of their empire.
‘You can come across many researchers who say the Huns are a nation whose origin is still [a] mystery. When you look at bibliographies on internet sites you will see that those sites have referenced the work of historians such as McGovern and Haelfen-Manchen, but these sites don’t say these authors already accept the Huns as Turkic. Haelfen-Manchen accepts that Asiatic Huns were in fact of Turkic origin and says that their language was also Turkic, but he raises an objection by adding that, in his view, European Huns are not descended from Asiatic Huns.
I don’t know the reason for it but many European researchers still seem not to accept that Attila’s Huns were of Turkic stock.’
A selection of comments from forums on the general question: Who are the Huns Today? Emphasis & bold mine.
‘1… less educated people, and advocates of the “non-Türkic origin theory of the Huns” also often claim that “the Turks did not exist before the 6th century AD”. But these arguments have been refuted by the known fact that names evolve and change, and the same [people] during different eras are mentioned under different names.
If in today’s terminology, the linguistic family and ethnos are called ‘Turkic’, they were called “Hun, Scythian, Tatar” etc. during other periods. The main body of the Turkic people consisted of ‘Tele/Tiele’ tribes, a confederation of nine Turkic [peoples].The main body of the Huns consisted of Uigur tribes, and the modern descendants of the Tiele people are called the Turks. The first known records of the Turks are milleniums older than the modern notions of the linguistic family and the ethnos termed ‘Turkic’. For instance, Ptolemy used “Huns, Ases/Alans” instead of “North Pontic Turks”. Therefore, the Great Hunnic Empire was founded, and governed by the Turks. The first ‘tanhu/khan’ of the empire was Teoman/Tu-Man. He was succeeded by his son Mete/Mo-Tun. According to some theories, Mete and Oghuz Khan, the semi-mythological ancestor of the Turks, are the same persona.
The Gokturks considered themselves as the continuation of the Huns as well. The European Huns also emerged as a result of the migration movements following the collapse of the Hunnic Empire. Which means that Attila [the Hun], Teoman and Mete were the leaders of the same nation.
The list of scholars who acknowledge that the Huns were Turkic covers the whole alphabet:
“Altheim.. Bazin.. Bernshtam.. Chavannes.. Clauson.. de Guignes.. Eberhard.. Franke.. Grousset.. Gumilev.. Haussig.. Hirth.. Howorth.. Klaproth.. Krouse.. Lin Gan.. Loufer.. Marquart.. Ma Zhanshan.. McGovern.. Nemeth.. Parker.. Pelliot.. Pricak (Pritsak).. Radloff.. Remusat.. Roux.. Samolin.. Szasz.. and Wang Guowei.”
‘Chinese chronicles carry numerous statements on the linguistic and ethnological closeness or identity of the many Hunnic tribes. Among them are direct statements :
“Weishi and Beishi say that the customs and language of Yueban Xiongnu were the same with the Gaoche… Beishi gives the ancestry legend of the Gaoche and links it with the Xiongnu [Huns]. Zhoushu and Beishi state that the “Tujue [Turks-Gokturks]” were a branch of the Xiongnou. Suishu states that the ancestors of Tiele were descendants of Xiongnu. Xin Tangshu says that the ancestors of Huihe [Uigur] are the Xiongnu.”
‘The Eastern and Western Huns belonged to the Ogur linguistic family, the kin of Oghuz branch. Ogur is modestly called as the Karluk group today. In the antiquity, the Ogur family was much more visible than the Oghuz, due to their proximity to the literate southern populations. In addition, the Ogur group included Tochars, Kangars, Uigurs, Karluks, Bulgars, Khazars, Sabirs, Agathyrs and Avars. Huns are the ancestors of both Turks [Elam] and Mongols [Madai]… Turks and Mongols were once the same [united] people and have separated into two different ethnic groups after the Huns. In the past Mongolians looked more European than they do today. The Huns were genetically Eurasiatic. Chinese historians make this very clear.
The confusion… arises from the fact that, defeated by the Chinese (3rd century?), half the Huns stayed in their ancestral homeland (Mongolia and Manchuria) and were gradually assimilated by the Chinese, and [the] other half moved Westward. Part of those that moved West became the ancestors of the modern Turks [Turkey] and Mongols [Turkic-Mongol, Tatar], whereas the bulk, still under the ethnonym Hun, ended up in Europe and ruled most of Europe for close to a century. These (European) Huns [Turks] had Uralic, Iranic, Slavic and Germanic people as their loyal subjects.
The Xiongnu from Mongolia/Manchuria predates the Huns in Europe (as they showed up 200 years later from the northern borders of China). Many scholars have debated for years and many now are in… agreement that they’re the same confederacy who… reached Europe. There were many Turkic tribes in Central and Western Asia. Many of the Mongol or Manchu origin of Xiongnu have integrated with the Turks, Alans, and other nomadic people as they [traveled] further to the west.
[A] Russian anthropologist (1960s) provided the ethnological details of the skulls and remains when [visiting] the Hunnish and Avar cemetary sites in Hungary and Romania. Most of [the] Hunnish elite leaders had a striking resemblance to modern Manchurians and the elite Avar remains with central Mongolians. He… also noted that… most of calvary remains were either intermixed or homogenous.
Overall, it had a higher Turkic [Elam] related remains (70% Turkic vs 30% Mongoloid). What’s interesting about his report is that the elite skulls were purely Mongoloid [Madai] without any mixture of Turks.
Hun, Avar and conquering Hungarian nomadic groups arrived into the Carpathian Basin from the Eurasian Steppes and significantly influenced its political and ethnical landscape. In order to shed light on the genetic affinity of above groups we have determined Y chromosomal haplogroups and autosomal loci, from 49 individuals, supposed to represent military leaders. Haplogroups from the Hun… are consistent with Xiongnu ancestry of European Huns [Elam]. Most of the Avar… individuals carry east Asian Y haplogroups… and their autosomal loci indicate mostly unmixed Asian characteristics [Madai].
Let’s not speculate and have too much dependency on the languages and cultures alone as much can be borrowed. At the end of the day, the genetic proof wins in understanding the origin.’
‘2. A great way of viewing the legacy of the Turkic migration is by looking at the spread of Altai-Uralic speaking minorities and nations. Speaking about the Uralic tribes, they are believed to share some basic fundamental similarities in language with the Altaic family. Uralic languages would include Hungarian, Finnish and Estonian. The Turkic tribes and Huns introduced the Uralic tribes to the Altaic language. All the Ural-Altaic languages share certain characteristics of syntax, morphology, and phonology. The languages use constructions of the type the-by-me-hunted bear rather than “the bear that I hunted,” and a-singing I went rather than “I sang as I went.” There are few if any conjunctions. Suffixation is the typical grammatical process – that is, meaningful elements are appended to stems, as in house-my, “my house,” go-(past)-I, “I went,” house-from, “from the house,” go-in-while, “while (in the act of) going,” and house-(plural)-my-from, “from my houses.”
A great many Ural-Altaic languages require vowel harmony; the vowels that occur together in a given word must be of the same type. Thus poly, “dust,” is a possible word in Finnish because o and y are both mid vowels and hence belong to the same phonetic class; likewise polku, “path,” is possible because o and u are both vowels. Words such as polu or poly are not possible, because o and u, or o and y, are too dissimilar. Stress generally falls on the first or last syllable; it does not move about, as in the English series family, familiar, familiarity.
Typically, the Ural-Altaic languages have no verb for “to have.” Possession is expressed by constructions such as the Hungarian nekem van, “to-me there-is.” Most of the languages do not express gender, do not have agreement between parts of speech (as in French les bonnes filles, “the good girls”), and do not permit consonant clusters, such as pr-, spr-, -st, or -rst, at the beginning or end of words.
Before the Hunnic empire the Scythians had migrated west from central Asia and had adopted Iranian influence. Just like the Oghuz Turkic tribes centuries later. However, The Scythians spoke a ‘Turkisized Iranian dialect’.
The Scythians are very hard to uncover but are believed to have included groups of Huns with major Iranian influence. Turkic tribes were believed to have lived on the fringes of Scythia. All these Proto Turkic-Mongol groups were nomadic horse-riding pastoralists in north-east Asia, and would attack ruthlessly with bow and arrow when migrating west. The Yuezhi, Huns and Turkic-Mongol groups lived in exclusive historical periods to one another. Their descendants and precursors lived close to each other, occasionally intermarried and influenced each other culturally.
Interestingly Yuezhi were Chinese with Indian influence, in modern-day Afghanistan, Pakistan. The Huns consisted of many smaller Turkic tribes in their advancements into Europe as well as Scythian tribes. Scythian and the Uralic tribes are also believed to form the Huns, Many Germanic tribes also formed infantry in the Hunnic empire against the Eastern and Western Roman empire. Still, the father of the Turkic peoples is considered – Bumin Qaghan the founder of the first Turkic empire called the Celestial Turks : Gokturks.
Bumin Qhagan was born [490 CE] just 37 years after the death of Atilla [453 CE]. Bumin Qhagan was the first to refer to himself as a Turk which stems origins to the word ‘Combat helmet’ in Chinese. These early Turkic people spoke old Turkic dialect and believed in Tengri – the one god represented by the Sun. Modern day Turks call God Tanri, and believe in the one god. Common Turkish and Turkic names include Atilla, Cengiz (Genghiz), Kaan (Qhagan).
It is a question whether the early Proto Turkic-Mongol groups such as the Avars, Khazars, Huns influenced the languages of the indigenous people. The Orkhon Inscriptions is the oldest preserved Old Turkic script. The inscriptions provided much of the foundation for translating other Turkic writings. The Hunnic language has been compared mainly with Turkic, Mongolic and Yeniseian languages, but bears most resemblance to this Old Turkic script.
The Huns are considered inter-related to these Turkic tribes just as much as Mongolians are. When calling Huns ‘Turk’ and ‘Turkic’ it is very misleading. The Turks mentioned are the descendants of the Gokturks of the Altai mountains hence ‘Altaic’ or the members of the Ashina[ancient Elam city of Anshan] tribe.Also known as Asen, Asena, or Açina. It was the ruling dynasty of the old/ancient Turkic Peoples. It rose to prominence in the mid 6th century when Bumin Qaghan, revolted against the Rouran Khaganate and established the first Turkic empire.
Modern day Turks were so proud of their ancestry, they carried on the name Turk instead of Oghuz or Seljuk, the name of the Turkic Tribes in Persia and Anatolia, unlike many Central Asian nations such as the Kazakh’s, Azeri’s, Uzbeks, Turkmens, Kygrz… In fact, the Oghuz and Seljuks predecessor, the Ottomans, named their empire after their leader Osman and still referred to themselves as the ‘Turkish Empire’ for centuries.
Modern day Turkey is more the Oghuz Turkic tribe or Oghuzstan/Seljukstan bearing heavy Persian and Byzantine influence than ‘Land of the Turks’. Therefore the term ‘Turk’and ‘Turkic’ are very distinct. Information on the Hunnic language is contained in personal names and tribal ethnonyms. On the basis of these names, scholars have proposed that Hunnic may have been a Turkic language, a language between Mongolic and Turkic. Since the Huns consisted of many Turkic tribes, Turkic language had a huge influence in the Hunnic language.’
‘The Hunnic language is part of the broader Altaic languages, which is the family of Turkic and Mongolian languages. The Huns can be considered Altaic if we were to reference language and therefore Mongolian-Turkic.’
‘3. Of course [the]… Xiongnu was [a] confederation of both Turks and Mongols. When we look at the DNA results, it’s shown clearly. Xiongnu samples divided into two [groups] as Xiong-Nu and Xiong-Nu_WE. Xiong-Nu results are closer to Mongolics and Xiong-Nu_WE results are closer to Central Asian Turkics (mostly to Uzbeks and Uighurs). And if we look [at] their descendants [the] Tian_Shan_Hun, they’re mostly closer to Turkics than any other [nation]. Short answer: Yes. Some [ignorant people] will deny this fact but facts are always painful.’
These comments with the article, back up what we have learned about Elam and Madai and their close ties. They also support the assertion that the Huns were the precursors to the Turks and hence are descendants from Elam of the Bible. There is a connecting link between the Turkic Huns and the Ottoman Turks as mentioned and they are the Seljuks.
The House of Seljuk originated from the Kinik branch of the Oghuz Turks who dwelt on the outskirts of the Muslim world, in the Yabgu Khagnate of the Oguz confederacy; located to the north of the Caspian and Aral Seas in the ninth century.
In the tenth century, the Seljuks began migrating from their ancestral homeland into Persia, which became the base of the Great Seljuk Empire, after its foundation by Tughril.*
In 1071, the Seljuks defeated the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzikert, beginning the Turkification of the region. The Turkish language with Islam, was introduced to Armenia and Anatolia. The culturally Persianised Seljuks laid the foundation for a Turkic-Persian culture in Anatolia; continued by their successors the Ottomans. In 1243, the Seljuk armies were defeated by the Mongols at the Battle of Kose Dag, causing the Seljuk Empire’s power to slowly wane. One of the Turkish principalities governed by Osman I would evolve over the next two hundred years into the formidable Ottoman Empire.
In 1514, Sultan Selim I – ruler from 1512 to 1520 – vigorously expanded the empire’s southern and eastern borders, by defeating Shah Ismail I of the Safavid dynasty of Iran [Lud] in the Battle of Chaldiran. In 1517, Selim I also expanded Ottoman rule into Algeria [Mizra] and Egypt [Pathros] and created a naval presence in the Red Sea.
A contest arose between the Ottoman and Portuguese empires to become the dominant sea power in the Indian Ocean, with a number of naval battle exchanges between the two in the Red Sea, the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf. The Portuguese presence in the Indian Ocean had been perceived as a threat to the Ottoman monopoly over the ancient trade routes between East Asia and Western Europe [refer Chapter XXIII Aram & Tyre: Southern Italy, Spain, Portugal & Brazil].
The Ottoman Empire’s power and prestige peaked in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, particularly during the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent, from 1520 to 1566; who instituted major legislative changes relating to society, education, taxation and criminal law. The empire was often in conflict with the Holy Roman Empire in its stubborn advance towards Central Europe through the Balkans and the southern part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In the east during the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries, the Ottomans were invariably at war with Safavid Persia over conflicts stemming from territorial disputes or religious differences.The Ottoman wars with Persia continued until the first half of the nineteenth century.
An Ottoman Turk Cavalryman
From the sixteenth to the early twentieth century, the Ottoman Empire also fought twelve wars with the Russian Tsardom and its sprawling Empire. Primarily about Ottoman territorial expansion and consolidation in southeastern and eastern Europe, though beginning with the Russo-Turkish War of 1768 to 1774, they became more about the survival of the Ottoman Empire; which had begun to lose its strategic territories on the northern Black Sea to the advancing Russians. From the second half of the eighteenth century onwards, the Ottoman Empire began to decline and ultimately culminated in its defeat in World war I after allying with the Central Powers.
The Mongols of Madai meanwhile – on the other side of Asia – had been steadily growing in power at the same time the Seljuk Turks were migrating to Persia. The father of infamous Chingiz Khan, his real name Temujin was a powerful clan leader named Yesukhei or Yesugei. He led the Borjigin clan but died when Temujin was still a child, poisoned by Tartars the constant enemies of the Mongols.
Temujin attempted to seize leadership of the Borjigin, but the tribesmen refused to be led by someone so young; so he and his family were cast adrift. Temujin and his brothers grew up in the wilderness, hunting for their own food. A dispute in which he and another brother killed a half-brother called Begter over hunting spoils, cemented his position for being ruthless and a worthy contender for commander. Thus by the time he was a young man, Temujin commanded a group of Mongol warriors. He won favour with Toghril* Khan of the Kerait tribe and was able to build up his forces into a powerful army; including the Onggirat or Qongrat tribe, the same tribe his mother and his first wife were from. Soon, he was strong enough to attack the hated Tartars, defeating them in battle, beheading all their men, taking their women and children as concubines and slaves and avenging his father’s death.
Later, Jamuka a childhood friend, initiated a power struggle, betraying a close bond of trust that had been established between them as children at the age of twelve. For Jamuka and Temujin had become andas, or blood brothers; cemented by drinking each others blood. Jamuka persuaded Toghril that Temujin was a threat to them all and so the two of them teamed up against him. In the resulting close run campaign which was protracted for a year, Temujin emerged victorious against all the odds. Jamuka fled for his life with Toghril left for dead.
Temujin was elevated as a powerful warrior chief and so at the age of forty-four in 1206, he was declared supreme khan. He then took a completely unique title, Chingiz Khan, meaning ‘the fierce king.’ Genghis Khan from Madai, is as infamous and notorious as his Elamite counterpart before him, Attila the Hun. Gengis Khan died ironically, from a fall from his horse in 1227.
A Mongol cavalryman
Another famous Mongol, was the leader Kublai Khan born in 1215. The Mongols had taken control of China through a series of conquests, ending with total domination between the reigns of Genghis Khan and Kublai Khan. Kublai Khan retained China as his base during a civil war against his brother in 1260 to 1264 for control of the Mongol Empire. From 1279, he was emperor of the Chinese as well as great khan of the Mongols. The centre of the Mongol empire shifted with him to China, fragmenting its authority farther west. Kublai Khan’s death in 1294 heralded the eventual end of the empire’s power, so that the Mongols ruled only in China, Mongolia, southern Siberia, and Tibet.
In the Bible, the Persian Empire is represented by the chest and arms of silver in Nebuchadnezzar’s prophetic related vision of a man [Daniel 2:32, 39]. The silver reflects the lesser refinement and status of the previous Chaldean-Babylonian Empire represented by a head of gold. The silver alternatively, is a stronger metal portraying a more robust kingdom, lasting longer. The two arms represent the two political-ethnic components of the Persian Empire – Media and Persia.
This great world empire, which followed Babylon’s rise to power, defeated the Chaldeans in 539 BCE. It was symbolised by a bear [Daniel 7:5] and also as ram in Daniel 8:2-7 and 20-21, NET:
2 In this vision I saw myself in Susa the citadel, which is located in the province of Elam. In the vision I saw myself at the Ulai Canal. 3 I looked up and saw a ram with two horns standing at the canal.
Its two horns were both long, but one was longer than the other. The longer one [Persia] was coming up after the shorter one [Media]. 4 I saw that the ram was butting westward, northward, and southward. No animal was able to stand before it, and there was none who could deliver from its power. It did as it pleased and acted arrogantly.
5 While I was contemplating all this, a male goat was coming from the west over the surface of all the land without touching the ground [with great speed]. This goat had a conspicuous horn between its eyes. 6 It came to the two-horned ram that I had seen standing beside the canal and rushed against it with raging strength. 7 I saw it approaching the ram. It went into a fit of rage against the ram and struck it and broke off its two horns. The ram had no ability to resist it. The goat hurled the ram to the ground and trampled it. No one could deliver the ram from its power [330 BCE]. 20 The ram that you saw with the two horns stands for the kings of Media and Persia. 21 The male goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between its eyes is the first king [Alexander the Great].
We read of a severe judgement on Elam in Jeremiah 49:34-38 ESV, yet a curiously enigmatic statement about Elam’s future is written in verse thirty-nine.
“But in the latter days I will restore the fortunes of Elam, declares the Lord.”
The NET says:
“Yet in future days I will reverse Elam’s ill fortune,” says the Lord.
The BBE says:
“But it will come about that, in the last days, I will let the fate of Elam be changed, says the Lord.”
Studies have revealed that Turkish people cluster most closely with population groups such as Armenians, Chechens, Georgians, Kurds, as well as Iran and have the lowest Fst distance with these peoples [refer Chapter XVII Lud & Iran]. Benedetto in 2001, revealed that Central Asian genetic contribution to the current Anatolian mtDNA gene pool was estimated as roughly thirty percent by comparing the populations of Mediterranean Europe and the Turkic-speaking people of Central Asia. Recall, a comparison of the Y-DNA Haplogroups for these nations in the preceding Chapter; verified Iran’s link with Turkey, though particularly Azerbaijan. Whereas Turkey, is closer to Armenia and Georgia sits between these two pairings.
A 2012 study of ethnic Turks by Hodoglugil stated – emphasis & bold mine:
‘[The] Turkish population has a close genetic similarity to Middle Eastern and European populations and some degree of similarity to South Asian and Central Asian populations.
Results also indicated previous population movements [such as migration, admixture] or genetic drift and that the Turkish genetic structure is unique. [This completely fits Elam’s identity equation]. A study in 2015 confirmed that previous genetic studies have generally used Turks as representatives of ancient Anatolians… results show that Turks are genetically shifted towards Central Asians, a pattern consistent with a history of mixture with populations from this region.’
With the rather recent development of genetic research in relation to human history and population genetics; inevitable criticism has arisen from researchers and scholars traditionally considered expert on the subject – such as anthropologists, archaeologists and historians – because the formation of a ‘biological construct of historical communities’, in part, repudiates their twentieth century scholarly, sometimes error-ridden discourses. Or more bluntly: there is a lot of egg on faces.
Thus, the relatively new proposition of the Central Asiatic origin of the Turkish people is viewed as problematic, rather than a resolution. The status quo is perceived to be under threat and rightly so, as ensuing collisions between scholarly history which is often theory or opinion-led and fact-based scientific genetic evidence will continue to challenge. As one academic states: ‘… [the] clash with modern human genetics researches raises in a new light the questions: What was a “Turk [or Turkic person]” and who are the modern Turks?’
An alarmed academia, are rightly concerned that their hypothesising control with their versions of history, will be exposed for the agenda-filled falsehoods it invariably represents. A similar stance will be held by some in that microcosm of history research, that is influential in the Biblical identity of nations movement. A new perception that is contrary to the orthodox position is more usually received as heretical, no matter how well documented – even with the solid unmoving evidence of science, underpinning it. Though, like all truth, it will eventually win out and have the last word.
The mtDNA Haplogroups for Turkey are similar to Iran in that the sequence for their first six groups are in common, though in marked varying percentages; for Turkey is more closely matched with Armenia.
Turkey: H [30.8%] – J [8.9%] – U [6.3%] – K [5.6%] – HV [4.8%] –
T2 [4.3%] – U3 [3.7%] – U5 [3%] – T1 [2.8%] – H5 [2.4%] – U4 [1.9%] –
W [1.9%] – X [1.9%] – I [1.5%] – U2 [1.3%] – L [1.3%] – HVO + V [0.7%]
Turkey: H [30.8%] – J [8.9%] – U [6.3%] – K [5.6%] – HV [4.8%] – T2 [4.3%]
Iran: H [16.9%] – J [13.8%] – U [11.8%] – HV [7.4%] – K [7.3%] – T2 [4.9%]
As we did not consider the Tatar mtDNA Haplogroups earlier [refer Chapter IV Central Asia – Madai & the Medes] and only cursorily looked at the Kazakh mtDNA Haplogroups, let’s include them in the comparison table.
Tatars: H [30.7%] – U5 [10.5%] – T2 [ 9.2%] – J [ 7.5%] –
U4 [7%] – K [5.7%] – HVO + V [3.9%] – U [3.1%] – T1 [2.6%] –
U3 [2.2%] – W [1.8%] – U2 [0.9%] – HV [0.9%] – I [0.9%]
HV H J T2 U K
Kazakhstan 14 4 6 3 3
Iran 7 17 14 5 12 7
Georgia 4 20 3 9 5 12
Azerbaijan 6 23 6 10 9 4
Armenia 6 30 10 5 8 7
Turkey 5 31 9 4 6 6
Tatars 1 32 8 9 3 6
The Tatars possess an interesting resemblance to the Turks; though after everything we have investigated in Chapter IV and in this chapter, it is not a surprise. Coupled with the fact that the Tatars are interspersed within the Russian people. The Russian Communist leader Lenin from 1917 to 1924, is repudiated to have had Tatar blood, as well as Jewish. It is difficult to substantiate either, though Lenin was born in Ulyanovsk – known as Kazan/Simbirsk – a city where Russians and Tatars lived together. The Kazakhs and Tatars aside, Iran and Turkey guided by H levels, bookend the mtDNA maternal Haplogroups in the Caucasus region.
According to a 2004 study by Cinnioglu,there are many Y-DNA Haplogroups present in Turkey. The majority of Haplogroups in Turkey are shared with West Asian and Caucasian neighbours, similar with Iran.
‘The most common haplogroup in Turkey is J2 (24%), which is widespread among the Mediterranean, Caucasian and West Asian populations. Haplogroups that are common in Europe (R1b and I – 20%), South Asia (L, R2, H – 5.7%) and Africa (A, E3*, E3a – 1%) are also present. By contrast, Central Asian haplogroups are rarer (C, Q and O). However, the figure may rise to 36% if K, R1a, R1b and L (which infrequently occur in Central Asia but are notable in many other Western Turkic groups) are also included.J2 is also frequently found in Central Asia, a notably high frequency (30.4%) being observed particularly among Uzbeks.’
Turkey’s Y-DNA Haplogroups in comparison with its near neighbour, Iran.
Turkey: J2 – R1b – G2a – E1b1b – J1 – R1a – I2a1 – N – L –
T1a – Q – O – I1 – R2 – H – C – I2a2
Iran: J2 – R1a – G2a – R1b – J1 – E1b1b – L – Q – T1a – N1c2 – I
A Comparison of the main Haplogroups shared between these two nations, highlights that they have the first six in common. The key difference – aside from J2 and G2a – is that it is R1b which Turkey predominates in above R1a; whereas Iran has the opposite correlation. R1a in Europeans is concentrated more in eastern Europe and R1b in western Europe. Both J2 and G2a are found in the Caucasus region, southern Europe and the Middle East. Haplogroups J1 and E1b1b are associated heavily with the Middle East and North Africa and by degree with southern Europe.
Turkey: J2 [24%] – R1b [16%] – G [11%] – E1b1b [11%] –
J1 [9%] – R1a [7.5%] – I2a1 [4%] – N [4%] – L [4%] –
T [2.5%] – Q [2%] – O [2%] – I1 [1%] – R2 [1%] – H [1%] –
C [1%] – I2a2 [0.5%]
Iran: J2 [23%] – R1a [15.5%] – G [10%] – R1b [9.5%] – J1 [8.5%] –
E1b1b [6.5%] – L [6.5%] – Q [5.5%] – T [3%] – N [1%] – I [0.5%]
In Chapter IV on Madai, we compared only those Y-DNA Haplogroups which clearly derived from Japheth – such as C, O, K and Q – and not any suspected admixture Haplogroups from Elam or others.
C O K P Q
Kazakhstan 40 8 10 3 2
Kyrgyzstan 14 8 2 2
Uzbekistan 12 4 7 6
Turkmenistan 13 10
Thus, a comparison table of the principle Y-DNA Haplogroups for Turkey and Iran, as well as the Central Asian Republics as per the Haplogroups more closely associated with Shem – R1a, R1b, J2 and G2a – or Ham – J1 and E1b1b – are appropriate now.
Tajikistan is included even though it is the least representative of Madai and bears a closer similarity with Pakistan or Afghanistan.
J1 J2 R1a R1b G E1b1b
Georgia 16 27 9 10 30 2
Iran 9 23 16 10 10 7
Turkey 9 24 8 16 11 11
Armenia 11 22 5 30 12 6
Azerbaijan (31) 7 11 18 6
Tajik 18 44
Turkmen 17 7 37
Uzbek 13 25 10
Kazakh 8 7 6
Kyrgyz 2 64 2
Turkey and Iran apart from R1a and R1b percentages, are remarkably similar in their paternal descent – closer than their mtDNA maternal lineages. The Central Asians are a highly mixed peoples and as viewed on the PCA plot below, act as a genetic bridge between South Asia and Anatolia with the Caucasus.
Recall from the previous chapter that Iran as Lud has interacted considerably with the Arab world, as has turkey as Elam. Both nations have not strayed as far from their original homeland positions in ancient Mesopotamia – as Asshur, Aram and Arphaxad have – so that they have been in the pathway of peoples migrating east-west and vice-versa. Located at the crossroads of the world in Asia Minor – much like Madai in Central Asia – has meant a variety of additional Haplogroups, albeit at fractional percentages, being added to their core DNA.
The pie charts show that the Turks are different from the Greeks and Bulgarians. The latter having more E1b1b, I2a and R1a, whereas the Turks have more R1b, J2, G2a and a considerable percentage of other additional Haplogroups from all their admixture. Turkey and Iran share a number of percentage similar Haplogroups, reflecting their status as brothers and the sons of Shem. We will learn in time, that Asshur and Aram are distinct from one another, yet both are more closely related to their brother Arphaxad than to either Elam or Lud. Supporting the hypothesis that nations today are more times than not, located next to those peoples they are more genetically related too. There are exceptions to the rule as we have seen already with Togarmah and Tarshish – Korea and Japan – and there will be a handful more.
Continuing the Y-DNA comparison table begun with Lud and with the addition of Turkey.
J J1 J2 E1b1b G R1a R1b L
Uzbekistan 13 13 25 10
Turkmenistan 17 17 7 37
Azerbaijan 31 6 18 7 11 2
Iran 32 9 23 7 10 16 10 7
Armenia 33 11 22 6 12 5 30 3
Turkey 33 9 24 11 11 8 16 4
Georgia 43 16 27 2 30 9 10 2
Turkey and Iran as Elam and Lud, are both Y-DNA Haplogroup J driven and specifically J2. Haplogroup G is an important component in the Turkish paternal heredity as is R1b and a lesser degree, R1a. We will discover that the remaining three sons of Shem have more in common with each other as they are either R1a or R1b dominant, with Haplogroups J2, J1, G2a and E1b1b all varying in lesser percentages. The focus will shift from J2 and G2a to R1a and R1b, with the addition of I1 and I2; just as the nations of the Caucasus region shifted from the J1 and E1b1b emphasis of the Arab nations of the Middle East and North Africa.
The ear that hears and the eye that sees – the Lord has made them both.
Proverbs 20:12 New English Translation
“A lie doesn’t become truth, wrong doesn’t become right, and evil doesn’t become good, just because it’s accepted by a majority. “
Booker T Washington
© Orion Gold 2020 – All rights reserved. Permission to copy, use or distribute, if acknowledgement of the original authorship is attributed to orion-gold.com