Chapter XXVI

The elder brother of Nahor is Haran. Haran died prematurely – compared with his two brothers – at eighty-two years of age, either at the hands of his younger brother Abraham in an accident by fire* or highly unlikely, murdered by Nimrod, though more probably at the hands of King Shulgi of Ur – refer Chapter XXV Italy: Nahor & the Chaldeans. His father Terah, with the families of Lot and Abraham then moved in 1927 BCE, northwest six hundred miles and settled in Haran, a city-region associated with Nahor’s family in Padan-Aram.

We will learn that Haran had other children apart from those named in the scriptures: Lot, Milcah and Sarah. We do not know the name of Haran’s wife, though it is likely that Haran married a descendent of Arphaxad through Peleg’s line. It is not clear if descendants of Haran already lived in Haran; or if they arrived later after Abraham. The term Haran for the region, may have been added to the biblical account retrospectively, if they followed.

The geographic relationship of Haran adjacent to Padan-Aram with Aram-Nahor, which in turn was next to Aram is significant as this alignment is replicated in our modern world – refer Chapter XXIII Aram & Tyre: Spain, Portugal & Brazil; and Chapter XXV Italy: Nahor & the Chaldeans. Today, Aram (in this context) principally includes Spain and Portugal, while Padan-Aram signifies an association with Italy – also refer Chapter XV The Philistines: Latino-Hispano America.

Regarding identities in the Bible; if there is more than one verse – even if it is only two – it is specifying a distinct people. Haran had a son called Lot and he in turn had two sons, Moab and Ammon. Aside from these peoples, we read about a people described as Haran twice in the Bible. We are therefore seeking a people not only related to Nahor and Haran, but also dwelling next to Nahor, Moab and Ammon in Western Europe.

2 Kings 19:12

English Standard Version

‘Have the gods of the nations delivered them, the nations that my fathers destroyed, Gozan, Haran, Rezeph, and the people of Eden…’

Ezekiel 27:21-24

English Standard Version

‘Arabia and all the princes of Kedar [son of Ishmael] were your favored dealers in lambs, rams, and goats; in these they did business with you… Haran, Canneh, Eden, traders of Sheba, Asshur [Russia], and Chilmad traded with you. In your market these traded with [Tyre, Brazil] in choice garments, in clothes of blue and embroidered work, and in carpets of colored material, bound with cords and made secure.’

Abarim Publications – emphasis & bold mine:

‘There are two completely different Hebrew names that have ended up as the similar name Haran in English. We’ll call them Haran I and Haran II, and note that both versions occur in Genesis 11:31: The name Haran I: Summary meaning Mountainous, Mountaineer. From the noun (har), hill or mountain. The name Haran I is assigned two times in the Bible: A son of Terah and brother of Abraham… This Haran is the father of Lot. [The other is] a Levite of the family of Gershon (1 Chronicles 23:9).

The noun (har) is the Bible’s common word for mountain or hill. The obviously related verb (hera) means to be or become pregnant. An association with the previous noun is obvious, although not because the stomach of a pregnant woman resembles a mountain. The Bible depicts nations as individual women even more than as mountains; the words, (‘umma) meaning people and (’em), meaning mother are closely related. A pregnant woman is to her husband what a conceiving nation is to its deity.

The name Haran II: Summary Meaning Freedom, Central Fire.* From the root (harar), to be a central hub of heat. The name Haran II is assigned two times in the Bible: The city where Abram’s family settled (Genesis 11:31)… A son of Caleb and Epaha (1 Chronicles 2:46). The name Haran II probably comes from the verb (hara), to burn*, or (harar), to be hot or even to be free: The root (harar) describes a society’s central and enclosed source of heat. It thus may express a geographical depression, but more so a being hot and ultimately being a ruler (whether by might, political clout or wisdom). The unused verb (harar II) means to be free in cognate languages, which is the opposite of being a slave. Noun (hor) means noble or nobleman. 

The nouns (hor) mean hole or cavern, but obviously relate to the previous word in that freemen surround themselves with walls and armies. Verb (hawar) means to be or grow white (like ash or baked bricks). Nouns (hur) and (huray) refer to any white stuff, including garments and linen, and noun (hori) describes white bread or cake. For a meaning of the name Haran II… BDB Theological Dictionary sees a connection with an Assyrian word that means Road or Path, and suggests the name stems from Haran’s location on a trade route.’

Canneh means favoured and Eden means pleasure, delight, finery, luxury and paradise. The descendants of Haran dwell in the nation of Switzerland. The verse in Ezekiel twenty-seven is revealing Haran’s economic strength as well as its ethnic split as evidenced by its principle languages comprising German, French, and Italian – plus Romany. The Swiss themselves – regardless of language divide – are homogenous, as their Haplogroups reveal. Whereas in Austria, an Austrian majority of sixty percent perceive themselves as German, the Swiss when asked the same question, resoundingly answered No. The meanings of the name Haran are remarkably specific about the Swiss. 

Switzerland is mountainous, free, protected with a wall of strong military tradition, is white with snow and known for its bread, cake, pastry and deserts, including chocolate. It is favoured in wealth via trade – its central location, route through Europe – and in scenery; a veritable paradise of luxury.

The ancient Hurrians and Mitanni were separate yet synonymous – also known as Hanigalbat – with the Hurrians having a lesser role due to a smaller population, with the height of their kingdom longevity shorter – circa 905 to 886 BCE – compared to the Mitanni; but as the warrior nobility within the Kingdom of Mitanni their impact was extensive and protracted – refer Chapter XXV Italy: Nahor & the Chaldeans. 

Recall we mentioned the Mitanni in Chapters XXIII Aram & Tyre: Spain, Portugal & Brazil and XXV Italy: Nahor & the Chaldeans. The Mitanni of upper Mesopotamia were the descendants of the dispossessed Hatti; who had been migrating in the direction of Babylon due to the Hittite expansion in Anatolia encroaching into the former lands of the Hatti. The apogee of the Mitanni kingdom era circa 1150 to 900 BCE is the connecting link between the peak of the Hatti empire during 1900 to 1500 BCE and the later Chaldean rule of Babylon from 626 to 539 BCE.

The Hurrian army was built around an elite chariot corps, like an honour guard, commanded by the king. The relationship between the Hurrians and Mitanni is replicated between Switzerland and Italy in the form of the Papal (or Pontifical) Swiss Guard. It is a combined armed forces and honour guard maintained by the Holy See. It protects the Pope and the Apostolic Palace, serving as the military of the Vatican City. 

Established in 1506 by Pope Julius II, it is one of the oldest military units used in ‘continuous operation.’ The dress uniform is blue, red and yellow – the family colours of the House of Medici of Florence. 

The Swiss Guard are equipped with traditional weapons, like the halberd, as well as with modern firearms. ‘Recruits to the guards must be unmarried Swiss Catholic males between 19 and 30 years of age who have completed basic training with the Swiss Armed Forces.’ The corp also receive enhanced training, in unarmed combat and small arms.

Burgundy is a region in France, made famous by its red wine. It is a little smaller than Switzerland and lies to the west, with only one hundred miles separating them. Though the name lives on in France, the original Burgundians are the ancestors of the Swiss. The Burgundians are considered a Scandinavian people whose original homeland lay on the southern shores of the Baltic Sea; where the island of Bornholm – Burgundarholm in the Middle Ages – still bears their name. In the first century CE they migrated into the lower valley of the Vistula River, but, unable to defend themselves against the Gepidae, they traveled westward. Serving as foederati – meaning auxiliaries – in the Roman army, they formed a powerful kingdom, around Sapaudia – modern day Savoy – near Lake Geneva, from 450 CE.

Christian king Gundobad ruling from 474 to 516 CE, allowed Burgundy to remain independent. Though in 534 the Franks occupied the kingdom, extinguishing the royal dynasty. The area was controlled initially by Neustrian Franks, then Middle Franks and finally German Franks until the year 888. It was then under Frankish Burgundian control until 1032. It was in 888 that Rudolf I – who died in 912 – of the German Welf family was recognised as king of Jurane, Burgundy, including much of what is now Switzerland. His son and successor Rudolf II, was able to conclude a treaty circa 931 with Hugh of Provence, extending ‘his rule over the entire regnum Burgundiae.’ 

The union of Upper and Lower Burgundy was bequeathed in 1032 – lasting until 1648 – to the German king and Holy Roman emperor Conrad II, which became known from the thirteenth century as the Kingdom of Arles. The name Burgundy was being increasingly applied to the county of Burgundy, as well as for the Duchy of Burgundy – both located in modern France. There were four Burgundies in total: the duchy, the county, and the kingdoms of Upper Burgundy and Lower Burgundy. Upper Burgundy larger than lower Burgundy was located in present day western Italy. Lower Burgundy was located in current French speaking western Switzerland.

The Historicity of the Bible, Iurii Mosenkis – emphasis mine:

‘German Nibelungen, Old Norse Niflungar denote the Burgundian royal family which take its name from the people which initially owned the gold hoard. Siegfried slew Nibelung and twelve giants before he took the hoard. In the Norse mythology, Niflheimr (‘mist home’) is the world of frost. The similar world is Niflhel, the lowest level of Norse underworld Hel. The Indo-European root ne-bh means ‘not light (sky)’ (ne – ‘not’ and bh – ‘light’ like in Greek phos) initially and gave several related meanings: ‘sky’ (Russian nebo), ‘cloud, mist’ (Latin nebula), ‘dark’ (Anglo-Saxon nifol) etc.’   

Britannica – emphasis & bold mine:

‘In 1291, when Rudolf I of Habsburg died, the elites of the Waldstatte (“forest cantons”) Uri, Schwyz, and Unterwalden renewed an older treaty confirming that they would maintain public peace and efficient jurisdiction without interference from outside [namely the Austrian Hapsburgs], thus securing their privileged position [Confoederatio Helvetica]. Such pacts were common at that time, but this one was to be considered much later as the foundation of the Swiss Confederation (only since 1891 has August 1, 1291, been celebrated as the birth of the nation).’

The prime Swiss communities of Uri, Schwyz, and Unterwalden, mirror Haran, Canneh and Eden in the Bible. The word Schwyz is where the name Switzerland has derived. The Swiss are famously known for their neutrality from 1815 following the Napoleonic wars against France. The Congress of Vienna guaranteed the perpetual neutrality of Switzerland. The present nation of Switzerland was formed in 1848 with the adoption of a new constitution, as there had been internal conflict prior to this date.

Switzerland is a federated country of 26 Cantons and its administrative capital is Bern; with Lausanne serving as its judicial centre. Switzerland’s small size – its total area is about half that of Scotland and its population of 8,965,466 people, the 20th largest in Europe – gives little indication of its international significance and economic clout. Geneva is home to numerous international organisations and the Swiss economy is the 21st largest in the world – just behind Poland (19) and ahead of Taiwan (22).

The Heraldry for the three original Cantons – the Key similar to the Vatican Keys of Heaven (or Saint Peter)

The Bull, stems from veneration lasting millennium – refer Chapter XV The Philistines: Latino-Hispano America; and article: The Calendar Conspiracy.

Apart from the capital Bern, Zurich is the country’s largest and most cosmopolitan city; its famed Bahnhofstrasse rivalling shopping districts found in other leading cities in the world. Basel and Lucerne are major German speaking cities, with Geneva and Lausanne the centres of the country’s French speaking cantons.

Geneva

In 1992 Swiss voters narrowly turned down membership in a European Economic Area comprising the EU and EFTA. Switzerland is politically isolated within Europe, though maintains strong economic ties with the EU – its largest trading partner. In the 1990s there were growing doubts about Switzerland’s past. ‘Many Swiss questioned the country’s traditional “bunker mentality” in Europe at peace and with open borders.’ 

Troubling for Switzerland was an international debate concerning dormant accounts of assets left by Jews in Swiss banks during the Nazi era, but never returned. ‘A controversy that challenged Switzerland’s image of itself and resulted in a settlement between two large commercial banks and Jewish plaintiffs in which the banks agreed to pay international Jewish organizations two billion Swiss francs (about $1.25 billion). Financial officials estimated that hundreds of millions of dollars in dormant assets remained unclaimed in Swiss banks in the early 21st century.’

‘The following export product groups categorize the highest dollar value in Swiss global shipments during 2021.

1. Gems, precious metals: US$106.3 billion 
2. Pharmaceuticals: $101.5 billion
3. Organic chemicals: $29.7 billion
4. Clocks, watches including parts: $24.4 billion
5. Machinery including computers: $24 billion
6. Optical, technical, medical apparatus: $19.1 billion
7. Electrical machinery, equipment: $13.8 billion
8. Plastics, plastic articles: $6.2 billion
9. Mineral fuels including oil: $4.03 billion
10. Perfumes, cosmetics: $3.98 billion

Mineral fuels including oil was the fastest-growing among the top 10 export categories, up by 107.2% from 2020 to 2021. In second place for improving export sales was… clocks and watches including parts category which rose 34.7%. Switzerland’s shipments of gems and precious metals posted the third-fastest gain in value up by 23.3% year over year, propelled by higher international sales of gold and silver.’

The Alpine nation of Switzerland has a GDP of $947 billion in 2025. Switzerland possesses a large service sector, including financial services and a high-tech manufacturing sector served by a highly skilled labor force. Excellent quality legal, political and economic institutions with a solid physical infrastructure have set the stage for a productive economy with one of the highest per capita GDPs in the world.

Switzerland is in the top ten countries with the largest gold reserves at number seven, ahead of Japan and India and one place behind China. Its total tonnage of gold is 1,040.0 tonnes and represents 5.4% of its foreign reserves. Switzerland maintains the world’s largest reserves of gold per capita. ‘During World War II, the neutral country became the center of the gold trade in Europe, making transactions with both the Allies and Axis powers. Today, much of its gold trading is done with Hong Kong and China.’

In 2023, Switzerland was number one in the world on the Global Innovation Index; ahead of Singapore (5), Finland (6) and South Korea (10).

Haran had a specific son named in the Bible, called Lot. Though he was Abraham’s nephew, Lot was born only seven years after Abraham in 1970 BCE – when Haran was thirty-nine. They had a close relationship and instead of being as an uncle and nephew that they were, acted more like brothers, due to the closeness of their ages. With the premature death of Haran, Abraham was protective of his nephew in more than one instance. The fact that Abraham did not have his own son for many years, meant Lot was logically in line to be Abraham’s heir. This is telling and may have significant bearing in how circumstances eventuated between the descendants of Lot and those from Abraham. 

Abarim Publications – emphasis & bold mine:

‘The name Lot [means] Covering. From the verb (lut), to wrap closely, to envelop

Noun (lat) or (la’t) means secrecy. The verb (malat) means to deliver from confinement or dangerous predicament. For a meaning of the name Lot, both NOBSE Study Bible Name List and Jones’ Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names read Covering. Jones adds Veil.’

Lot

In Genesis chapter eleven we read of Terah’s departure from Ur to Haran, with Abraham and Lot’s families in 1927 BCE. Twenty-five years later when Abraham was seventy-five, the Creator told him to leave Haran to dwell in Canaan further south.

Genesis 12:4-9

English Standard Version

‘So Abram went, as the Lord had told him, and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran. And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, and all their possessions that they had gathered, and the people that they had acquired in Haran, and they set out to go to the land of Canaan. When they came to the land of Canaan, Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem [future location of Simeon and Levi’s revenge for their sister Dinah], to the oak of Moreh.

At that time the Canaanites [dark skinned sons of Canaan] were in the land. Then the Lord appeared to Abram and said, “To your offspring I will give this land.” So he built there an altar to the Lord, who had appeared to him. From there he moved to the hill country on the east of Bethel and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east. And there he built an altar to the Lord and called upon the name of the Lord. And Abram journeyed on, still going toward the Negeb.’

Genesis 13:1-18

English Standard Version

1 ‘So Abram went up from Egypt, he and his wife and all that he had, and Lot with him, into the Negeb. 2 Now Abram was very rich in livestock, in silver, and in gold. 3 And he journeyed on from the Negeb as far as Bethel to the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Bethel and Ai, 4 to the place where he had made an altar at the first. And there Abram called upon the name of the Lord. 5 And Lot, who went with Abram, also had flocks and herds and tents, 6 so that the land could not support both of them dwelling together; for their possessions were so great that they could not dwell together, 7 and there was strife between the herdsmen of Abram’s livestock and the herdsmen of Lot’s livestock. At that time the Canaanites and the Perizzites were dwelling in the land.

8 Then Abram said to Lot, “Let there be no strife between you and me, and between your herdsmen and my herdsmen, for we are kinsmen. 9 Is not the whole land before you? Separate yourself from me. If you take the left hand, then I will go to the right, or if you take the right hand, then I will go to the left.” 10 And Lot lifted up his eyes and saw that the Jordan Valley was well watered everywhere like the garden of the Lord [Eden], like the land of Egypt, in the direction of Zoar. (This was before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.) 11 So Lot chose for himself all the Jordan Valley, and Lot journeyed east. Thus they separated from each other. 12 Abram settled in the land of Canaan, while Lot settled among the cities of the valley and moved his tent as far as Sodom.’ 

Recall in Chapter XXII Alpha & Omega, the location of physical Eden was investigated. We learned that the area of Eden encompassed the region of southern Lebanon and the Sea of Galilee, stretching southwards to Jerusalem and the garden’s location – refer article: The Eden Enigma. We will soon discover that Zoar was situated north of the Dead or Salt Sea and so the fertile Jordan River Valley was a corridor running from Galilee through the Dead Sea – which wasn’t ‘dead’ yet – and all the way south to where the river exits into the Red Sea. Lot saw that this land between Galilee and Zoar was ‘like the garden of the Lord’ or Eden and understandably chose it for his family. Thus he lived to the east of Abraham who dwelt westwards towards the Mediterranean Sea in the land of Canaan. It also explains how Lot ended up living in Sodom – where he became prominent in the City’s governance – as it was one of the five main cities with Zoar, on the plains north of the Salt Sea.

Genesis: 13 ‘Now the men of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the Lord [like Nimrod]. 14 The Lord said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, “Lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward, 15 for all the land that you see I will give to you and to your offspring forever [for a long time]. 16 I will make your offspring as the dust of the earth, so that if one can count the dust of the earth, your offspring also can be counted. 17 Arise, walk through the length and the breadth of the land, for I will give it to you.” 18 So Abram moved his tent and came and settled by the oaks of Mamre, which are at Hebron, and there he built an altar to the Lord.’

It is worth noting that Abraham’s son Issac, chose Hebron to live the last years of his life in peace. The city was later taken by Joshua and given to Caleb and his descendants, becoming a Levitical City and a place of refuge. When David became king, his royal residence was in Hebron, he was anointed king there and he ruled from Hebron for seven and a half years.

Lot chose the fertile lower ground, the plains in the valley bordered between the hills towards the west and the River Jordan to the east. We read a parallel account in the Book of Jasher 15:35-47:

35 ‘And Lot the son of Haran, Abram’s brother, had a heavy stock of cattle, flocks and herds and tents, for the Lord was bountiful to them on account of Abram. 36 And when Abram was dwelling in the land the herdsmen of Lot quarrelled with the herdsmen of Abram, for their property was too great for them to remain together in the land, and the land could not bear them on account of their cattle. 37 And when Abram’s herdsmen went to feed their flock they would not go into the fields of the people of the land, but the cattle of Lot’s herdsmen did otherwise, for they were suffered to feed in the fields of the people of the land.

38 And the people of the land saw this occurrence daily, and they came to Abram and quarrelled with him on account of Lot’s herdsmen. 39 And Abram said to Lot, What is this thou art doing to me, to make me despicable to the inhabitants of the land, that thou orderest thy herdsman to feed thy cattle in the fields of other people? Dost thou not know that I am a stranger in this land amongst the children of Canaan, and why wilt thou do this unto me? 40 And Abram quarrelled daily with Lot on account of this, but Lot would not listen to Abram, and he continued to do the same and the inhabitants of the land came and told Abram.’ 

This display of mercurial stubbornness is indicative of Lot’s descendants.

Jasher: 41 ‘And Abram said unto Lot, How long wilt thou be to me for a stumbling block with the inhabitants of the land? Now I beseech thee let there be no more quarrelling between us, for we are kinsmen. 42 But I pray thee separate from me, go and choose a place where thou mayest dwell with thy cattle and all belonging to thee, but Keep thyself at a distance from me, thou and thy household. 43 And be not afraid in going from me, for if any one do an injury to thee, let me know and I will avenge thy cause from him, only remove from me. 44 And when Abram had spoken all these words to Lot, then Lot arose and lifted up his eyes toward the plain of Jordan. 45 And he saw that the whole of this place was well watered, and good for man as well as affording pasture for the cattle. 46 And Lot went from Abram to that place, and he there pitched his tent and he dwelt in Sodom, and they were separated from each other. 47 And Abram dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and he pitched his tent there, and Abram remained in that place many years.’

The selfishness of Lot in using other peoples property and not caring how that made Abraham look was the beginning of a rift circa 1902 to 1900 BCE between both families, which ultimately led to mistrust, hatred and a perpetual rivalry, based on jealousy between their peoples lasting to the present day. The seeds of the fissure between them, even after Lot had been continually at Abraham’s side were undoubtedly the same that causes nearly all parting of the ways between people – the same reason Asherah left the Ancient of Day’s side – pride or envy, turning to disdain – Article: Asherah. In the section on Chedorlaomer of Elam, we touched on Lot being taken hostage in 1894 BCE after the Battle of the Kings at Siddim. We will return to this battle again when we study Abraham – Chapter XIX Chedorlaomer & the War of Nine Kings; and Chapter XXVII Abraham & Keturah – Benelux & Scandinavia.

Genesis 14:11-16

English Standard Version

‘So the enemy took all the possessions of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their provisions, and went their way. They also took Lot, the son of Abram’s brother, who was dwelling in Sodom, and his possessions, and went their way. Then one who had escaped came and told Abram the Hebrew, who was living by the oaks of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol and of Aner. These were allies of Abram. When Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, he led forth his trained men [soldiers], born in his house, 318 of them, and went in pursuit as far as Dan. And he divided his forces against them by night, he and his servants, and defeated them and pursued them to Hobah, north of Damascus [capital of Gether-Aram]. Then he brought back all the possessions, and also brought back his kinsman Lot with his possessions, and the women and the people.’

Jasher 16:6-8

‘And they plundered all the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and they also took Lot, Abram’s brother’s son, and his property, and they seized all the goods of the cities of Sodom, and they went away; and Unic, Abram’s servant, who was in the battle, saw this, and told Abram all that the kings had done to the cities of Sodom, and that Lot was taken captive by them. And Abram heard this, and he rose up with about three hundred and eighteen men that were with him, and he that night pursued these kings and smote them, and they all fell before Abram and his men, and there was none remaining but the four kings who fled, and they went each his own road. And Abram recovered all the property of Sodom, and he also recovered Lot and his property, his wives and little ones and all belonging to him, so that Lot lacked nothing.’

Abraham risked his life to rescue Lot, who had somewhat deserved what had befallen him, after treating Abraham with disrespect; ensuring he had all his family – including more than one wife – and belongings returned to him safely. Proverbs 25:21-22 CJB: “If someone who hates you is hungry, give him food to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. For you will heap fiery coals (of shame) on his head, and Adonai [the Lord] will reward you.” Abraham was offered a reward by the King of Sodom, but refused to take anything for what he had done. We next read of Lot in Genesis chapter Nineteen.

Genesis 19:1-38

English Standard Version

‘The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth 2 and said, “My lords, please turn aside to your servant’s house and spend the night and wash* your feet. Then you may rise up early and go on your way.” They said, “No; we will spend the night in the town square.” 3 But he pressed them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house. And he made them a feast and baked unleavened** bread [March-April, the time of the Passover* and Feast** of unleavened Bread], and they ate.’

Hebrews 13:2

Complete Jewish Bible

‘… but don’t forget to be friendly to outsiders; for in so doing, some people, without knowing it, have entertained angels.’

Lot had gained a position of responsibility in Sodom when he had moved to the city circa 1900 BCE. Lot was rescued by Abraham in 1894 BCE in the aftermath of the Battle of Siddim. The destruction of Sodom took place in Abraham’s 99th year, in 1878 BCE. For twenty-two years, Lot and his family had resided in Sodom. Sitting in the gate, means Lot was a member of Sodom’s ruling council and involved in the discussion and prosecution of legal matters. Lot may have been an actual Judge.

Genesis: 4 ‘But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know [H3045 – yada: ‘to know a person carnally’] them.” 6 Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him, 7 and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8 Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.”

9 But they said, “Stand back!” And they said, “This fellow came to sojourn, and he has become the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.” Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door down. 10 But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them and shut the door. 11 And they [the angels created a blinding light] struck with blindness the men who were at the entrance of the house, both small and great, so that they wore themselves out groping for the door.’

Judging by the name of the city of Sodom and the fact the crowd of men were wanting the two men who were angels; homosexuality is clearly what was intended. In a broader sense, the city was involved in adult activity with Nephilim and Eliouds, who lived there; for as stated earlier in the Book of Genesis, a second irruption of angelic infiltration with humans had occurred. Hence the requirement for the judgement of utter destruction to be decreed. It may have involved more than sexual relations.

A continuation of the ante-diluvian and post-flood (Tower of Babel) scientific and technological endeavour to completely tamper with mankind’s genetic code and seek profane immortality, would certainly attract punishment – Article: The Pyramid Perplexity. For it has been reserved for the time of the end for these events to reoccur; thus requiring the Creator to re-intervene at that time. Christ’s half-brother Jude, connects the activities before the flood with those taking place in the five cities of the Plain. 

The Greek word heteros translated as ‘strange’ flesh, is referring to sexual congress with either Nephilim or perverted sex with fallen angels not strictly just homosexuality.

Jude 6-7 ESV: ‘And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling… just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural [G2087 – heteros: another, one not of the same nature, form, kind] desire [G4561 – sarx: carnal cravings that incite sin], serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.’

Lot offered his two youngest daughters who were around 15 to 20 years old, to the mob, rather than the angels. What the rationale behind this is conjecture. Maybe Lot was buying time, for he knew the angels could and would resolve the issue without his daughters having to go out – a bluff. Or possibly, he weighed their lives versus those of the messengers sent by the Creator and made a judgement call.

Genesis: 12 ‘Then the men said to Lot, “Have you anyone else here? Sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or anyone [friends] you have in the city, bring them out of the place. 13 For we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord, and the Lord has sent us to destroy it.”

14 So Lot went out and said to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, “Up! Get out of this place, for the Lord is about to destroy the city.” But he seemed to his sons-in-law to be jesting. 15 As morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Up! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be swept away in the punishment of the city.”

Verse 14 is misleading, as it appears the two younger daughters were bequeathed but not yet married. The interlinear reads: And Lot went out, spake unto his sons law, which married his daughters. From the account, we learn that Lot has at least two other daughters, aside from the two virgins already mentioned. The Book of Jasher introduces a fifth daughter.

Book of Jasher 19:11, 23-35 

‘And in the course of time Sarah sent Eliezer to Sodom, to see Lot and inquire after his welfare. 23 … and when it was told to Abraham he went and made war with the kings of Elam, and he recovered from their hands all the property of Lot as well as the property of Sodom. 24 At that time the wife of Lot bare him a daughter [circa 1894 BCE], and he called her name Paltith, saying, Because God had delivered him and his whole household from the kings of Elam; and Paltith daughter of Lot grew up, and one of the men of Sodom took her for a wife [circa 1882-1879 BCE]. 

25 And a poor man came into the city to seek a maintenance, and he remained in the city some days, and all the people of Sodom caused a proclamation of their custom** not to give this man a morsel of bread to eat, until he dropped dead upon the earth, and they did so. 26 And Paltith the daughter of Lot saw this man lying in the streets starved with hunger, and no one would give him any thing to keep him alive, and he was just upon the point of death. 27 And her soul was filled with pity on account of the man, and she fed him secretly with bread for many days… and three men concealed themselves in a place where the poor man was stationed, to know who it was that brought him bread to eat… 32 And the three men saw what Paltith did to the poor man… 34 And they took Paltith and brought her before their judges… now therefore declare to us the punishment due to this woman for having transgressed our law. 35 And the people of Sodom and Gomorrah assembled and kindled a fire in the street of the city, and they took the woman and cast her into the fire and she was burned to ashes.’

Paltith would have been about fifteen or sixteen, when she was put to death, which was not long before Sodom was destroyed. Anciently, daughters were given in marriage as soon as they were deemed a woman and able to serve a husband and bear his children.

Genesis: 16 ‘But he lingered. So the men seized him and his wife and his two daughters by the hand, the Lord being merciful to him, and they brought him out and set him outside the city.’ 

Lot’s angelic visitors and protectors had already taken an aerial reconnoissance. According to the Haggadah, they were then able to fly him and his family inside their craft out of Sodom’s City wall boundaries. It was then that they instructed Lot to flee to further safety. 

Genesis: 17 ‘And as they brought them out, one said, “Escape for your life. Do not look back or stop anywhere in the valley. Escape to the hills, lest you be swept away.” 18 And Lot said to them, “Oh, no, my lords. 19 Behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have shown me great kindness in saving my life. But I cannot escape to the hills, lest the disaster overtake me and I die.

20 Behold, this city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one. Let me escape there – is it not a little one? – and my life will be saved!” 21 He said to him, “Behold, I grant you this favor also, that I will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken. 22 Escape there quickly, for I can do nothing till you arrive there.” Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.’

Contrary Lot, might be a fitting name and at a moment when time was of the essence. We will find that his descendants are in fact an impulsive and unpredictable people. Granted, Lot was ninety-two years old – just ten years older than when his father, Haran died. It is ironic, for Lot did not linger in Zoar, but rather fled from Zoar and retreated to a cave. 

Lot’s entreating was in fact a far bigger favour even granted by the angels than sparing his life. When asking to be able to go to Zoar, he was actually asking for one of the five cities marked for destruction to be spared. The five cities in question were Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zebo[im] and Bela – afterwards known as Zoar. According to Lot, it would seem it was the smallest of the five cites on the plain. 

In contrast to what is commonly taught, the condemnation of Sodom and the other cities was not just because of sexual transgressions. Another reason is given in Ezekiel 16:49-50 ESV: “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid** the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it.”

Genesis: 23 ‘The sun had risen on the earth when Lot came to Zoar. 24 Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven. 25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground. 26 But Lot’s wife, behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.’

Book of Jasher 19:52-54 

‘And he overthrew these cities, all the plain and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground; and Ado the wife of Lot looked back to see the destruction of the cities, for her compassion was moved on account of her daughters who remained in Sodom, for they did not go with her. 53 And when she looked back she became a pillar of salt, and it is yet in that place unto this day. 54 And the oxen which stood in that place daily licked up the salt to the extremities of their feet, and in the morning it would spring forth afresh, and they again licked it up unto this day.’

The Book of Jasher gives Lot’s wife’s name as Ado. Certain Rabbis refer to her as Idit. One vowel lacking from Idiot, it would unfortunately seem. The Midrash calls her Edith, which may have derived from Idit. The Book of Jasher supports other married daughters still in Sodom, when Lot, his wife and two unmarried daughters fled for their lives. It helps to explain, why Idit disobeyed the Angel’s instruction. It may have been more than the intensity of the detonation and Idit doing more than just looking back. She must have lingered too close to the blast zone. The interlinear infers this: ‘But his wife looked back from behind him…’

Luke 17:28-32 

English Standard Version

‘Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot – they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all – so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed. On that day, let the one who is on the housetop, with his goods in the house, not come down to take them away, and likewise let the one who is in the field not turn back.

Remember Lot’s wife.’

Genesis: 27 ‘And Abraham went early in the morning to the place where he had stood before the Lord. 28 And he looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah and toward [the east] all the land of the valley, and he looked and, behold, the smoke of the land went up like the smoke of a furnace. 29 So it was that, when God destroyed the cities of the valley, God remembered Abraham and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow when he overthrew the cities in which Lot had lived.’ 

Wisdom of Solomon 10.7 GNT: 

‘You can still see the evidence of their wickedness. The land there is barren and smoking. The plants bear fruit that never ripens, and a pillar of salt stands as a monument to one who did not believe.’

Evidence found supporting the Biblical description of Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction? Dean Smith, 2018 – emphasis mine:

‘In an article published in Science News, archaeologists working at Tall el-Hammam located in Jordan… have found evidence corroborating its massive destruction recorded in the Bible that spoke of brimstone and fire falling from the sky… Archaeologists have found evidence of the area being hit with a massive explosion that turned glaze on potsherds into glass. They also found stone fragments stuck in the glaze that supports the idea that something poured down upon cities from the sky. According to lead archaeologist Philip J. Silvia, the heat was “perhaps as hot as the surface of the sun.” They also discovered that the bricks used in the buildings were totally obliterated leaving only the stone foundations.

The Bible records that not only were the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah [destroyed] but much of the valley as well and Silva confirmed this adding they found evidence the blast covered an area of 15.5 miles and killing upwards of 65,000 people. The site on the north end of the Dead Sea was so devastated that it took 600 years for the soil to recover sufficiently to allow crops… 

Writing on behalf of the Tall el-Hamman Excavation Project, co-director Dr. Steven Collins said: “The violent conflagration that ended occupation at Tall el-Hammam produced melted potters, scorched foundation stones and several feet of ash and destruction debris churned into a dark gray matrix ‘as if in a Cuisinart’ [food processor].”

Archaeological evidence confirms that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by intense fire, Dean Smith, 2020- emphasis mine:

‘According to archaeologists working on the site believed to include the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, they found evidence confirming the Biblical record that the two cities were destroyed by sulphur and fire… The archaeologists, who have been working on the site for 13 years, reported discovering evidence of intense heat. This included clay and rock that had been turned into glass. 

This would require a brief burst of heat of between 8,000 to 12,000 degree Celsius. The archaeologists also noted that the destruction took place “in an instant,” and resulted in the stripping of the topsoil. The archaeologists added that “a super-heated brine of Dead Sea anhydride salts pushed over the [landscape] by the Event’s frontal shock wave.”

It is interesting that even the Biblical account noted the appearance of salt as it described Lot’s wife being turned into a pillar of salt and as well, noted the destruction of vegetation. They wrote, “the physical evidence from Tall el-Hamman and neighboring sites exhibit signs of a highly destructive concussive and thermal event that one might expect from what is described in Genesis 19.”

Secular history is silent concerning Lot, ‘save for the fact that the Dead Sea has always been called by the Arabs, the Sea of Lot.’ The Battle of Siddim, including the Plain with the five cities – four of them destroyed – is located in the area of the Dead Sea or Sea of Death. The Dead Sea and its composition is an anomaly that can be explained only by the biblical destruction of the region as recorded in Genesis chapter nineteen. Archaeological digs have confirmed the northern end, southeast of Jericho, of the Dead Sea – rather than the traditional southern end – as the original site of the Valley of Siddim. 

Flying Serpents and Dragons, R A Boulay, 1997 & 1999, Pages 195, 197-198, 206-207 – emphasis mine:

‘There is no scriptural or other evidence to support… Sodom and Gormorrah [being]… located… in the shallow or southern part of the Dead Sea, the body of water the Jews call… the Salt Sea…To the contrary, all indications are that the [five] cities were located in the northern part of the Dead Sea… [nor] the age of the Dead Sea [being] hundreds of thousands of years old… this sea dates… [according to Velikovsky to] less than 5000 years [ago]… [or] no further back than the days of Abraham [1878 BCE]. In the Biblical story… it specifically states that the area now occupied by the Dead Sea used to be called the Valley or vale of Siddim [Genesis 14:3]…’ 

‘Some catastrophic event must have caused the [rupture of the] geological fault (which runs through and underlies the area) to displace, the ground sinking in the process, and forming a seal to allow the accumulation of water [creating a large inland sea] from the inflow of the Jordan River. Josephus adds… that the Lord “cast a thunderbolt upon the city and set it on fire with its inhabitants.” In the Haggadah, this thunderbolt comes from the Shekinah, the aerial chariot of the Lord: “When the angels had brought forth Lot and his family and set them outside the city, he bade them run for their lives, and not look behind, lest they behold the Shekinah, which had descended to work the destruction of the cities…”

The Dead Sea contains twenty-one minerals including Sodium, Magnesium, Calcium, Bromine, Bitumen and Potassium. Twelve of these are found in no other sea or ocean. The Dead Sea contains ten times more salts and minerals than the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea has a 33% concentration of salt compared to only 3% in the world’s oceans. There are other bodies of water in the world with similar salt content ratios – one wonders if they are victims of a similar fate as the Dead Sea?

Genesis: 30 ‘Now Lot went up out of Zoar and lived in the hills with his two daughters, for he was afraid to live in Zoar. So he lived in a cave with his two daughters. 31 And the firstborn said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth. 32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring [seed] from our father.” 33 So they made their father drink wine that night. And the firstborn went in and lay with her father. He did [not?] know when she lay down or when she arose.’

The incident with an intoxicated Noah and his daughter-in-law Na’eltama’uk, did not end well – refer Chapter XI Ham Aequator. This is another situation in being taken advantage of while inebriated. The cave location was very remote and the eldest daughter – the only sister recorded speaking – was concerned that their father Lot is old and may die (without a son and heir) and that any chance of a man visiting for them wasn’t presenting itself anytime soon. Their sisters and brothers-in-law in Sodom were dead and would not be leaving any children. This is more likely perhaps, than their thinking the world had ended and there were no men left to continue humankind. The three of them had left Zoar and knew there were other survivors. Either way, the daughters do not take their father into their confidence. 

The biblical account presents the daughters as the ‘initiators and perpetrators of the incestuous rape’ of Lot over two separate nights, according to Esther Fuchs. The verb used by the older daughter about eighteen to twenty years old for giving Lot wine also means to irrigate the ground. Thus, the daughters intentions are not to just give their father a glass or two, but to fully saturate him and get Lot very drunk; before having sexual intercourse with him. The next night, the younger sister about fifteen to seventeen years old, repeats the course of action. The fact that the sisters get their father very drunk, suggests their actions were more altruistic than driven by desire.

One feels for Lot after the second night of binge drinking and not only the hangover he must have endured but coming to the realisation of what he had been party too.

The Hebrew word used for offspring is zera, meaning seed or offspring in a general sense, rather than for a specific ‘son.’ The intent is ultimately related to the eventual Messiah and fulfilment of Genesis 3:15. From a historical perspective, these acts were essential for the future birth of the Son of Man. The Creator would judge the daughters by their thoughts and not necessarily their deeds; as this is a recurrent theme in the Bible for those the Creator is working with. The daughters true intent was not to lay with their father for sexual gratification, but rather to ensure their family line continued. 

Support that Lot’s daughters were vindicated rather than Lot himself is the fact that the prohibition in Deuteronomy 23:2-4, 6 ESV, applies to males not females: “No one born of a forbidden union may enter the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of his descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord. No Ammonite or Moabite may enter the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of them may enter the assembly of the Lord forever, because they did not meet you – the sons of Jacob – with bread and with water on the way, when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you. You shall not seek their peace or their prosperity all your days forever.”

The angels who rescued Lot would have been cognisant of the fact that Ruth the Moabite would trace her lineage to the eldest sister, and her marriage to Boaz from the tribe of Judah would result in descendants, including King David and the Messianic Saviour. They would also have known that Naamah the Ammonite, would trace her lineage to the youngest sister and her marriage to King Solomon – the only wife of Solomon stated by name in the Bible – would result in the birth of Rehoboam, King of Judah after Solomon – Article: Seventh Son of a Seventh Son. 

The goodness of Lot’s daughters intentions displayed, in that they lay with their father only once and like Ruth – acted for an ideal – when she lay at the foot of Boaz’s bed in the threshing floor. 

Genesis: 34 ‘The next day, the firstborn said to the younger, “Behold, I lay last night with my father. Let us make him drink wine tonight also. Then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve offspring from our father.” 35 So they made their father drink wine that night also. And the younger arose and lay with him, and he did [not?] know when she lay down or when she arose.’ 

Scholars, such as Robert Alter have postulated that Lot’s daughters in sleeping with their father “suggests measure-for-measure justice meted out for his rash offer” to the mob outside their home. ‘Rabbis have observed that a man usually allows himself to be killed in order to save his wife and children… Lot was willing to allow the townspeople to abuse his daughters.’ In Sodom, Lot was ready to offer his daughters – possibly against their will – to engage in sexual relations with the people outside. Later, Lot’s daughters have relations with their unwitting father. These acts of incest are Lot’s punishment for his indecorous behaviour, according to some scholars. 

There are two Rabbinic views issued against the patriarch Lot. Firstly, that Lot ‘from the outset, decided to dwell in Sodom because he wanted to engage in the licentious [behaviour] of its inhabitants.’ Lot thought he could engage secretly in depravity. He is then later, humiliated through his daughters seducing him. R Nahman bar Hanan said to the effect: “Whoever is driven by his lust for fornication, will eventually be fed from his own flesh.” Lot was so eager to engage in promiscuity, that in the end, his daughters played the harlot with him.

Secondly, Lot insidiously desired his daughters; for he was inebriated when the elder sister lay with him, though he was sober enough to know when she rose. 

This is indicated in the Old Testament ‘by the supralinear dot over the word u-ve-komah (“when she rose”).’ Though Lot was not aware of what was going to happen when he drunk the wine, he was aware of having sex with his eldest daughter by the time she left his bed. Therefore, his willingness to drink wine the next night – means to some – that he was complicit in repeating incest with his younger daughter. On the basis of what is said in Proverbs 18:1 CJB: “He who separates himself indulges his desires and shows contempt for sound advice of any kind”, some Rabbis conclude that Lot did lust after his daughters. Particularly, as Lot sought out a remote cave which allowed the facilitation of the incestuous events to occur. 

Even so, other Rabbis have reinterpreted the incest accounts of Lot and his daughters in the Bible in a more positive light due to the royal and messianic lineages it produced. Ironically, the other half of David’s lineage is similarly problematic for the Rabbis; as Tamar secures a son, by surreptitiously seducing her father-in-law Judah. The son Pharez, in turn becomes an ancestor to Boaz and thus also, to King David.

Genesis: 36 ‘Thus both the daughters of Lot became pregnant by their father. 37 The firstborn bore a son and called his name Moab. He is the father of the Moabites to this day. 38 The younger also bore a son and called his name Ben-ammi. He is the father of the Ammonites to this day.

Book of Jasher 19:55, 57-60 

‘And Lot and two of his daughters that remained with him fled and escaped to the cave of Adullam, and they remained there for some time… And they both lay with their father, and they conceived and bare sons… And after this Lot and his two daughters went away from there, and he dwelt on the other side of the Jordan with his two daughters and their sons, and the sons of Lot grew up, and they went and took themselves wives from the land of Canaan, and they begat children and they were fruitful and multiplied.’

The eldest daughter names her son Moab, which means ‘from my father.’ She has been rather brazen and immodest in openly naming her son being born of her father. This now leaves no doubt as to the union being an incestuous one. The younger daughter names her son Ben-Ammi, which means ‘son of my clan,’ a more veiled euphemistic reference to her son’s origin. While the names of the sons are descriptive of their conception, they serve a negative etiological (cause or origin of something, invariably a disease) function for Israel’s neighbours – and frequent enemies – as the Moabites and the Ammonites. The definitions, puzzlingly humiliate Lot – as if revengeful retribution was a motive – while at the same time demeaning also his daughters who named the babies.

Chapter XI, The Moabites and the Ammonites, Emanuel Swedenborg – emphasis mine:

‘It is a remarkable fact that the children of Lot should have commemorated their infamous origin in their very names. Moab means literally “water of a father,” while Ammon or Ben-ammi means “son of my mother.” These names, so horribly suggestive, were proudly retained by two whole nations throughout their history. The Old Testament is silent as to the personal story of the two sons of Lot, but they evidently repeated the story of the founders of the other Hebrew nations, becoming chieftains… and founding royal dynasties…

The descendants of Moab within a few generations took possession of the country formerly inhabited by the Emim, (“terrible ones”), a branch of the aboriginal Nephilim, even as their cousins, the descendants of Ammon, took possession of the country formerly occupied by the Zuzim and Zamzummim.

The [partial] slaughter of these ancient giant races by Chedorlaomer and his allies no doubt cleared the way for the children of Lot. The Moabites found homes in the rich and well protected plateau to the east of the Dead Sea, extending from the land of Edom in the south to the land of Gilead in the north, while the Ammonites established themselves in the land of Gilead… and they dwelt here until they were driven into the eastern desert by the tribes of Gad and Reuben… their descendants recovered the land of Gilead after the Assyrians had carried away the tribe of Gad.’

The significance of the Ammonites dwelling in Gilead will become apparent as we progress.

2 Peter 2:6-8 ESV: ‘… if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued righteous [1] Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked (for as that righteous [2] man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous [3] soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard)…’

The author of 2 Peter really wishes to convey the righteousness of Lot, yet was he really righteous? His actions do not convey the deeds of a converted mind. For Lot a. knowingly insulted the local land owners; b. fell out with ‘righteous’ Abraham (Romans 4:22); c. ignored the specific instructions of the angels when fleeing Sodom and argued for his own way – and then preceded to change his mind about living in Zoar and fled to a cave in the hills as the angels and stipulated in the first place; d. was willing to sacrifice his youngest daughters’ virginity to rape; and e. then slept with both of them himself. As the Book of 2 Peter was not authored by the Apostle Peter, one wonders as to the inspiration and veracity of its claims regarding Lot – refer article: The Pauline Paradox.

In fact, Lot is not included in Hebrews chapter eleven as one of the faithful, with Abraham and Sarah. His omission is more glaring than King Solomon for example, who deliberately turned away from the Lord – 1 Kings 11:9. The author of 2 Peter calls Lot a righteous soul in the Greek Interlinear. And so by extension, he has perhaps unduly included Lot with the righteous giants, Noah, Daniel and Job – Ezekiel 14:14.

Even so, Lot has a lot in common with Job in the dramatic and sudden loss of most of his family. Lot lost his wife, and at least two daughters and two sons-in-law. Job 1:1-2, 18-19 ESV: ‘There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job, and that man was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil. There were born to him seven sons and three daughters… “Your sons and daughters were eating and drinking wine in their oldest brother’s house, and behold, a great wind came across the wilderness and struck the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young people, and they are dead, and I alone have escaped to tell you” – refer Chapter XXIX Esau: The Thirteenth Tribe.

Perhaps the Eternal was working with Lot in humbling him.

Ammon, the younger brother of Moab, is invariably described as the ‘children or sons of Ammon’ in the Bible, a clue to their status not being quite the same as Moab or other identities investigated thus far. The Hebrew definition of H5983 from H5971, for Ammon is tribal or inbred as one born from incest.

Abarim Publications – emphasis & bold mine:

‘The name Ben-ammi meaning: Son Of My Kinsman, Son Of My People from (1) the noun (ben), son, and (2) the noun (‘am), people or kinsman [kindred].

The only Ben-ammi in the Bible is the incestuous son of Lot and his younger daughter, who becomes the patriarch of the “sons” of Ammon, also known as the Ammonites (Genesis 19:38)… it‘s curious that both the daughters… of this prominent figure remain nameless, also since Lot‘s daughters are matriarchs of enormous nations.

The noun (ben) means son, or more general: a member of one particular social or economic node – called a “house”, which is built upon the instructions of one (‘ab), or “father”… within… a larger economy… This noun obviously resembles the verb (bana), to build, and the noun (‘eben), stone. Our noun’s feminine version, namely (bat), means daughter, which resembles the noun (bayit), meaning house. The word for mother, (’em), is highly similar to that of tribe or people, (‘umma). The verb (‘mm) probably expressed to be inclusive or comprehensive. Its rare uses in the Bible relate to making secrets or making info available to an in-crowd. 

For a meaning of the name Ammon, NOBSE Study Bible Name List reads A People. Jones’ Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names proposes Great People, taking the extension as an intensitive.’

The children of Ammon today are in part, the French Canadians of Quebec. They also comprise the northwesterly section of the nation of France (and the capital, Paris); with the main body of French being descended from the eldest son Moab.

French Canadian men

The Origin of the Nations, Herman Hoeh, 1957 – emphasis mine: 

‘Abraham also had a nephew named Lot. Lot had two sons, Moab and Ammon. They were born to him after the calamity that hit Sodom (Genesis 19:37-38). They lived by the Arabs east of the Dead Sea next to Palestine. They are still in the same region today! Their nation today is called Jordan, after the Jordan River. Jordan has been much in the news lately, Amman is the capital of Jordan now.’

The Arabs once lived in north Africa and then migrated to the Arabian Peninsula. They never lived north of this area or next to Moab and Ammon. The peoples of present day Jordan as discussed, are descendants of Mizra, son of Ham – Chapter XIV Mizra: North Africa & Arabia. Moab and Ammon migrated from Palestine a very long time ago; with some two thousand years elapsing between there and their present location.

Hoeh: ‘Isaiah 11:14 points out that these two sons of Lot live near Palestine today. Since the days of Isaiah, the children of Moab have been “very small and without strength” (Isaiah 16:13-14). They have not been taken “into captivity” to another nation (Jeremiah 48:11), In these latter days boastful Moab lives “together with the children of Ammon” (Ezekiel 25:9-10). The Kingdom of Jordan occupies part of present-day Palestine and keeps the Jews from dwelling in Old Jerusalem. Jeremiah 49:1-2 prophesied this over 2500 years ago! But Arabs and Jordanians are not the only Hebrews!’

Isaiah chapter sixteen is a future reference to Moab. Moab and Ammon are anything but a ‘very few and feeble’ people (English Standard version). The Arabic peoples descended from Ham are not Hebrews. This appellation refers broadly to the descendants of Peleg through his grandson, Eber. It would include Moab and Ammon. In time it was applied primarily to the sons of Jacob. The chief city or capital of the Ammonites was Rabbah and has a modern day equivalent – to be discussed. Hoeh’s comment regarding Moab and Ammon today living together is an insightful one and biblically and historically supported.

French Canadian women

Abarim Publications – emphasis & bold mine:

‘The name Rabbah meaning: Great from the verb (rabab), to be great or many.

There are two cities named Rabbah in the Bible, the lesser known one is a city in the territory allotted to the tribe of Judah (Joshua 15:60). The most famous Rabbah was also known as Rabbath-bene-ammon or “Rabbath of the sons of Ammon” (Rabbath is really the same as Rabbah, just of an older spelling), which was the major city of Ammon (modern Amman, the capital of Jordan).

It’s first mentioned in the Bible as the final resting place of the huge iron bed of king Og of Bashan (Deuteronomy 3:11). What Og’s bunk was doing in an Ammonite metropolis is a bit of a mystery. Bashan was a kingdom located to the east of the Sea of Galilee, and Ammon country was to the east of the Salt Sea. But Og was the last of the Rephaim… and they were expelled by the Ammonites (Deuteronomy 2:20). It appears that the Ammonites had hoisted Og’s huge bedstead to their capital as a trophy.

Even though YHWH had ordered not to meddle with Ammon (Deuteronomy 2:19), the tribes of Gad and Reuben [plus the half tribe of East Manasseh] settled in their land anyway. Rabbah is listed as just over the border of Gad, which puts it in or near Reuben, although that’s not explicitly mentioned (Joshua 15:25). The reason for this is probably that the Ammonites held out in Rabbah until the time of king David.

While the author of 2 Samuel focuses mainly on David’s seduction of Bathsheba, her husband Uriah was engaged with the siege of Rabbah. The author casually reports that the Ammonites were destroyed and Rabbah captured by general Joab (2 Samuel 11:1, 12:26). The gold crown of the Ammonite king weighed a talent and was placed on David’s head, and the Ammonites were massacred in the most creative ways (2 Samuel 12:31)… Nahash is also the name of the cruel Ammonite king whom Saul defeated (1 Samuel 11:1). The son of this Nahash, Hanun, provoked David into the siege that ended in Rabbah’s ultimate defeat (2 Samuel 10:1). 

… the identical noun (rab) means chief or captain. Noun (rob) means multitude or abundance. Possibly a second yet identical verb (rabab) means to shoot, particularly of arrows. This may very well be a specified usage of our verb since arrows are customarily shot en masse by many archers. Noun (rab) means archer, and is identical to the adjective meaning many. Fittingly, noun (arbeh) denotes a kind of locust.

For a meaning of the name Rabbah, NOBSE Study Bible Name List reads Great, Jones’ Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names has Great City, and BDB Theological Dictionary proposes Great or Populous.’

There are hundreds of references to Ammon and Moab in the Bible as they were an arch nemesis of the sons of Jacob. The reason for this was heightened by the fact they were great nations with large populations living next to each other. The fact that the sons of Jacob had returned to the land centuries after leaving had only exacerbated their natural enmity as two closely related family members who just didn’t get along. 

Chapter XI, The Moabites and the Ammonites, Emanuel Swedenborg – emphasis mine:

‘Both became great and powerful clans or nations, but the Ammonites always preferred the roving life of… marauders, while Moab… [developed] into a settled, well organized and prosperous nation, the chief characteristics of which were wealth and moral corruption.

The prosperity and riches of Moab are vividly portrayed in the Word. In the cities of this land there was “a great multitude of people,” living on the “glory” and “fat of the land,” possessing “great treasure,” and crowding the temples of Chemosh and Baal Peor, where infants were sacrificed, and virgins prostituted in the name of religion’ – refer article: Belphegor. ‘Outside of the towns were the “plentiful fields,” the vineyards and gardens of “summer fruit,” the meadows where hundreds of thousands of sheep and cattle were browsing. Peace and prosperity reign everywhere; the people are fat and self-satisfied, but of the worship of the true God there is not a trace.

Small wonder that such a nation should view with alarm the approach of a great horde of desert wanderers, asking permission to pass through the land on their way to Canaan. They came as Hebrew kinsmen, worshipping an ancient but generally forsaken deity named Jehovah. Balak, the king of the Moabites, now bethought himself of a Syrian wizard, Balaam, who was [known]: to prophecy in the name of Jehovah and who was wont to dispense his blessings or cursings for filthy lucre. If a prophet of Jehovah were to curse the children of Israel, the latter would surely be put to confusion. He, therefore, sent for the complaisant prophet, but great was his disgust when the magician was forced by his God to turn the intended curse into a blessing, the power and beauty of which are almost without equal in Hebrew literature. Dismayed, Balak now allied himself with the Midianites in an effort to destroy Israel by the seductions of harlots in the lascivious rites of Baal Peor, but again his scheme was frustrated, and he was glad to escape the frightful punishment meted out to the Midianites, who had been the most active in the plot.

The subsequent relations of Moab with Israel were of a somewhat mixed character, sometimes friendly, as is evident from the story of Ruth, the Moabitish ancestress of David, but more generally hostile. Not long after the Israelitish conquest, Eglon, king of Moab, by the assistance of Ammon and Amalek, “smote Israel and possessed himself of the city of palm trees,” (Jericho), The children of Israel now “served Eglon for eighteen years” (Judges 3:13), until they were delivered by Ehud [2nd Judge of Israel, from the tribe of Benjamin – from 1284 to 1204 BCE]. The Moabites, however, continued to harass the chosen people on various occasions, and were not subdued until David put to the sword two-thirds of the population, the remainder becoming bondsmen and subjected to a regular tribute, (2 Samuel 8:2; 23:20), thus literally fulfilling Balaam’s prophecy: “Out of Jacob shall come he that shall have dominion and shall destroy him that remaineth of Ar,” (i.e., Moab). After the division of Solomon’s kingdom, Moab seems to have remained tributary to the kingdom of Israel, and in the time of Ahab paid an annual tribute of [100,000 rams] – an indication of the almost fabulous wealth of so small a nation.

After the death of Ahab the Moabites revolted and joined the Ammonites in an attack upon the kingdom of Judah. The allies, however, fell to fighting one another; and Judah, Israel and Edom now joined in a war against Moab; the latter fell into an ambush and were slaughtered; the land of Moab was swept clean by the besom of destruction; the cities were beaten down and their stones scattered over the fields… the wells of water were filled up, and all the trees of the land were cut down. The king of Moab, with his family and a small remnant of the army, took refuge in Kir-haraseth where, in the extremity of despair, and in full sight of the besiegers, “he took his eldest son, that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall.” (2 Kings 3:27.) 

The besieging army, struck with horror at this sight, now withdrew to their own lands. After this awful event, nothing further is known of the history of Moab for a long period, but it appears that Moab gradually recovered all of its former prosperity, and in addition took possession of the territory of Reuben, after this tribe had been carried away by the Assyrians. At the time of the Babylonian invasion, Moab submitted to Nebuchadnezzar, and after the return of the Jews from the captivity the Moabites took the lead in annoying those who were rebuilding Jerusalem. Even at the time of the last Jewish war the Moabites, according to Josephus, was still “a very great nation,” but two hundred years afterwards they were exterminated or absorbed by a great invasion of “the children of the East.”

The Moabites were neither ‘exterminated or absorbed’ but rather, they were forced to migrate westwards. The Ammonites were a more diverse or fragmented people compared to their elder brother Moab. In Canaan the Ammonites had their own territory north of Moab, with their own capital – Rabbah. Ultimately they joined with Moab and migrated with them. Though these were not all the descendants of Ammon and Moab as we shall discover. In modern times, most have unified with Moab in France, while the remainder migrated to New France in North America, eventually becoming the modern province of Quebec in Canada. 

Today, the term Rabbah – as in those Ammonites not dwelling with Moab – broadly means the province of Quebec and Rabbah as in specifically the capital, is fulfilled by Quebec City.

When the Israelites entered Canaan, they were instructed to leave Ammon alone.

Deuteronomy 2:16-22, 37

English Standard Version

16 “So as soon as all the men of war had perished and were dead from among the people, 17 the Lord said to me, 18 ‘Today you are to cross the border of Moab at Ar. 19 And when you approach the territory of the people of Ammon, do not harass them or contend with them, for I will not give you any of the land of the people of Ammon as a possession, because I have given it to the sons of Lot for a possession.’ 20 (It is also counted as a land of Rephaim. Rephaim formerly lived there – but the Ammonites call them Zamzummim – 21 a people great and many, and tall as the Anakim; but the Lord destroyed them before the Ammonites, and they dispossessed them and settled in their place, 22 as he did for the people of Esau, who live in Seir, when he destroyed the Horites before them and they dispossessed them and settled in their place even to this day. 37 Only to the land of the sons of Ammon you did not draw near, that is, to all the banks of the river Jabbok and the cities of the hill country, whatever the Lord our God had forbidden us.”

The Israelites and Ammonites repeatedly disputed territory and borders. The rift between Lot and Abraham didn’t heal or improve with time and aggravation continually worsened the relationship. The instruction was clear: do not engage negatively with Ammon in any way or take their land.

Joshua 13:8-13

English Standard Version

‘With the other half of the tribe of Manasseh [half tribe of East Manasseh (or Gilead)] the Reubenites and the Gadites received their inheritance, which Moses gave them, beyond the Jordan eastward, as Moses the servant of the Lord gave them: from Aroer, which is on the edge of the Valley of the Arnon, and the city that is in the middle of the valley, and all the tableland of Medeba as far as Dibon; and all the cities of Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon, as far as the boundary of the Ammonites; and Gilead, and the region of the Geshurites and Maacathites, and all Mount Hermon, and all Bashan to Salecah; all the kingdom of Og in Bashan, who reigned in Ashtaroth and in Edrei (he alone was left of the remnant of the Rephaim); these Moses had struck and driven out. Yet the people of Israel did not drive out the Geshurites or the Maacathites, but Geshur and Maacath dwell in the midst of Israel to this day.’

After the sons of Jacob fought the existing Canaanite inhabitants and had either killed or subjugated them, the land was divided amongst the tribes on the eastern side of the River Jordan. The tribe of Manasseh had split in two. The half tribe of West Manasseh stayed with their brother Ephraim, while the half tribe of East Manasseh struck out on their own. With the tribes of Reuben and Gad, they requested to live on the east side of the River Jordan. These two and a half tribes believed the land was spacious and suitable to live. It did not come without difficulties; namely, Ammonites, Amorites, various tribes of Elioud giants  – such as king Og of the Rephaim – and Mount Herman, the once headquarters so-to-speak, of the Watcher fallen angels.

Judges 10:17-18

English Standard Version

‘Then the Ammonites were called to arms, and they encamped in Gilead. And the people of Israel came together, and they encamped at Mizpah. And the people, the leaders of Gilead, said one to another, “Who is the man who will begin to fight against the Ammonites? He shall be head over all the inhabitants of Gilead.”

Gilead – a name brought to the wider public’s attention by the Canadian author Margaret Atwood and her insightful novel, The Handmaid’s Tale in 1985 (and 1990 film) – was the broad area east of the River Jordan and bordering north of Ammon which had been settled by the two and a half tribes of Israel. In time, the word Gilead became more synonymous with the half tribe of East Manasseh than with Reuben or Gad.

Judges 11:11-33

English Standard Version

11 ‘So Jephthah [ninth Judge of Israel for 6 years beginning in 1106 BCE from the half tribe of East Manasseh (or Gilead)] went with the elders of Gilead, and the people made him head and leader over them. And Jephthah spoke all his words before the Lord at Mizpah. 

12 Then Jephthah sent messengers to the king of the Ammonites and said, “What do you have against me, that you have come to me to fight against my land?” 13 And the king of the Ammonites answered the messengers of Jephthah, “Because Israel on coming up from Egypt took away my land, from the Arnon to the Jabbok and to the Jordan; now therefore restore it peaceably.” 14 Jephthah again sent messengers to the king of the Ammonites 15 and said to him, “Thus says Jephthah: Israel did not take away the land of Moab or the land of the Ammonites, 16 but when they came up from Egypt, Israel went through the wilderness to the Red Sea and came to Kadesh. 17 Israel then sent messengers to the king of Edom, saying, ‘Please let us pass through your land,’ but the king of Edom would not listen. And they sent also to the king of Moab, but he would not consent. So Israel remained at Kadesh.

18 “Then they journeyed through the wilderness and went around the land of Edom and the land of Moab and arrived on the east side of the land of Moab and camped on the other side of the Arnon. But they did not enter the territory of Moab, for the Arnon was the boundary of Moab. 19 Israel then sent messengers to Sihon king of the Amorites, king of Heshbon, and Israel said to him, ‘Please let us pass through your land to our country,’ 20 but Sihon did not trust Israel to pass through his territory, so Sihon gathered all his people together and encamped at Jahaz and fought with Israel. 21 And the Lord, the God of Israel, gave Sihon and all his people into the hand of Israel, and they defeated them. So Israel took possession of all the land of the Amorites, who inhabited that country… 

23 So then the Lord, the God of Israel, dispossessed the Amorites from before his people Israel; and are you to take possession of them? 24 Will you not possess what Chemosh your god gives you to possess? And all that the Lord our God has dispossessed before us, we will possess. 25 Now are you any better than Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab? Did he ever contend against Israel, or did he ever go to war with them? 26 While Israel lived in Heshbon and its villages, and in Aroer and its villages, and in all the cities that are on the banks of the Arnon, 300 years [1406 – 1106 BCE], why did you not deliver them within that time? 27 I therefore have not sinned against you, and you do me wrong by making war on me. The Lord, the Judge, decide this day between the people of Israel and the people of Ammon.” 28 But the king of the Ammonites did not listen to the words of Jephthah that he sent to him.

29 Then the Spirit of the Lord was upon Jephthah, and he passed through Gilead and Manasseh and passed on to Mizpah of Gilead, and from Mizpah of Gilead he passed on to the Ammonites. 30 And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord and said, “If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, 31 then whatever comes out from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites shall be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.” 32 So Jephthah crossed over to the Ammonites to fight against them, and the Lord gave them into his hand. 33 And he struck them from Aroer to the neighborhood of Minnith, twenty cities, and as far as Abel-keramim, with a great blow. So the Ammonites were subdued before the people of Israel.’

The king of the Ammonites raised an issue three hundred years old. The Moabites hadn’t made an issue of it, so why Ammon and why now was Jephthah’s reasoning. The Israelites had defeated the Amorites – after being refused passage through Edom and Moab – and probably some of their land, had once been Ammonite land. It was too late to dispute it now. The king of Ammon remained stubborn and proud, but did not win it back.

2 Samuel 12:26-31

English Standard Version

26 ‘Now Joab fought against Rabbah of the Ammonites and took the royal city. 27 And Joab sent messengers to David and said, “I have fought against Rabbah; moreover, I have taken the city of waters.* 28 Now then gather the rest of the people together and encamp against the city and take it, lest I take the city and it be called by my name.” 29 So David gathered all the people together and went to Rabbah and fought against it and took it. 30 And he took the crown of their king from his head. The weight of it was a talent of gold, and in it was a precious stone, and it was placed on David’s head. And he brought out the spoil of the city, a very great amount. 31 And he brought out the people who were in it and set them to labor with saws and iron picks and iron axes and made them toil at the brick kilns. And thus he did to all the cities of the Ammonites. Then David and all the people returned to Jerusalem.’ 

David exacted harsh measures on the Ammonites, which didn’t improve relations, but showed the strength of negative feeling between the two peoples. His actions did contravene the instruction of not to contend, to struggle in opposition or strive in rivalry with Ammon.

Quebec is Kebec in Algonquin, meaning ‘where the river narrows.’ The Province of Quebec has a vast coastline. The motto of Quebec City is Don de Dieu feray valoir: “I shall put God’s gift to good use.” The Don de Dieu was one of three ships which set sail from France under captain Henry Couillard and on July 3, 1608 explorer Samuel de Champlain – established a fort at Cape Diamond and – founded Quebec City, the oldest city in Canada. The Montmorency Falls are located on the Montmorency River and are about 270 feet tall – one hundred feet taller than Niagara Falls. One of Quebec’s most important resources is water,* harnessed for hydroelectric power.

Notice the two interlocked keys, reminiscent of the keys of Unterwalden, Switzerland (and the Papal Keys).

1 Chronicles 19:19

English Standard Version

‘And when the servants of Hadadezer saw that they had been defeated by Israel, they made peace with David and became subject to him. So the Syrians [Gether-Aram-Spain] were not willing to save the Ammonites anymore.’

1 Kings 11:7

English Standard Version

‘Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Molech the abomination of the Ammonites, on the mountain east of Jerusalem.’

Nehemiah 4:1-9

English Standard Version

1 ‘Now when Sanballat heard that we were building the wall, he was angry and greatly enraged, and he jeered at the [Judeans]. 2 And he said in the presence of his brothers and of the army of Samaria, “What are these feeble Jews doing? Will they restore it for themselves? Will they sacrifice? Will they finish up in a day? Will they revive the stones out of the heaps of rubbish, and burned ones at that?” 3 Tobiah the Ammonite was beside him, and he said, “Yes, what they are building – if a fox goes up on it he will break down their stone wall!”

4 Hear, O our God, for we are despised. Turn back their taunt on their own heads and give them up to be plundered in a land where they are captives. 5 Do not cover their guilt, and let not their sin be blotted out from your sight, for they have provoked you to anger in the presence of the builders. 6 So we built the wall. And all the wall was joined together to half its height, for the people had a mind to work. 

7 But when Sanballat and Tobiah and the Arabs [not Arabs from Mizra. Arabians meaning, in the eastern peninsula of Arabia – probably Joktan] and the Ammonites and the Ashdodites [Philistines] heard that the repairing of the walls of Jerusalem was going forward and that the breaches were beginning to be closed, they were very angry. 8 And they all plotted together to come and fight against Jerusalem and to cause confusion in it. 9 And we prayed to our God and set a guard as a protection against them day and night.’

The Medes and Persians had allowed captives from Judah and Benjamin to return to Jerusalem and rebuild its walls and Temple compound. Tobiah the Ammonite was one who mocked their efforts.

Jeremiah 40:11-16

English Standard Version

11 ‘Likewise, when all the Judeans who were in Moab and among the Ammonites and in Edom and in other lands heard that the king of Babylon had left a remnant in Judah and had appointed Gedaliah the son of Ahikam, son of Shaphan, as governor over them, 12 then all the Judeans returned from all the places to which they had been driven and came to the land of Judah, to Gedaliah at Mizpah. And they gathered wine and summer fruits in great abundance. 13 Now Johanan the son of Kareah and all the leaders of the forces in the open country came to Gedaliah at Mizpah 

14 and said to him, “Do you know that Baalis the king of the Ammonites has sent Ishmael the son of Nethaniah to take your life?” But Gedaliah the son of Ahikam would not believe them. 15 Then Johanan the son of Kareah spoke secretly to Gedaliah at Mizpah, “Please let me go and strike down Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, and no one will know it. Why should he take your life, so that all the Judeans who are gathered about you would be scattered, and the remnant of Judah would perish?” 16 But Gedaliah the son of Ahikam said to Johanan the son of Kareah, “You shall not do this thing, for you are speaking falsely of Ishmael.” [Ishmael (not Abraham’s son) did assassinate Gedaliah]’

Jeremiah 49:1-6 

English Standard Version

‘Concerning the Ammonites. Thus says the Lord: “Has Israel no sons? Has he no heir? Why then has Milcom [a prominent god of Ammon, with Molech] dispossessed Gad and his people settled in its cities? 2 Therefore, behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will cause the battle cry to be heard against Rabbah of the Ammonites; it shall become a desolate mound, and its villages shall be burned with fire; then Israel shall dispossess those who dispossessed him, says the Lord.

3 “Wail, O Heshbon, for Ai is laid waste! Cry out, O daughters of Rabbah! [the descendants of Lot’s youngest daughter] Put on sackcloth, lament, and run to and fro among the hedges! For Milcom shall go into exile, with his priests and his officials. 4 Why do you boast of your valleys, O faithless daughter, who trusted in her treasures, saying, ‘Who will come against me?’

5 Behold, I will bring terror upon you, declares the Lord God of hosts, from all who are around you, and you shall be driven out, every man straight before him, with none to gather the fugitives. 6 “But afterward I will restore the fortunes of the Ammonites, declares the Lord.”

In modern times, France and Quebec have been blessed with wealth and abundance.

Ezekiel 21:28-32

English Standard Version

“And you, son of man, prophesy, and say, Thus says the Lord God concerning the Ammonites and concerning their reproach; say, A sword, a sword is drawn for the slaughter. It is polished to consume and to flash like lightning – while they see for you false visions, while they divine lies for you – to place you on the necks of the profane wicked, whose day has come, the time of their final punishment. Return it to its sheath. In the place where you were created, in the land of your origin, I will judge you. And I will pour out my indignation upon you; I will blow upon you with the fire of my wrath, [similar to the fire inflicted on Sodom] and I will deliver you into the hands of brutish men, skillful to destroy. You shall be fuel for the fire. Your blood shall be in the midst of the land. You shall be no more remembered, for I the Lord have spoken.”

The punishment decreed at the end of the latter days when the Son of Man returns. Many nations will suffer similar fates and some because of their attitude and treatment towards the sons of Jacob.

Ezekiel 25:1-11

English Standard Version

1 ‘The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, set your face toward the Ammonites and prophesy against them. 3 Say to the Ammonites, Hear the word of the Lord God: Thus says the Lord God, Because you said, ‘Aha!’ over my sanctuary when it was profaned, and over the land of Israel when it was made desolate, and over the house of Judah when they went into exile, 4 therefore behold, I am handing you over to the people of the East for a possession, and they shall set their encampments among you and make their dwellings in your midst. They shall eat your fruit, and they shall drink your milk. 5 I will make Rabbah a pasture for camels and Ammon a fold for flocks. 

Then you will know that I am the Lord. 6 For thus says the Lord God: Because you have clapped your hands and stamped your feet and rejoiced with all the malice within your soul against the land of Israel, 7 therefore, behold, I have stretched out my hand against you, and will hand you over as plunder to the nations. And I will cut you off from the peoples and will make you perish out of the countries; I will destroy you. Then you will know that I am the Lord.

8 “Thus says the Lord God: Because Moab and Seir said, ‘Behold, the house of Judah is like all the other nations,’ 9 therefore I will lay open the flank of Moab [France] from the cities, from its cities on its frontier, the glory of the country, Beth-jeshimoth, Baal-meon, and Kiriathaim. 10 I will give it along with the Ammonites to the people of the East as a possession, that the Ammonites may be remembered no more among the nations, 11 and I will execute judgments upon Moab. Then they will know that I am the Lord.’

Whether this prophecy is dual, with a future fulfilment involving France, time will tell. The people of the east in the past as well as today includes a number of alternatives. It could mean a dominant near neighbour and relative as in Ishmael, who originally dwelt in the east, known as Arabia or alternatively the wilderness. Secondly and unlikely, Assyria (or Russia) – the king of the North – as they spared Moab and the Ammonites in the past as well as predicted for the future – Daniel 11.41. As it appears to be the far future, possibly further distant than the King of the North timeframe, it could mean the far East and descendants of Japheth – such as Magog, Tubal and Meschech (Revelation 16:12) – in partial ironic fulfilment of the sons of Japheth dwelling in the tents of Shem – Genesis 9:27.

Daniel 11:40-41

English Standard Version

“At the time of the end, the king of the south shall attack  him, but the king of the north shall rush upon him like a whirlwind, with chariots and horsemen, and with many ships. And he shall come into countries and shall overflow and pass through. He shall come into the glorious land. And tens of thousands shall fall, but these shall be delivered out of his [Assyria’s] hand: Edom and Moab [France] and the main part of the Ammonites [northwestern France and the capital].”

The French Canadians heralded from principally the north and western regions of France (over 90%), particularly Normandy and Poitou. Every region with direct access to the Ocean (water) and with a tradition of long-term fishing expeditions, attracted migrants to New France. Apparently, French Canadian soldiers were surprised when they landed in Normandy, discovering how much Norman French was like their own dialect.

The Tribe of Benjamin are the Normans, Peter Salemi – emphasis & bold mine:

‘A review of census records for the year 1700 reveals that of New France’s French-speaking colonists, 29% came from the provinces of Poitou, Aunis, Saintonge, and Angoumois in the mother country; 22% from Normandy and Perche; 15% from Paris and Ile-de-France; 13% from Anjou, Touraine, Beauce, and Maine; 9% from Brittany, Picardy, and Champagne; 5% from Limousin, Périgord, and Guyenne; 7% from other regions. 

Thus over 50% of immigrants to Quebec, and possibly much more, came from north of the Loire river in France, i.e., areas of Norman, Breton, and Frankish settlement. In addition, many of the Seigneurs (Lords) of Quebec, e.g., the families of de Lotbinière, Panet, Montizambert, etc., were Norman, who left Normandy in 1686.’

Amos 1:13-15

English Standard Version

‘Thus says the Lord: “For three transgressions of the Ammonites, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment, because they have ripped open pregnant women in Gilead, that they might enlarge their border. So I will kindle a fire in the wall of Rabbah, and it shall devour her strongholds, with shouting on the day of battle, with a tempest in the day of the whirlwind; and their king shall go into exile, he and his princes together,” says the Lord.’

This passage is of note because the Ammonites dwelt both within and adjacent to the territory of Giliead, which in time was synonymous with the half tribe of East Manasseh. Therefore, the fact that a proportion of the descendants of Ammon (in Quebec) dwell amongst the descendants of East Manasseh (Gilead) in Canada is of no small coincidence.

The map above is a fair representation of the Ammon (northwest) and Moab (northeast and south) geographic divide (or split) between the brothers. Not so much the dotted line, but the twelve regions (provinces) highlighted.

Zephaniah 2:8-10

Amplified Bible

“I have heard the taunting of Moab [and] the revilings of the sons of Ammon, With which they have taunted My people And become arrogant against their territory [by violently and cruelly violating Israel’s boundary and trying to seize its land]. “Therefore, as I live,” declares the Lord of hosts, The God of Israel, “Moab will in fact become like Sodom [and] the sons of Ammon like Gomorrah, [a] land possessed by nettles and salt pits, And a perpetual desolation. The remnant of My people will plunder them And what is left of My nation will inherit them [as their own].” This they shall have in return for their pride, because they have taunted and become arrogant against the people of the Lord of hosts.’ 

Ammon had no authority to try to possess Gilead or take it from Israel. The sitting on the sidelines and relishing Judah’s downfall and subsequent captivity at the hands of the Chaldeans, has also been a cause of Ammon and particularly Moab, receiving retribution – Chapter XXV Italy: Nahor & the Chaldeans; and Chapter XXX Judah & Benjamin – the Regal Tribes.

We will discover that Ammon and particularly Moab are described frequently in the Bible as being proud, with it rather being a national trait (fault). It is ironic that in the way Sodom was criticised (and Punished) for withholding acts of kindness towards those in need, the descendants of Lot similarly – Lot who had dwelt in Sodom – were (and will be) punished in the same way by fire, for their withholding passage and supplies to the Israelites when they returned from captivity in Egypt.

An important person mentioned earlier from the line of Ammon was Naamah, a royal princess of Ammon – not to be confused with the daughter of evil Lamech prior to the Flood (refer article: Na’amah). An additional reason for the sons of Jacob not to wage war and destroy Ammon and Moab. Her name means ‘sweet, lovely’ or ‘pleasant’ from the verb naem. Naamah married Solomon before he became king in 970 BCE. Their son, Rehoboam was born in 971 BCE. Naamah provided the heir to the throne of Judah and she is the only wife of Solomon, mentioned by name in the Bible. Naamah is also only one of two foreign Queen Mothers of Israel or Judah, with Jezebel – a Princess of Tyre and the daughter of the Phoenician King Ethbaal. Naamah, may well have been an influence on Solomon who later turned away from the Eternal, to worship Ammonite and Moabite gods – Article: Seventh Son of a Seventh Son.

1 Kings 14:21-23

English Standard Version

‘Now Rehoboam the son of Solomon reigned in Judah. Rehoboam was forty-one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city that the Lord had chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, to put his name there. His mother’s name was Naamah the Ammonite. And [the House of] Judah did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, and they provoked him to jealousy with their sins that they committed, more than all that their fathers had done. For they also built for themselves high places and pillars and Asherim on every high hill and under every green tree…’ – refer article: Asherah.

15 Fun Quebec City Facts, Nadeen White, 2018 – capitalisation hers, emphasis & bold mine:

‘Quebec City is also known simply as Quebec [similar to Rabbah of the Ammonites]. It is located in the Canadian province of Quebec… [and] is the capital city… [as well as] the second largest city… Montreal is the largest city in the province of Quebec. 

Quebec is a French speaking province [and] is the official language… Approximately 80% of the residents speak French as their native language… It is the oldest French speaking [region] in North America. However, English is [also widely] spoken by most residents… Old Quebec is surrounded by fortified city walls [it is the only remaining walled city in North America north of Mexico] that were designated as a UNESCO World Heritage site in 1985… 

Quebec produces a LOT of maple syrup… I had no idea that Canada produces about 70% of the world‘s pure maple syrup. Out of that 70% about 90% is from the province of Quebec. Most of the maple syrup produced in the U.S. comes from Vermont. 

In 2010 the Province of Quebec produced roughly 7,989,000 gallons of maple syrup while Vermont produced roughly 890,000 gallons. Quebec isn’t just French… there are many Irish people here too! There is actually a large Irish community in Quebec. During the 17th century, Irish inhabitants of France were sent to Quebec to help populate the area. Historians estimate that about 40% of the population in Quebec is of Irish descent.’

This is a startling fact and the Irish component in Quebec is more than interesting, it is of great significance. When we study the Irish (Gad) and the British – Northern Irish (Reuben) – descended peoples of Canada (half tribe of East Manasseh), their relationship with the French Ammonites of Quebec (within the land of Gilead) will be fascinatingly evident – Chapter XXXI Reuben, Simeon, Levi & Gad – the Celtic Tribes. Quebec is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic and during the Irish Potato Famine of the 1840s and 1850s a large number of Irish Catholics, migrated to Canada and Quebec. 

The Province of Quebec comprises nearly one-sixth of Canada’s total land area; is the largest of Canada’s ten provinces; and possesses an abundance of mineral wealth. The site of Quebec City, originally occupied by an Indian village named Stadacona, was discovered by Jacques Cartier in 1535. Quebec Province and city were formally French until ceded to Great Britain in 1763 by the Treaty of Paris. This was the result of the famous Battle of Quebec on the Plains of Abraham – interesting name coincidence – adjacent to the city in 1759, where the French were defeated. Later, Great Britain reinforced its military defences of the city in time to repel an attack during the American Revolution in the second Battle of Quebec in 1775. 

The arrival of displaced Loyalists following American independence, increased Quebec’s population and so did trade with Britain, much of it through the port of Quebec. Up until the mid-nineteenth century, Quebec’s economy was centred on French and then British mercantilism. The British Parliament passed the Constitutional Act of 1791, which split the large colony of Quebec into two provinces: Upper Canada – now the province of Ontario – and Lower Canada, now the province of Quebec. Quebec city, formerly the capital of the colony, remained the capital of Lower Canada.

After the British takeover of New France, Montreal – founded in 1642 and the second largest Canadian city after Toronto – gained the dominant economic position in the province, whereas Quebec remained an important port. Quebec is the second most populous province of Canada after Ontario with 8,604,500 people. ‘On November 27, 2006, the House of Commons passed a symbolic motion moved by Prime Minister Stephen Harper declaring “that this House recognize that the Quebecois [Francophones] form a nation within a united Canada.” However, there is considerable debate and uncertainty over what this means. The debate over the status of Quebec is a highly animated one to this day.’

Quebec Flag

Nearly half of the total population of Quebec are descendants of the ten thousand original French settlers. When the Dominion of Canada was established in 1867, French Canadians accounted for one-third of the newly formed country’s population. In 1974, French was made the official language in Quebec province. Between 1897 and 1936, Quebec competed with Ontario for domestic and foreign investment. Montreal was the headquarters of the national banks, the insurance corporations and the railway companies. Even so, Ontario, because of its proximity to the United States, its shared language and the vast amounts of hydroelectric power at Niagara Falls, was more attractive for United States investment. An ensuing struggle developed between Montreal and Toronto, with Toronto eventually gaining the upper hand.

The colony of New France included Acadia, with its first capital in Port-Royal in 1605. ‘The term Acadia today refers to regions of North America that are historically associated with the lands, descendants, or culture of the former region [in north eastern Canada]. It particularly refers to regions of The Maritimes with Acadian roots, language, and culture, primarily in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, the Magdalen Islands, and Prince Edward Island, as well as in Maine. It can also refer to the Acadian diaspora in southern Louisiana, a region also referred to as Acadiana. In the abstract, Acadia refers to the existence of an Acadian culture in any of these regions. People living in Acadia are called Acadians which changed to Cajuns in Louisiana, the American pronunciation of Acadians.’ 

The word Acadia is similar to Akkad(ia) of Babylon and Acadian parallels the name, Akkadian. The original peoples of Akkad were descendants of Arphaxad and his great grandson Peleg. They were related to and ancestors of the peoples from Haran and Nahor. As Haran’s children include the modern French it is a notable association. Explorer Giovanni de Verrazzano is credited in originating the designation Acadia on his 16th century map, where he applied the ancient Greek name Arcadia to the entire Atlantic coast north of Virginia. 

‘Arcadia’ is derived from the district in ancient Greece, ‘which had the extended meanings of ‘refuge’ or ‘idyllic place.’ By the time of de Champlain, it was La Cadie without the r. In the Mi’ kmaq language, Cadie means ‘fertile land.’ We will revisit the link between the French and the ancient Greeks. A fascinating side note of history and all the more interesting once it is understood that the French Canadians are descended from Ammon; as well as the indirect parallel with Lot’s daughters, are the eight hundred women that most French Canadians are literally descended from. 

CBC, Filles du Roi, 2017 – emphasis mine:

‘It’s 1663. New France has a population problem. To dominate the fur trade along the St. Lawrence River, New France needs people. Britain’s colonies to the south have 18 times as many settlers as New France. Britain has a wide-open policy on who can come to the colonies, meaning Brits from all walks of life are risking the perilous ocean voyage. France, on the other hand, has banned Protestants from going to New France. The British colonies have a farming-based economy, meaning men bring their wives over and have families, whereas the French settlers are mostly fur trappers and missionaries. That population gap is only getting wider. Britain’s colonies are growing, but in New France, which has only one woman for every six men, the population is stuck.

To help fix New France’s gender imbalance, two men come up with an innovative idea: Jean Talon (Intendant of the colony) and King Louis XIV decide to import young women to the colony to marry male settlers. The women would be known as the Filles du Roi or “Daughters of the King.” Almost all the women are poor. Many are orphans. 

[Between the years 1663 to 1673, these women of marriageable age came from Rouen in the province of Normandy, La Rochelle in Aunis and included beggars and orphans from the streets of Paris]. One in 10 doesn’t survive the voyage from France. For the 800 women who make it, France pays for the women’s passage and provides a dowry… from the royal treasury. 

The women are also given a hope chest containing, among other things, a pair of hose, a pair of shoes, a bonnet, gloves, a comb, a belt and various sewing supplies. The Filles du Roi step off their boats into a foreign landscape. It is a sparsely populated, heavily wooded wilderness. Many of them are from France’s cities and are about to get a harsh introduction to the backbreaking world of 17th century farm labour. Canadian winter will be unlike anything they’ve ever experienced. And in the coming years, many of them are going to be pregnant more often than not.

As daunting as that sounds, all of the Filles du Roi come to New France voluntarily. Even with the cold climate and hard toil, life in New France has advantages over the lives they left behind. Unlike many women at the time, the Filles du Roi are allowed to choose their husbands. Admittedly, they’re choosing from a very small pool – the population of New France is just over 3,000 and includes a disproportionately high number of priests. The women meet potential suitors in a series of chaperoned, interview-like “dates.”

The meetings are presided over by Jean Talon himself, along with Ursuline nun Marie Guyart… The women sail down the St. Lawrence, stopping first at Quebec City, then Trois-Rivieres, and eventually making their way to Montreal. At every stop, they have to make a choice; go with one of the men there, or see if there’s a better husband waiting down river. The women are given 50 livres – the equivalent of roughly $1,000 today – as a dowry. As poor women without dowries, finding a husband (let alone one they liked), would have been nearly impossible in France. There are other advantages, too. Abundant food means that women in New France live longer than their peers in Europe.

Families with more than 10 children get an additional annual pension of 300 livres ($6,000) from the crown. The program leads to a population explosion unlike anything Canada has seen since. The average family has five children – almost twice as many as the “Baby Boom” that follows WWII. The population of New France more than doubles in a decade. Two-thirds of today’s French-Canadians can trace their ancestry back to one of these 800 women. Their influence was felt outside Quebec, as well.

Some famous Americans also claim a Fille du Roi as an ancestor, including Hiliary Clinton, Madonna and Angelina Jolie. There are very few first-hand accounts of the lives of the Filles du Roi. Few of them could read or write.Their histories have largely been told by subsequent generations. That said, one thing we know with absolute certainty: the Quebec we know today owes a lot to the fortitude of these incredibly tough women.’

Moab is Ammon’s elder brother and comprises the bulk of the French people. In the past, his peoples were also more numerous and they interacted with the sons of Jacob constantly through conventional warfare – unlike the guerrilla tactics of the Ammonites. The name Abarim – which has been an invaluable biblical word definition and concordance website – was actually a mountain range in the land of Moab.

Abarim Publications – emphasis & bold mine:

‘The name Moab meaning: Who Is Your Father? Water Of A Father from (1) (mi), who, or (may), “water of …”, and (2) the noun (‘ab), father

The etymology and original meaning of the name Moab is unknown. The word moab is foreign to Hebrew… However, to a creative Hebrew audience, the name may have sounded like a compilation of two elements: the interrogative particle (me), what or (mi), who… The noun (‘ab) means father… It’s unclear where this word (‘ab) comes from but the verb abu means to decide.

Thus the name Moab would carry the meaning of Who’s… or What’s Your Father? a rhetorical question to which the story may easily give rise. Jones’ Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names takes a different approach and goes with the word (may), meaning water… Water represents the great unknown from which the dry land of the known emerges. Thus Jones reads Water Of A Father, and explains this to mean seed or progeny. The problem here is that semen is never referred to as a father’s waters.

The name Ar meaning: City from the noun (‘ir), city

The name Ar (or more complete: Ar of Moab – see Numbers 21:28) was a city on the southern shore of the river Arnon (Numbers 21:15). When YHWH delivers his famous “do not harass Moab” sermon, he declares that he gave Ar to the sons of Lot (which would be the Ammonites and the Moabites – Deuteronomy 2:9). Much later, the prophet Isaiah declares his blood curdling prophecies against Moab, and foretells its utter destruction, along with Kir of Moab (Isaiah 15:1).

Adjectives (‘ariri) and (‘ar’ar) mean stripped, childless or destitute. Noun (me’ara) literally means “place of being stripped” and is the Bible’s common word for cave. Verb (‘ur I) means to rouse oneself – literally to collect and bundle one’s feelings. Noun (‘ir) means excitement. Identical verb (‘ur II) means to be exposed or laid bare. Noun (ma’or) means nakedness and noun (ma’arom) means naked one. Adjectives (‘erom), (‘erom), (‘arom) and (‘arom) mean naked. Noun (‘or) means skin or hide. Verb (‘ara) also means to be naked or bare. Nouns (‘ara), (ma’ara) and (ma’ar) refer to bare or exposed places. Nouns (‘erwa) and (‘erya) mean nakedness or exposure. Noun (ta’ar) denotes a thing that makes bare: a razor or sheath of a sword.

The name Kir meaning: Wall from the noun (qir), wall 

The noun (qarqa’) means floor; earth trampled into a compact state. The verb (qarqar) means to forcibly compact, to pound down. Verb (qara), and its by-form (qara’), mean to near, to meet or to happen upon. Noun (qora) describes a rafter or beam; the things that come together to form a roof, and which obviously relate to bricks pieced into a wall. Nouns (qareh) and (miqreh) mean chance or accident, fortune or fate. Noun (qeri) means opposition, contrariness. 

For this same reason, the nouns (qiryah) and (qeret) are the words for city and federation of cities. Adjective (qari’) means called or summoned… And noun (miqra’) means convocation or called assembly. Jones’ Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names has A Wall, A Fortress, but this word for wall typically doesn’t refer to a military wall.’

Numbers 21:28-29

English Standard Version

28 ‘For fire came out from Heshbon, flame from the city of Sihon. It devoured Ar of Moab, and swallowed the heights of the [River] Arnon. 29 Woe to you, O Moab! You are undone, O people of Chemosh! He has made his sons fugitives, and his daughters captives, to an Amorite king, Sihon.’

Ar and Kir of Moab appear to be the most prominent settlements in ancient Moab. Today, they could equate to the capital Paris and possibly the principal port – and the second biggest city – Marseille. The numbers of the Israelites and their series of military victories became a serious concern to Moab; though Moab was unaware of the Eternal’s edict to the sons of Jacob: to not attack Moab and Ammon. In a preemptive strike, King Balak of Moab, summoned a Seer and Prophet to pronounce a curse on the sons of Jacob. Though the best laid plan did not eventuate as the Moabites would have hoped.

Numbers 22:1-41

English Standard Version

1 ‘Then the people of Israel set out and camped in the plains of Moab beyond the Jordan at Jericho. 

2 And Balak the son of Zippor saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites. 3 And Moab was in great dread of the people, because they were many. Moab was overcome with fear of the people of Israel. 4 And Moab said to the elders of Midian [descendants from Abraham and his second wife, Keturah], “This horde will now lick up all that is around us, as the ox licks up the grass of the field.” So Balak the son of Zippor, who was king of Moab at that time, 5 sent messengers to Balaam the son of Beor at Pethor, which is near the River in the land of the people of Amaw, to call him, saying, 

“Behold, a people has come out of Egypt. They cover the face of the earth [estimates account for three million plus people, including 600,000 fighting men able to take up arms], and they are dwelling opposite me. 6 Come now, curse this people for me, since they are too mighty for me. Perhaps I shall be able to defeat them and drive them from the land, for I know that he whom you bless is blessed, and he whom you curse is cursed.” 

7 So the elders of Moab and the elders of Midian departed with the fees for divination in their hand. And they came to Balaam and gave him Balak’s message… 9 And God came to Balaam and said, “Who are these men with you?” 10 And Balaam said to God, “Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab, has sent to me…

12 God said to Balaam, “You shall not go with them. You shall not curse the people, for they are blessed.” 13 So Balaam rose in the morning and said to the princes of Balak, “Go to your own land, for the Lord has refused to let me go with you.” 14 So the princes of Moab rose and went to Balak and said, “Balaam refuses to come with us.” 15 Once again Balak sent princes, more in number and more honorable than these.  

16 And they came to Balaam and said to him, “Thus says Balak the son of Zippor: ‘Let nothing hinder you from coming to me, 17 for I will surely do you great honor, and whatever you say to me I will do. Come, curse this people for me’.” 18 But Balaam answered and said to the servants of Balak, “Though Balak were to give me his house full of silver and gold, I could not go beyond the command of the Lord my God to do less or more. 19 So you, too, please stay here tonight, that I may know what more the Lord will say to me.” 20 And God came to Balaam at night and said to him, “If the men have come to call you, rise, go with them; but only do what I tell you.” 21 So Balaam rose in the morning and saddled his donkey and went with the princes of Moab.

22 But God’s anger was kindled because he went, and the angel of the Lord took his stand in the way as his adversary. Now he was riding on the donkey, and his two servants were with him. 23 And the donkey saw the angel of the Lord standing in the road, with a drawn sword in his hand [like a Cherub – Genesis 3:24]. And the donkey turned aside out of the road and went into the field. And Balaam struck the donkey, to turn her into the road… 28 Then the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?” 29 And Balaam said to the donkey, “Because you have made a fool of me. I wish I had a sword in my hand, for then I would kill you.” … 31 Then the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the way, with his drawn sword in his hand. And he bowed down and fell on his face. 

32 And the angel of the Lord said to him, “Why have you struck your donkey these three times? Behold, I have come out to oppose you because your way is perverse before me. 33 The donkey saw me and turned aside before me these three times. If she had not turned aside from me, surely just now I would have killed you and let her live.” 34 Then Balaam said to the angel of the Lord, “I have sinned, for I did not know that you stood in the road against me. Now therefore, if it is evil in your sight, I will turn back.” 35 And the angel of the Lord said to Balaam, “Go with the men, but speak only the word that I tell you.” So Balaam went on with the princes of Balak.

36 When Balak heard that Balaam had come, he went out to meet him at the city of Moab [Ar], on the border formed by the [River] Arnon, at the extremity of the border… 38 Balaam said to Balak, “Behold, I have come to you! Have I now any power of my own to speak anything? The word that God puts in my mouth, that must I speak.” 39 Then Balaam went with Balak, and they came to Kiriath-huzoth. 40 And Balak sacrificed oxen and sheep, and sent for Balaam and for the princes who were with him. 41 And in the morning Balak took Balaam and brought him up to Bamoth-baal…’

In Numbers Twenty-three, Balaam does not curse Israel but speaks of the blessings given them by the Creator. In Numbers Twenty-four, Balaam then precedes to curse the enemies of the sons of Jacob after adding a blessing to the Israelites.

Numbers 24:10-14, 17

English Standard Version

10 ‘And Balak’s anger was kindled against Balaam, and he struck his hands together. And Balak said to Balaam, “I called you to curse my enemies, and behold, you have blessed them these three times. 11 Therefore now flee to your own place. I said, ‘I will certainly honor you,’ but the Lord has held you back from honor.” 12 And Balaam said to Balak, “Did I not tell your messengers whom you sent to me, 13 ‘If Balak should give me his house full of silver and gold, I would not be able to go beyond the word of the Lord, to do either good or bad of my own will. What the Lord speaks, that will I speak?’

14 And now, behold, I am going to my people. Come, I will let you know what this people will do to your people in the latter days.” 17 I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near [the promised Messiah]: a star [blessing of Ephraim] shall come out of Jacob, and a scepter [blessing of Judah] shall rise out of Israel; it shall crush the forehead of Moab and break down all the sons of Sheth.’

Balaam is an intriguing character, for was he a prophet of God or a sorcerer for the devil? Readers interested in a more detailed discussion regarding Balaam’s relationship with the Eternal and the way of Balaam (Revelation 2:14), may refer to the following articles: Belphegor; and The Seven Churches – A Message for the Church of God in the Latter Days.

As with the descendants of Ammon, the Israelites were not to provoke the Moabites or engage them in battle.

Deuteronomy 2:9-11

English Standard Version

‘And the Lord said to me, ‘Do not harass Moab or contend with them in battle, for I will not give you any of their land for a possession, because I have given Ar [the capital] to the people of Lot for a possession.’ The Emim formerly lived there, a people great and many, and tall as the Anakim. Like the Anakim they are also counted as Rephaim, but the Moabites call them Emim.’

Deuteronomy 34:1-8

English Standard Version

1 ‘Then Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, which is opposite Jericho. And the Lord showed him all the land, Gilead as far as Dan [the far north east], 2 all Naphtali [the north], the land of Ephraim and Manasseh [central Canaan], all the land of Judah as far as the western sea [the far south west], 3 the Negeb, and the Plain, that is, the Valley of Jericho the city of palm trees, as far as Zoar. 4 And the Lord said to him, “This is the land of which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, ‘I will give it to your offspring.’ I have let you see it with your eyes, but you shall not go over there.” 

5 So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord, 6 and he [the Eternal] buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth-peor; but no one knows the place of his burial to this day. 7 Moses was 120 years old when he died. His eye was undimmed, and his vigor unabated. 8 And the people of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days…’

Judges 3:12-14, 26-30

English Standard Version

12 ‘And the people of Israel again did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord strengthened Eglon the king of Moab against Israel, because they had done what was evil in the sight of the Lord. 

13 He gathered to himself the Ammonites and the Amalekites [grandson of Esau], and went and defeated Israel. And they took possession of the city of palms. 14 And the people of Israel served Eglon the king of Moab eighteen years’ – 1302 to 1284 BCE.

26 ‘Ehud escaped while they delayed, and he passed beyond the idols and escaped to Seirah. 27 When he arrived, he sounded the trumpet in the hill country of Ephraim. Then the people of Israel went down with him from the hill country, and he was their leader. 28 And he said to them, “Follow after me, for the Lord has given your enemies the Moabites into your hand.” So they went down after him and seized the fords of the Jordan against the Moabites and did not allow anyone to pass over. 29 And they killed at that time about 10,000 of the Moabites, all strong, able-bodied men; not a man escaped. 30 So Moab was subdued that day under the hand of Israel. And the land had rest for eighty years.’

Ehud was the second Judge of Israel for the same period from 1284 to 1204 BCE.

A famous descendant of Moab and ancestor of King David, as mentioned previously, is Ruth.

Abarim Publications – emphasis & bold mine:

‘The name Ruth means: Friend, Associate, Vision, View from the noun (rea’), friend or companion and from the noun (re’ut), a looking or understanding.

Ruth was the Moabite wife of Mahlon, son of Elimelech and Naomi of Bethlehem. Their other son, Chilion, married Orphah also of Moab. When the men die [in battle with Israel], Ruth and Naomi move back to Bethlehem, where Ruth marries Boaz. In order to do so, Boaz appeals to the Leviratic Law, which dictates that when a man dies childless, his brother is to marry his widow and sire children in the name of the deceased man (Ruth 4:10, Deuteronomy 25:5). Ruth and Boaz become the parents of Obed, the grandparents of Jesse and the great-grandparents of David, the great king of Israel, and finally the ancestors of Jesus…

Verb (ra’a I) means to pasture or feed and the participle (ra’a) means shepherd… Verb (ra’a II) means to associate with. Nouns (rea’), (re’eh) and (merea’) mean friend, associate or “neighbor”. Nouns (ra’ya), (re’a) and (re’ut) describe a female attendant, mate or friend. Scholars who follow this root group see the name Ruth as a feminine derivation of the root (ra’a II), meaning to associate with, or be a friend of. And thus, they say, the name Ruth means (Lady-) Friend or (Lady-) Companion.

The… NOBSE Study Bible Name List agrees and reads Female Companion for a meaning of the name Ruth. The… Alfred Jones (Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names) proposes a different etymology and goes after the root (ra’a), meaning to see… The verb (ra’a) means to see, and by extension to understand. It may mean to become visible (of, say, an angel) or to become understandable (of, say, a theory). Noun (ro’eh) means either seer, or prophetic vision, and noun (mar’a) means either vision as means of revelation, or mirror.

Specifically, Jones sees the name Ruth as a contraction of the noun (re’ut), meaning look. Hence, for a meaning of the name Ruth, Jones reads Beauty but perhaps better would be Vision. There’s no telling whether to an ancient Hebrew audience the name Ruth sounded like Female Friend or Beauty, but all-in-all Ruth is quite a name.’

Ruth 1:15-18, 22

English Standard Version

‘And she said, “See, your sister-in-law [Orphah] has gone back to her people and to her gods [Chemosh]; return after your sister-in-law.” But Ruth said, “Do not urge me to leave you or to return from following you. For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there will I be buried. May the Lord do so to me and more also if anything but death parts me from you.” And when Naomi saw that she was determined to go with her, she said no more. So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabite her daughter-in-law with her, who returned from the country of Moab. And they came to Bethlehem [in Judah] at the beginning of barley harvest.’

Ruth 2:1-20

English Standard Version

‘Now Naomi had a relative of her husband’s, a worthy* man of the clan of Elimelech, whose name was Boaz. And Ruth the Moabite said to Naomi, “Let me go to the field and glean among the ears of grain after him in whose sight I shall find favor.” And she said to her, “Go, my daughter.” … Then Boaz said to Ruth… “All that you have done for your mother-in-law since the death of your husband has been fully told to me, and how you left your father and mother and your native land and came to a people that you did not know before. The Lord repay you for what you have done… Then she said, “I have found favor in your eyes, my lord, for you have comforted me and spoken kindly to your servant, though I am not one of your servants.” “The man’s name with whom I worked today is Boaz.”  And Naomi said… “The man is a close relative of ours…‘

Ruth 3:1-14

English Standard Version

‘Then Naomi her mother-in-law said to her, “My daughter, should I not seek rest for you, that it may be well with you? Is not Boaz our relative, with whose young women you were? See, he is winnowing barley tonight at the threshing floor. 3 Wash therefore and anoint yourself, and put on your cloak and go down to the threshing floor… when he lies down, observe the place where he lies. Then go and uncover his feet and lie down, and he will tell you what to do.”

At midnight the man was startled and turned over, and behold, a woman lay at his feet! 

‘He said, “Who are you?” And she answered, “I am Ruth, your servant. Spread your wings over your servant, for you are a redeemer.” And he said, “May you be blessed by the Lord… in that you have not gone after young men, whether poor or rich. And now, my daughter, do not fear. I will do for you all that you ask, for all my fellow townsmen know that you are a worthy* woman [described the same way as Boaz]. So she lay at his feet until the morning, but arose before one could recognize another.’

Comparable with, yet in contrast with the scenario involving Lot and his daughters.

Some scholars maintain that Ruth and Boaz had an intimate relationship before they married. In contradistinction to her ancestor – the elder daughter of Lot – Ruth did not entice Boaz into temptation. The terms used in verse four do have sexual connotations, as Ruth was showing that she wanted to be married. The word uncover, means to make visible, to be naked. In this case, Boaz’s feet were exposed. They then became cold and hence Boaz naturally woke up. Some commentators state that feet here, are a euphemism for sexual organs. This is very tenuous at best.

‘And lie down…’ This can also have sexual connotations, though only when paired with the Hebrew terms eṯ and ‘im [with] as in passages such as Genesis 19:32-35; Exodus 22:15; Leviticus 18:22; Deuteronomy 22:22; 1 Samuel 2:22 and 2 Samuel 11:4. The text says that she ‘lay at his feet until morning.’ Ruth slept there until morning, not that she slept with Boaz until morning. Though it could be interpreted as morally questionable to have a woman spend the night with a single man; Boaz kept Ruth with him until morning, because of the dangers of her going home alone in the middle of the night. It was more honourable to protect her until just before dawn, so that she could slip away before first light.

‘Spread your wings over your servant…’ means Ruth asked Boaz to spread his covering over her – a Hebrew idiom for marriage – Ezekiel 16:8; Deuteronomy 22:30; 27:20 and Malachi 2:16. Ruth probably visited at night to maintain privacy, so that Boaz wouldn’t feel pressured into making a public decision to marry her. Boaz was asleep and when he awoke, the text says he was ‘startled.’ If Boaz had just engaged in sex with Ruth, he obviously wouldn’t have been startled. Boaz also refers to Ruth as a ‘worthy woman.’ This is the same phrase used for a godly wife in Proverbs 31:10. He would hardly say these words after just engaging in fornication. Boaz was careful to keep and follow the kinsman-redeemer laws, even though he clearly loved Ruth and wanted to marry her; this highlights his integrity towards Ruth, not sexual permissiveness.

Ruth 4:9-17

English Standard Version

‘Then Boaz said to the elders and all the people, “You are witnesses this day that I have bought from the hand of Naomi all that belonged to Elimelech and all that belonged to Chilion and to Mahlon. 10 Also Ruth the Moabite, the widow of Mahlon, I have bought to be my wife…”

Then all the people who were at the gate [Boaz had local prestige and held civic responsibility like Lot] and the elders said, “We are witnesses. May the Lord make the woman, who is coming into your house, like Rachel and Leah, who together built up the house of Israel. May you act worthily in Ephrathah and be renowned in Bethlehem, and may your house be like the house of Perez [Pharez, a royal line of Judah and ancestor of David], whom Tamar bore to Judah, because of the offspring that the Lord will give you by this young woman.”

So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife. And he went in to her [the first time], and the Lord gave her conception, and she bore a son… Then Naomi took the child and laid him on her lap and became his nurse. And the women of the neighborhood gave him a name, saying, “A son has been born to Naomi.” They named him Obed. He was the father of Jesse, the father of David.’

Boaz and Ruth

2 Samuel 8:2

English Standard Version

‘And he [King David] defeated Moab and he measured them with a line, making them lie down on the ground. Two lines he measured to be put to death, [!] and one full line to be spared [1/3]. And the Moabites became servants to David and brought tribute.’

2 Kings 3:4-27

English Standard Version

4 ‘Now Mesha king of Moab was a sheep breeder, and he had to deliver to the king of Israel 100,000 lambs and the wool of 100,000 rams. 5 But when Ahab died, the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel. 6 So King Jehoram marched out of Samaria at that time and mustered all Israel. 7 And he went and sent word to Jehoshaphat king of Judah: “The king of Moab has rebelled against me. Will you go with me to battle against Moab?” And he said, “I will go. I am as you are, my people [Houses of Judah and Benjamin, (Simeon and Levi)] as your people [Kingdom of remaining Ten Tribes of Israel], my horses as your horses.” 8 Then he said, “By which way shall we march?” Jehoram answered, “By the way of the wilderness of Edom.”

9 So the king of Israel went with the king of Judah and the king of Edom. And when they had made a circuitous march of seven days, there was no water for the army or for the animals that followed them. 10 Then the king of Israel said, “Alas! The Lord has called these three kings to give them into the hand of Moab.” 11 And Jehoshaphat said, “Is there no prophet of the Lord here, through whom we may inquire of the Lord?” Then one of the king of Israel’s servants answered, “Elisha the son of Shaphat is here, who poured water on the hands of Elijah.” 12 And Jehoshaphat said, “The word of the Lord is with him.” So the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat and the king of Edom went down to him.

13 And Elisha said to the king of Israel, “What have I to do with you? Go to the prophets of your father and to the prophets of your mother.” But the king of Israel said to him, “No; it is the Lord who has called these three kings to give them into the hand of Moab.” 

14 And Elisha said, “As the Lord of hosts lives, before whom I stand, were it not that I have regard for Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, I would neither look at you nor see you. 15 But now bring me a musician.” And when the musician played, the hand of the Lord came upon him. 16 And he said, “Thus says the Lord, ‘I will make this dry streambed full of pools.’ 17 For thus says the Lord, ‘You shall not see wind or rain, but that streambed shall be filled with water, so that you shall drink, you, your livestock, and your animals.’ 

18 This is a light thing in the sight of the Lord. He will also give the Moabites into your hand, 19 and you shall attack every fortified city and every choice city, and shall fell every good tree and stop up all springs of water and ruin every good piece of land with stones.”[!] 20 The next morning, about the time of offering the sacrifice, behold, water came from the direction of Edom, till the country was filled with water.’

Recall, a definition of Moab is ‘water of a father’, as well as the connection of water with Rabbah of the Ammonites.

21 ‘When all the Moabites heard that the kings had come up to fight against them, all who were able to put on armor, from the youngest to the oldest, were called out and were drawn up at the border. 22 And when they rose early in the morning and the sun shone on the water, the Moabites saw the water opposite them as red as blood. 23 And they said, “This is blood; the kings have surely fought together and struck one another down. Now then, Moab, to the spoil!” 24 But when they came to the camp of Israel, the Israelites rose and struck the Moabites, till they fled before them. And they went forward, striking the Moabites as they went. 25 And they overthrew the cities, and on every good piece of land every man threw a stone until it was covered. They stopped every spring of water and felled all the good trees, till only its stones were left in Kir-hareseth [not the Kir of Moab], and the slingers surrounded and attacked it. 26 When the king of Moab saw that the battle was going against him, he took with him 700 swordsmen to break through, opposite the king of Edom, but they could not. 

27 Then he took his oldest son who was to reign in his place and offered him for a burnt offering on the wall. And there came great wrath against Israel. And they withdrew from him and returned to their own land.’

These were severely harsh measures and vicious war atrocities perpetrated by the Israelites against the Moabites. Not a big surprise when hatred brewed and raged within Moab everafter. The sons of Jacob were disobeying the command in not harassing or contending with Moab and going to war with them. Then compounded the issue by adding undue cruelty to make it immensely worse.

2 Kings 16:9

English Standard Version

‘… The king of Assyria marched up against Damascus [Gether-Aram] and took it, carrying its people captive to Kir [of Moab], and he killed Rezin [the king of Damascus].’

Psalm 60:7-8

English Standard Version

“Gilead is mine; Manasseh is mine; Ephraim is my helmet; Judah is my scepter. Moab is my washbasin; upon Edom I cast my shoe; over Philistia I shout in triumph.”

Isaiah 15:1-9

English Standard Version

‘… Because Ar of Moab [the capital] is laid waste in a night, Moab is undone; because Kir of Moab [the second city] is laid waste in a night, Moab is undone. 2 He has gone up to the temple, and to Dibon, to the high places to weep; over Nebo and over Medeba Moab wails. On every head is baldness; every beard is shorn; 3 in the streets they wear sackcloth; on the housetops and in the squares everyone wails and melts in tears. 4… the armed men of Moab cry aloud; his soul trembles.

5 My heart cries out for Moab; her fugitives flee to Zoar [as Lot had done]… For at the ascent of Luhith [possibly neighbouring great grandson of Abraham and Keturah – Genesis 25:3] they go up weeping; on the road to Horonaim they raise a cry of destruction… 8 For a cry has gone around the land of Moab; her wailing reaches to Eglaim; her wailing reaches to Beer-elim. 9 For the waters of Dibon are full of blood; for I will bring upon Dibon even more, a lion for those of Moab who escape, for the remnant of the land.’

Isaiah 16:1-13

English Standard Version

‘Send the lamb to the ruler of the land, from Sela, by way of the desert, to the mount of the daughter of Zion. 2 Like fleeing birds, like a scattered nest, so are the daughters of Moab at the fords of the Arnon… 4 let the outcasts of Moab sojourn among you; be a shelter to them from the destroyer. When the oppressor is no more, and destruction has ceased, and he who tramples underfoot has vanished from the land, 5 then a throne will be established in steadfast love, and on it will sit in faithfulness in the tent of David one who judges and seeks justice and is swift to do righteousness.”

6 We have heard of the pride of Moab – how proud he is! – of his arrogance, his pride, and his insolence; in his idle boasting he is not right.’

Moab’s pride is their biggest stumbling block.

Job 41:34 RSV: 

“[They behold] everything that is high; [they (the Adversary) are a ruler] over all the [children] of pride.”

Isaiah: 7 ‘Therefore let Moab wail for Moab, let everyone wail. Mourn, utterly stricken, for the raisin cakes of Kir-hareseth. 8 For the fields of Heshbon languish, and the vine of Sibmah; the lords of the nations have struck down its branches… And joy and gladness are taken away from the fruitful field, and in the vineyards no songs are sung, no cheers are raised; no treader treads out wine in the presses; I have put an end to the shouting. 11 Therefore my inner parts moan like a lyre for Moab, and my inmost self for Kir-hareseth. 

12 And when Moab presents himself, when he wearies himself on the high place, when he comes to his sanctuary to pray, he will not prevail. 13 This is the word that the Lord spoke concerning Moab in the past. 14 But now the Lord has spoken, saying, “In three years, like the years of a hired worker, the glory of Moab will be brought into contempt, in spite of all his great multitude, and those who remain will be very few and feeble.” This proclamation is yet future, for the Moabites have never been ‘few and feeble’.

Germany has an eagle; the United Kingdom has a lion; Spain (and Italy) often sport a bull; while France have a rooster as a mascot symbol. The origin of this emblem dates back to the Gallic origins of the French nation when the Romans laughed at Gauls because of a linguistic pun. In Latin, the word gallus means Gaul, but also cockerel. The supposed stubbornness and brazen pride of the people was to be turned on its head as the French took the bird to their hearts as an icon of their nation.

The French kings adopted the rooster as a symbol of courage and bravery. During the French Revolution, the cockerel became a symbol of the people and the State and was engraved on coins. Napoleon preferred the eagle – the symbol of imperial Rome – but the rooster won out over the raptor, as an apt symbol for French pride. The rooster is visible throughout France: on French stamps, at the entrance of the Élysée Palace, on jerseys of French football, rugby and handball teams and on the shirts of Olympic athletes. Mercury was often portrayed with the cockerel (Article: Thoth); a sacred animal among the Continental Celts. 

Jeremiah 48:2-30, 38-47

English Standard Version

2 … the renown of Moab is no more. In Heshbon they planned disaster against her: ‘Come, let us cut her off from being a nation!’ You also, O Madmen, shall be brought to silence; the sword shall pursue you. 3 … ‘Desolation and great destruction!’ 4 Moab is destroyed; her little ones have made a cry… 6 Flee! Save yourselves! You will be like a juniper in the desert! 7 For, because you trusted in your works and your treasures, you also shall be taken; and Chemosh shall go into exile with his priests and his officials… 9 “Give wings to Moab, for she would fly away; her cities shall become a desolation, with no inhabitant in them. 

11 “Moab has been at ease from his youth and has settled on his dregs; he has not been emptied from vessel to vessel, nor has he gone into exile; so his taste remains in him, and his scent is not changed. 12 “Therefore, behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I shall send to him pourers who will pour him, and empty his vessels and break his jars in pieces. 13 Then Moab shall be ashamed of Chemosh, as the house of Israel was ashamed of Bethel, their confidence [Article: Belphegor]. 14 “How do you say, ‘We are heroes and mighty men of war’? 15 The destroyer of Moab and his cities has come up, and the choicest of his young men have gone down to slaughter, declares the King, whose name is the Lord of hosts. 16 The calamity of Moab is near at hand, and his affliction hastens swiftly. 17 Grieve for him, all you who are around him, and all who know his name; say, ‘How the mighty scepter is broken, the glorious staff.’

18 “Come down from your glory, and sit on the parched ground, O inhabitant of Dibon [H1769 – diybon: ‘wasting’]! For the destroyer of Moab has come up against you; he has destroyed your strongholds… 20 Moab is put to shame, for it is broken; wail and cry! Tell it beside the Arnon, that Moab is laid waste. 21 “Judgment has come upon the tableland… and all the cities of the land of Moab, far and near. 25 The horn [symbol of power] of Moab is cut off, and his arm is broken, declares the Lord. 26 “Make him drunk, because he magnified himself against the Lord, so that Moab shall wallow in his vomit, and he too shall be held in derision. 27 Was not Israel a derision to you? Was he found among thieves, that whenever you spoke of him you wagged your head? 28 “Leave the cities, and dwell in the rock, O inhabitants of Moab!

29 … We have heard of the pride of Moab – he is very proud – of his loftiness, his pride, and his arrogance, and the haughtiness of his heart. 30 I know his insolence, declares the Lord; his boasts are false, his deeds are false. 

… 38 On all the housetops of Moab and in the squares there is nothing but lamentation, for I have broken Moab like a vessel for which no one cares, declares the Lord. 39 How it is broken! How they wail! How Moab has turned his back in shame! So Moab has become a derision and a horror to all that are around him.”

40 For thus says the Lord: “Behold, one shall fly swiftly like an eagle and spread his wings against Moab; 41 the cities shall be taken and the strongholds seized. The heart of the warriors of Moab shall be in that day like the heart of a woman in her birth pains; 42 Moab shall be destroyed and be no longer a people, because he magnified himself against the Lord… For I will bring these things upon Moab, the year of their punishment, declares the Lord. 45 “In the shadow of Heshbon fugitives stop without strength, for fire came out from Heshbon, flame from the house of Sihon; it has destroyed the forehead of Moab, the crown of the sons of tumult. 46 Woe to you, O Moab! The people of Chemosh are undone, for your sons have been taken captive, and your daughters into captivity. 47 Yet I will restore the fortunes of Moab in the latter days, declares the Lord.” Thus far is the judgment on Moab.

Ezekiel 25:8-11

English Standard Version

8 “Thus says the Lord God: Because Moab and Seir said, ‘Behold, the house of Judah is like all the other nations,’ 9 therefore I will lay open the flank of Moab from the cities, from its cities on its frontier, the glory of the country, Beth-jeshimoth, Baal-meon, and Kiriathaim. 10 I will give it along with the Ammonites to the people of the East as a possession, that the Ammonites may be remembered no more among the nations [a scattered people within Moab and Gilead], 11 and I will execute judgments upon Moab. Then they will know that I am the Lord.”

Amos 2:1-3

English Standard Version

‘Thus says the Lord: “For three transgressions of Moab, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment, because he burned to lime the bones of the king of Edom. 

2 So I will send a fire upon Moab [reminiscent of Sodom’s fate], and it shall devour the strongholds of Kerioth, and Moab shall die amid uproar, amid shouting and the sound of the trumpet; 3 I will cut off the ruler from its midst, and will kill all its princes with him,” says the Lord.

Daniel 2:32-39

English Standard Version

‘The head of this image was of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its middle and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay. As you looked, a stone was cut out by no human hand, and it struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, all together were broken in pieces, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth. Another kingdom inferior to you shall arise after you, and yet a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth.’ 

Daniel 7:6

English Standard Version

‘After this I looked, and behold, another, like a leopard, with four wings of a bird on its back. And the beast had four heads*, and dominion was given to it.’

Daniel 8:20-22

English Standard Version

‘As for the ram that you saw with the two horns, these are the kings of Media and Persia. And the goat is the king of Greece. And the great horn between his eyes is the first king [Alexander the Great]. As for the horn that was broken, in place of which four others arose, four kingdoms* shall arise from his nation, but not with his power.’

Previously, we learned that the head of gold was the Chaldean Empire – the ancestors of the Northern and in part the Central Italians (refer Chapter XXV Italy: Nahor & the Chaldeans) – of Babylon, represented by a lion with wings.

Also, one leg of iron was the Byzantine, Eastern Roman Empire – comprising the ancestors of the Russians (Chapter XX Will the Real Assyria Stand Up: Asshur & Russia) – represented as one half of a monstrous beast.

The chest and arms of silver was the Medo-Persian empire – the ancestors of the Turko-Mongol and Turkish peoples (Chapter IV Central Asia – Madai & the Medes; and Chapter XVIII Elam & Turkey) – represented by a bear, as well as a ram. 

The torso and thighs are representative of the Greco-Macedonian empire – the ancestors of the French – who toppled the Medes and Persians. 

Alexander III of Macedon or the Great, defeated Persia in 331 BCE and the power of Greece lasted until 146 BCE, when it became a protectorate of the burgeoning Roman empire. After Alexander, who reigned briefly yet emphatically from 336 to 323 BCE and the subsequent seven short-lived emperor reigns from 323 to 288 BCE, four divisions* of the Greek empire arose, each led by one of Alexander’s generals. Ptolemy from 281 to 279 BCE, administered Egypt and North Africa; Seleucus in 281 BCE governed Syria, Asia Minor and the East. Lysimachus during 288 to 285 BCE, took control of Thrace – until it united with Greece and Macedonia – and Cassander from 315 to 297 BCE, ruled over Macedonia and Greece. 

The two thighs of Nebuchadnezzar’s statute represent the distinct Macedonian and Greek components of the Empire – in other words, Ammon and Moab. The Greco-Macedonian empire was more robust and stronger than the two preceding empires, as evidenced by being likened to bronze as opposed to gold or silver. Militarily, it defeated its enemies with raw power and speed unlike any before it, as evidenced by the agile goat compared to the ram of Persia and the lighter leopard in contrast to the heavier and slower bear of Persia and the former lion of Chaldea. 

Alexander, with the agility of a goat crossed the Hellespont after conquering neighbouring, yet related Grecia and began his march to revenge the humiliation inflicted upon Greece by Xerxes a century before. Alexander Conquered Troy, then met Persian opposition at Granicus. After subjugating all of Asia Minor, he battled a host of supposedly half a million Persians, whom Darius III – king from 336 to 330 BCE – had assembled. They met in the plain of Issus on November 5, 333 BCE and Alexander slaughtered the greatly superior Persian force – outnumbered two to one – breaking the back of Persian opposition. Proceeding southward, city after city fell without a real fight except for Tyre in 332 BCE and Gaza, which were both subdued after sieges.

Marching southwards to Egypt, Alexander conquered the entire country with little effort and founded the world renowned capital city of Alexandria. It became the largest city of the Hellenic world. Continuing east, he fought a third momentous battle with Persia on October 1, 331 BCE, against Darius at Gaugamela and again defeated a greatly superior force. Alexander’s armies reached right to India, but his troops, weary with battle, refused to go further. Returning to Babylon, Alexander intended to make this the capital of his entire empire. Yet he died a victim of his profligate eating, drinking and whoring, coupled with an attack of malaria at the age of thirty-three on June 11, 323 BCE. 

As brief as his rule was, his indelible mark on the world was permanent. The description of the leopard – one of the swiftest of animals and greatest, of predatory carnivores – portrays the lightning speed of attack of Alexander’s armies which was unprecedented. Alexander never lost a siege or battle – despite typically being outnumbered – during the years 338 to 325 BCE. His record is an incredibly impressive, fought twenty, won twenty. 

The four wings on the back of the leopard not only represent agility and speed, but with the four heads, symbolise the fulfilled historic fact, that Alexander’s empire was eventually controlled by four principal generals. 

As John F Walvoord remarks: “The accuracy of this prophecy is so evident that liberal scholars who consider detailed prophecy an impossibility are forced to postulate that the entire book of Daniel is in fact a forgery written by a pseudo-Daniel who lived after these events of Alexander’s conquest had already taken place. This unwilling confession of the accuracy of Biblical prophecy is in itself most significant and a testimony to the accuracy of prophecy as a whole.”

Alexander the Great, thought, acted and fought on his gut instinct. The gut located in the lower torso as evidenced on Nebuchadnezzar’s statue. He was also influenced by his lower groin, in his private life. Some may say, ‘how very French.’ Cyrus the Great, as pictured by the chest, let his heart influence him when he fell for Esther from the tribe of Benjamin; allowing the tribe of Judah to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the city and Temple. Nebuchadnezzar certainly depicted a more cerebral approach in his reign with his methodical deconstruction of his enemies and impressive building projects, as represented by the head of gold.

Alexander was born in Pella, the capital of Macedon and from age thirteen, was tutored by Aristotle until he was sixteen. His mother was Olympias, the fourth of eight wives and principal wife of Philip II of Macedon. Alexander was raised to read, play the lyre, ride, fight and hunt. His mother had huge ambitions and encouraged Alexander to believe it was his destiny to conquer the Persian Empire. He had a great desire for knowledge, a love for philosophy and was an avid reader. Though Alexander was impulsive, with a violent temper his intelligent and rational side was also demonstrated by his ability and success as a general and military strategist. It would seem he had an equal appreciation of men as he had for women, though both were lesser than his dependance on alcohol. 

There have been a succession of Greek ages. The ones dominated by Moab and Ammon were the later Classical age of Greece from 500 to 323 BCE and the Hellenistic era of 323 to 146 BCE. The sons of Lot were the ancestors of peoples living in Greece before these epochs, as were the sons of Jacob; stretching back to Archaic Greece during the centuries from 800 to 500 BCE and beyond to Ancient Greece, including the Mycenaean period of 1600 to 1200 BCE and the Dark age of Greece lasting from 1200 to 800 BCE.

University of Oxford, Professor of Classics and Ancient History, Simon Hornblower  – emphasis & bold mine:

‘… about 1200 BCE, to the death of Alexander… in 323 BCE. It was a period of political, philosophical, artistic, and scientific achievements that formed a legacy with unparalleled influence on Western civilization.’

By the time frame comprising Classical Greece, the peoples of the region had begun to change in composition from those who had constituted Greece from 1600 BCE. The city-states up to approximately 1000 to 800 BCE had been reflective of different peoples. The rise of Macedon and its control of greater Greece saw the transition to the descendants of Ammon and Moab. The people of Troy and the greater Troad, were colonial descendants of Ammon and Moab and both the Trojans and the Macedonians were ancestors of the Frankish peoples who form modern day France.

We will investigate the original founding of Troy, which is credited not to the sons of Lot but rather descendants of the tribe of Judah. The original peoples who had grouped primarily around Athens, Thebes, Corinth, Arcadia and Olympia were primarily colonies of the descendants of the sons of Jacob. In time, they were transplanted by the peoples of Moab and Ammon. The Spartans are similarly related, though they are not descendants of either Lot or Jacob – refer Chapter XXIX Esau: The Thirteenth Tribe. 

Italians and Race, Dr Orville Boyd Jenkins – emphasis & bold mine:

‘From pre-Roman times, it appears there was already a clear distinction of short, darker-skinned, dark-haired peoples from pre-history being [overlaid] and mixed with taller, sometimes larger built, blond and blue-eyed groups. It is now generally believed that the Greeks also were larger, blond and blue–eyed people, which was the case when Alexander the Great spread his forces and opened up colonies all over the Middle East and Egypt. This is also attested in frescos from the era, as well as in various references to their looks.’

Both the earlier Greeks, the sons of Jacob and later Greeks from Ammon and Moab would today be broadly classed as Germanic (or Teutonic). The French are a Germanic-Celtic, rather pseudo Latin mix. This inclusion of fairer skin, blond hair and blue eyes was attributable to both ‘sets’ of Greeks. Alexander the Great himself, no different, as various reports reveal. 

The Greek biographer Plutarch lived circa  45 to 120 CE, describes Alexander’s appearance as: ‘… for those peculiarities which many of his successors and friends afterwards tried to imitate, namely, the poise of the neck, which was bent slightly to the left, and the melting glance of his eyes, this artist has accurately observed… he was of a fair colour, as they say, and his fairness passed into ruddiness on his breast particularly, and in his face. Moreover, that a very pleasant odour exhaled from his skin and that there was a fragrance about his mouth and all his flesh, so that his garments were filled with it, this we have read in the Memoirs of Aristoxenus.’

Alexander Romance suggested that Alexander III possessed heterochromia iridium: that one eye was dark and the other light. British historian Peter Green compiled a description of Alexander’s appearance, based on his review of statues and ancient documents: ‘Physically, Alexander was not prepossessing. Even by Macedonian standards he was very short, though stocky and tough. His beard was scanty, and he stood out against his hirsute Macedonian barons by going clean-shaven. His neck was in some way twisted, so that he appeared to be gazing upward at an angle. His eyes (one blue, one brown) revealed a dewy, feminine quality. He had a high complexion and a harsh voice.’ Egyptian Historian Joann Fletcher has also said that Alexander exhibited blond hair.

French men

Many people are intrigued by the amazing story of Troy. Three Hollywood feature films have been produced on the fantastic events, yet much of the scholarly community view it entirely as myth. Yet with all legends truth is within the tale, though admittedly it is difficult in this case to separate fact from fiction. 

Regardless, the Trojan war continues to stand out during the Dark age of Ancient Greece. The siege of Troy is said to have lasted some nine to ten years and its eventual fall, through the ruse of the Trojan Horse, occurred approximately, according to an unconventional chronology, between 1186 and 1184 BCE.

Those historians who believe the story of the Trojan War is derived from a real historical conflict, often use the dates given by Eratosthenes of 1194 to 1184 BCE; which roughly corresponds to the archaeological evidence of the catastrophic burning of Troy VII and a late Bronze Age collapse. Other researchers more recently, have dated the events somewhere between 1260 to 1180 BCE.

French women

The Trojan War Chronological, Historical and Archaeological Evidence, Gérard Gertoux – emphasis & bold mine:

‘The Trojan War is the foundation of Greek history. If Greek historians had little doubt of its existence they remained extremely sceptical regarding its mythological origin. Archaeology has confirmed one essential point: there was indeed a general conflagration in the Greek world around 1200 BCE, the assumed period of that war, which caused the disappearance of two powerful empires: 

Mycenaean [circa 1100 BCE] on one hand and [the] Hittite [circa 1180 BCE] with its vassals on the other hand. The inscriptions of Ramses III’s [who reigned from 1184 to 1153 BCE during his] year 8 [in 1177 BCE] describe a general invasion of the Mediterranean by the “Sea Peoples”, but without giving any reason. 

A precise chronological reconstruction, based on a few absolute dates, shows that the annexation of the kingdom of Cyprus (Alasia), closely linked to the Mycenaean world, by Hittite King Tudhaliya IV played a role of detonator in the confrontation between a Greek heterogeneous confederation, consisting of pirates and privateers on one side and a set of vassal kingdoms of the Hittite empire, such as Troy and Ugarit, on the other. This struggle to control a vital sea path, from Crete to Egypt, via Cyprus, which ended with a complete mutual destruction in 1185 BCE, the climax of the famous Trojan War, had begun 10 years earlier. Surprisingly, this conclusion was already that of Eratosthenes (276-193). Historical and epigraphic context shows that Homer wrote his epic shortly after Queen Elissa founded Carthage (c. 870 BCE).’ 

The supposed mythic events surrounding the collapse of Troy begin when Paris – same name as future capital of France – a Prince of Troy and son of Priam who reigned from circa 1200 to 1185 BCE and the King of Troy, is visiting King Melenaus of Sparta and staying in the Spartan Palace. Paris knew of Melenaus’s wife Helen and had fallen in love with her – refer article: Thoth. Paris hid Helen on his ship for the return voyage to Troy. Paris’ older brother Prince Hector did not agree with Paris, yet sailed home regardless. King Priam welcomed Helen and took her into the family as one of his own. Priam was reputed to have had fifty sons and twelve daughters. The city of Troy was splendidly wealthy and impregnable. Recall the prominent city of Kir of Moab, meaning wall.

Raging with revenge, King Melenaus of Sparta calls for the assistance and a favour from his brother King Agamemnon II who ruled Argos, circa 1202 to 1185 BCE. Though all closely related, the Trojans, Spartans (or Dorians) and the Achaean Greeks were different peoples. Agamemnon called in the services of Achilles, a killing machine and a fabled warrior of demi-god stature. King Agamemnon had at his disposal a realistic number of approximately one hundred ships and ten thousand men, including allies from Athens. 

According to Thucydides, Agamemnon raised an enormous fleet utilising other Greek cities of close to twelve hundred Boeotian [100+ men] and Philoctetes [50 men] ships – with a force of some 60,000 to 130,000 troops. To end the decade long stalemate, Odysseus – an ally of Menelaus – devised the ruse of a giant hollow wooden horse, an animal that was sacred to the Trojans.

Once inside Troy’s walls and the Trojans defeated, the Greeks burned the city and divided the spoils. Cassandra – Priam’s daughter who had warned not to accept the horse inside the city – was apparently awarded to Agamemnon. Neoptolemus, a son of Achilles obtained Andromache, the wife of Hector – the son of Priam, who had been killed by Achilles – and Odysseus was given Hecuba, Priam’s wife. 

That most Achaean heroes did not return to their homes and instead founded colonies elsewhere was ‘interpreted by Thucydides as being due to their long absence. Nowadays the interpretation followed by most scholars is that the Achaean leaders driven out of their lands by the turmoil at the end of the Mycenaean era preferred to claim descent from exiles of the Trojan War.’

Simply, these Greeks migrated as all ancient peoples continually moved due to the search for better opportunities, usually prodded by other peoples pressing against their territory, due to either population expansion, food shortages, famine or war. There was a continuous domino effect throughout the Middle East, Central Asia and Europe maintaining the movement of Shem’s descendants until peoples finally settled in their current geographical and political positions beginning from approximately 800 to 1000 CE.

The Greeks and Romans took for a fact the historicity of the Trojan War and the identity of Homeric Troy with a site in Anatolia on a peninsula called the Troad or now known as the Biga Peninsula, which forms the basis of Homer’s Iliad. Ironically, Alexander the Great later conquered the Troad and Troy, when it was part of the Persian Empire. He visited the site in 334 BCE and offered sacrifices at tombs associated with the Homeric heroes of Achilles and Patroclus his cousin, killed by Hector. Alexander was reputed to be related to Achilles via his mother who was apparently descended from a royal house. Troy is known in Greek as Troia; also by association with the region to the east, as Ilios (or Ilion). In Latin, Troja (or Ilium), as it was known during the reign of the Roman Emperor Augustus. 

A large mound known locally as Hisarlik, had long been understood to hold the ruins of a city named Ilion (or Ilium) which had flourished in Hellenistic and Roman times. In 1822 Charles Maclaren, a Scottish journalist, posited that this was the site of Homeric Troy; though for the next fifty years, his idea received little attention from Classical scholars, most of whom regarded the Trojan legend as a fictional creation based on myth and not history. ‘Those who did believe in the existence of a real Troy thought it to be at Bunarbashi (Pinarbasi), a short distance south of Hisarlik. It took Frank Calvert an English Levantine emigrant and scholarly amateur archaeologist, until 1860 to begin exploratory work on Hisarlik. It was he who persuaded the German archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann to work at Hisarlik, though Schliemann soon took full credit for adopting Maclaren’s identification and demonstrating to the world that it was correct.’

There are nine major periods of ancient Troy designated by archaeologists, which are labeled I to IX, starting from the bottom with the oldest settlement, Troy I. ‘In periods I to VII Troy was a fortified stronghold that served as the capital of the Troad and the residence of a king, his family, officials, advisers, retinue, and slaves. Troy VI and VII [are] assigned to the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, circa 1900 to 1100 BCE. Based on the evidence of imported Mycenaean pottery, the end of Troy VIIa is dated to between 1260 and 1240 BCE. The Cincinnati expedition under Blengen concluded that Troy VIIa was very likely the capital of King Priam described in Homer’s Iliad, which was destroyed by the Greek armies of Agamemnon. 

The partly rebuilt Troy VIIb shows evidence of new settlers with a lower level of material culture, who vanished altogether by 1100 BCE. For about the next four centuries the site was virtually abandoned. The glorious and rich city Homer describes was believed to be Troy VI by many twentieth century authors, and destroyed about 1275 BC, probably by an earthquake. Its successor, Troy VIIa, was destroyed around 1180 BC; it was long considered a poorer city, and dismissed as a candidate for Homeric Troy, but since the excavation campaign of 1988, it has come to be regarded as the most likely candidate.’ 

This writer is not convinced with the VIIa and VIIb archaeological split. It is proposed that VI is the same Troy as described by Homer and the same Troy which Priam was king of when it was destroyed. Troy VI included the height of its splendour from circa 1400 to 1180 BCE. What has been labeled VIIb, should perhaps be renamed Troy VII. It is agreed that Troy VIIb was an attempt to rebuild, maintain and sustain a Troy that was now a shadow of its former grandeur and ultimately given up as a viable project by 1100 BCE.

Is there an agenda to lessen Troy’s prestige during 1194 and 1184 BCE and thus discredit the whole saga’s validity? Parallel propaganda include accounts which assert there were very few survivors from Troy.

Homeric Troy is described as a wealthy and populous city, yet the idea of a lesser Troy: ‘a relatively minor settlement, perhaps [just] a princely seat’ is advanced by scholars. In 1988, Korfmann’s team searched the terrain surrounding the citadel site at Hisarlik, investigating the wider settlement. Korfmann’s findings from ‘geomagnetic surveying and isolated excavations, led him to conclude in favour of a greater Troy – that is, a settlement of some size and prosperity.’

The question of what language was spoken by the Trojans has been a burning question. No evidence of a Trojan language seems to have survived. It was thought that the Trojans were Greek, though they were not in the Achaean domain and actually opposed to the Achaeans. Both remain a mystery, until we understand the Trojans were descended from Moab and Ammon and the Greeks at this time were principally sons of Jacob. It would be like comparing French with English and wondering why they are not the same. The animosity between the two peoples still alive and strong. Their differences not just due to culture but family lineage. Passages from the Iliad also allude that the Trojans were not Greek.

Who were the Trojans and where did they come from? Luciana Cavallaro, 2014 – emphasis mine:

‘Many scholars, including Carl Blengen American archaeologist who worked at the site in the 1930s, believed the Trojans were of Greek origin. This conjecture was attributed to the Greek names given to the characters in the Iliad but that isn’t the case. Homer mentioned a close relationship between the Trojan allies and in particular with the Dardanians. Excavations at the site of Troy/Ilios/Troya/Troia have found artefacts that showed the Trojans were in fact indigenous to the region and related to the Indo-European people who migrated to the area.

Archaeological investigations have surmised the people from Dardania and Troy shared a kinship, their ancestry a mixture of Anatolian and Luwians.’

The Luwians proper were the original Hatti. If these Dardanians are Luwians, then they could be related, just as the French (from Haran) are related to the Italians (from Nahor) – refer Chapter XXV Italy: Nahor & the Chaldeans.

Cavallaro: ‘The latter came from south eastern Anatolia [Asia-minor], a province the Romans later called Cilicia. The Greeks and Romans thought Dardania was a subset [satellite] of Troy however it was the other way around. Troy was a state of [the region of] Dardania [though Dardania was also the name of a city].

There are also the names of the Trojans, given in Greek as the audience was Hellenistic and more recognisable. Alexander/Alaksandu, better known as Paris was first noted in Hittite text and [a] ruler who established trading links with the Hittites. Wilusa, [a] Hittite word for the Greek interpretation Ilios. Priam/Piyama-Radu and Hektor are considered indigenous names though the spelling of the former changed. The Greeks did migrate to the west coast of Asia Minor and there is evidence they settled in the famous city. This was identified as Troy VIII.’

As stated in the preceding article, one proposal is that the Indo-European Luwians who arrived in the western coastal region of Anatolia are the West-Luwian speakers of Arzawa, who migrated westward. Another theory is that the Dardanians were Thracians who crossed the Dardanelles, named after the Dardans. The remains of their material culture reveal close ties with Thracians and Anatolian groups, as well as some Greek contact. Added to this is that later, a Thraco-Illyrian tribal state, the Dar-dan-i, dwelt to the north of Mace-don. 

There are historical clues sustaining the fact Trojans and Greeks, were offshoot colonies descended from Lot and Jacob respectively. Like all colonial origins, they begin with migrants on board ships; in this case, from Canaan. The descendants of Lot and Jacob would have been well aware of the Aegean-Grecian world via the Phoenician’s trade routes and the Mycenaean/Minoan – later Philistine – civilisation already established there.

Dardania, the city purportedly founded by Dardanus, as well as the name also given to the region, was located in the northwestern corner of Anatolia and to the immediate north of Troy – facing modern Gallipoli across the Dardanelles. It is included as part of the Troad, the peninsula region at the far north-western corner of Asia-minor, now modern Turkey. Dardania historically has been defined as ‘a district of the Troad, lying along the Hellespont, southwest of Abydos, and adjacent to the territory of Ilium. Its people (Dardani) appear in the Trojan War under Aeneas, in close alliance with the Trojans, with whose name their own is often interchanged…’ Aeneas is referred to in Virgil’s Aeneid interchangeably as a Dardan or as a Trojan, but strictly speaking Aeneas was of the Dardanian branch.

Thus some consider the Dardanians (or Dardans) as being the same stock as the Trojans – Dardanian and Trojan being synonymous – while others like Homer distinguish the two as clearly identifiable people – not two branches of a single group. The answer includes both propositions, in that a. Moab and Ammon are the same stock, both having Lot as their father; yet b. they are also two separate lines from two different brothers. Therefore, two different though related peoples, combined through marriage. The twist is that the original Dardanus was not descended from Lot but rather from Jacob. The Dardanians and the Teucri (or Teukroi) are credited as collaborating in building Troy as a state. As information is scant and legend and history are fused, it is a challenge in constructing a reliable chronology regarding the original founders.  

Teucer’s father is recorded as the mythical Scamandrus born circa 1627 BCE; ruling his people from 1603 to 1581 BCE. It was at that time his territory was allegedly absorbed by the Dardanians. In Greek mythology the daughter of Teucer was Bataea. Bataea married Dardanus who subsequently inherits rulership from Teucer of the Teucri in 1581, lasting until 1550 BCE, under the name of the Dardanians. Probably, the Teucri represent the relatively indigenous northwestern Anatolians of the second millennium BCE, while the Indo-European Dardanians, the migratory arrivals integrated into Teucri society, but who very quickly dominated it. Dardanus was born circa 1675 BCE in the land of Goshen, while the sons of Jacob were living in Egypt; for Dardanus was from a royal line of Judah, the son of Jacob.

Dardanus had a son Ilus (or Ilos), who ruled from 1550 to 1514 BCE; a king who died young and childless. Ilus’ younger brother, Erecthonius (or Erictanus) was born circa 1540 BCE and became king after Ilus. Erichthonius married Astyoche, daughter of the ‘river-god’ Simoeis, and she bore him a son, who was named Tros and he lived approximately between 1474 to 1415 BCE. Erichthonius was said to be the richest ruler in the world at that time, because he owned three thousand mares.

According to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Dardanus had another son named Zacynthus by Bataea and Zacynthus was the first settler on the island afterwards called Zacynthus. Dionysius also said that Dardanus’ son Idaeus, gave his name to the Idaean Mountains, that is Mount Ida, where Idaeus built a temple to the Mother of the Gods, Cybele and instituted mysteries and ceremonies still observed in Phrygia in Dionysius’ time. There are operas on the subject of Dardanus by Jean-Philippe Rameau (1739). Interesting coincidence that the operas are composed by a Frenchman.

Tros is the family member credited as the ruler of the Trojans, whereby the origin of the name Troad, as well as its inhabitants, the Trojans derive. Tros married Callirrhoe and had three sons with her, including the youngest son, Ganymede. Tros bequeathed the rulership of the Trojans to Ilos his eldest son – (not Ilos the son of Dardanus), who chose to be near the sea and strengthened Troy on the plain – and the rulership of Dardania, near Mount Ida, to his second son, Assaracus in 1415 BCE. Ilos founded the royal line of Ilium (or Ilios) which may equate to the Hittite (Hatti) Wilusa from (W)ilios. Assaracus and his Dardanian descendants maintained close links with their Trojan cousins. 

To give a context for the period circa 1600 BCE with the approximate founding of Troy and the birth of Dardanus circa 1675 BCE, through to 1415 BCE and the death of his grandson Tros… Moab and Ammon were born circa 1878 or 1877 BCE after the destruction of Sodom, when Abraham was ninety-nine years old. Similarly, Abraham’s son Isaac was born in 1877 BCE, when Abraham was one hundred years old. Jacob’s son Joseph died in 1616 BCE at the age of one hundred and ten in Egypt, but by the birth of Moses some ninety years later in 1527 BCE, the sons of Jacob were in bondage to a ruling Dynasty who did not remember Joseph – Exodus 1:8 (refer Appendix VII: Moses, the Exodus & the Red Sea Crossing – Fabrication or Fact?) 

The exodus of the sons of Jacob from Egypt occurred in 1446 BCE, 430 years after Abraham’s 99th year – Exodus 12:40-41, Galatians 3:17. The three hundred and seventy-five years during 1400 to 1025 BCE was the period of the Judges in Israel until Saul became king. The early period and then height of Troy encompassed the approximate period of four hundred and twenty years from 1600 to 1180 BCE. From 1400 BCE onwards, the Moabites and children of Ammon were at continual loggerheads with Israel. Moving to Dardania and Troy was an attractive proposition for those who had the financial means. It may explain the wealth of Troy, if many inhabitants were rich immigrants.

The two families remained intertwined. Ilos married Eurydice, and became the father of Laomedon. Ilos’ daughter Themiste, married his nephew, Capys of the Dardanian line. Ilos’ son Laomedon succeeded him as king of Troy. Assaracus’ son, Capys and his wife Themiste had a son called Anchises. Of the two royal lines, those of Troy (or Ilium) became more powerful than the older Dardanian line, particularly under the rule of Laomedon; even though there was only three generations of kings in Troy, compared to the line of eight successive kings in Dardania. King Laomedon was known for his arrogance, his impiety and his refusal to honour his promises.

Then enters Priam (or Priamos), the only son to survive in a war against Heracles. Priam had been ransomed by his sister Hesione and became the new king in 1200 BCE. He had formally been known as Podacres. Priam’s first wife was Arisbe, daughter of Merops king of Percote. They had a son Aesacus, who was a gifted seer. Priam soon married Hecuba, daughter of Dymas and gave Arisbe to Hyrtacos. With Hecuba, Priam became the father of Hector, Paris, Cassandra, Helenus, Deiphobus and countless others as mentioned. Apollodorus recorded that Hecuba was the mother of ten sons and four daughters. 

Before Paris was born, Hecuba had a vision and a seer interpreted her vision, saying that Paris would one day cause the destruction of Troy. So Paris was sent to live in the wilderness. Years later, Paris returned to Troy and was recognised. Their parents had apparently forgotten the warning by the seer and welcomed him home – refer article: Thoth. Priam would have returned Helen when the Greek embassy demanded the return of Helen to her husband King Menelaus the Spartan; but Paris prevailed upon his father to refuse. As a result, the war lasted for ten years and all but one son Helenus, would die in the war. Neoptolemus, son of Achilles allegedly killed King Priam on the last day of the war. 

Who is Dardanus, the founder of Dardania, the city and subsequent region? A persistent secular legend from Greece and Rome, identifies a man called Dara as Dardanus, founder of ancient Troy, or rather Dardan. One translation of the Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus, mentions King Solomon as being wiser than two men named as Calcol and Dara (or Darda) and gives Dara’s name as Dardanos. In 1 Chronicles 2:6 we read of Zarah, who had five sons and his fourth and fifth sons were Calcol and Dara (or Darda). Zarah was a son of Judah, one of the twelve sons of Jacob. We will return to Calcol when we study Judah, as he is credited with founding the city of Athens – Chapter XXX Judah & Benjamin – the Regal Tribes.

The Greek poet Homer recorded that Dardanus was a son of Zeus, the chief of the Greek gods. The Roman and Greek legends support that Zeus called Jupiter in Latin, was a son of Saturn who was also called Kronus – Article: The Calendar Conspiracy; and Chapter XXII Alpha & Omega. Writing about the Greek gods, Sanchuniathon a Phoenician historian said that ‘Kronus’ was whom the Phoenicians called Israel, that is Jacob and he had a son called Jehud – who is, Judah. What is important is not the Greek mythology but rather the family relationship between Jacob, Judah and Zarah’s son Darda, the great grandson of Jacob as real historic figures. 

Critics focus on the Greek mythology and say every Greek city cited Zeus as their founder god and thus dismiss Darda as a founder of Troy. Critics also say the Bible does not give ‘direct evidence’ that any Israelites ‘abandoned the forty-year march… and travelled to the Aegean Sea or Black Sea… to found their own kingdoms.’ This is ironic as the rest of the time, the Bible is just a collection of fanciful fables, yet in this instance it is valued for not giving evidence, as if this evidence would be believed. We will look in detail into the sons of Jacob and the historical data that family members actually departed the congregation of Israel not just during the exodus sojourn for forty years from 1446 to 1407 BCE, but prior to their departure from Egypt.

The early migration of Darda is mentioned in How Israel Came to Britain, Canadian British Israel Association – emphasis & bold mine: 

‘Actually, groups of Israelites began to migrate away from the main body before the Israel nation was formed – while, as a people, they were still in bondage in Egypt. One of these groups under the leadership of Calcol, a prince of the tribe of Judah, went westward across the Mediterranean eventually settling in Ulster (Ireland). Another, under the leadership of Dardanus, a brother of Calcol, crossed to Asia Minor to found the Kingdom later known as Troy. E Raymond Capt in his work, Jacob’s Pillar, 1977, writes that Darda was ‘Egyptian’ in that he lived there during the bondage and was the son of Zarah. This Darda according to Capt, was one and the same with ‘Dardanus’, the ‘Egyptian founder of Troy.’

Hecataeus of Abdera, a fourth century BCE Greek historian, stated that “Now the Egyptians say that also after these events [the plagues of the Exodus] a great number of colonies were spread from Egypt all over the inhabited world… They say also that those who set forth with Danaus, likewise from Egypt, settled what is practically the oldest city of Greece, Argos, and that the nations of the Colchi in Pontus and that of the Jews (remnant of Judah), which lies between Arabia and Syria, were founded as colonies by certain emigrants from their country [Egypt]; and this is the reason why it is a long-established institution among these peoples to circumcise their male children, the custom having been brought over from Egypt. Even the Athenians, they say, are colonists from Sais in Egypt.” Quoted from Diodorus of Sicily. G H Oldfather, 1933. Volume I, books I-II, 1-34, page 91. We will return to both Calcol and his brother Darda in subsequent chapters.

Depending on which interpretation of history one receives, the fallout from Troy’s defeat is as follows. If the ten year war was one against the Mycenae, then the lone royal survivor was Aeneas a member of the Dardanian branch of the Trojan royal family. His father was Anchises. Aeneas fought on behalf of Troy against the Mycenae. Datings for the ten year war – or siege for the Helenus version – range from as early as 1196 to as late 1183 BCE. Thus, 1194 to 1184 BCE is a good median. 

Aeneas is said to have lead the two sons of Antenor, Archelochus and Acamas as well as the Dardanians, allies of Troy during the Trojan War. After the sack of Troy, Aeneas and his followers were allowed to leave with their lives. His descendants according to Virgil in the Aenid, continued to rule the Trojans. They travelled for seven years, settling in Latium – central Italy, corresponding with Lazio. Opposed by Latinus, ruler of the Latins, Aeneas bests him in battle and is then accepted, marrying his daughter, Lavinia. Many subsequent rulers of Rome claimed descent from Aeneas and the Houses of Troy and Dardania. This raises an integral point. The rulers or the royal line of Troy – splitting into two houses, the Trojan and Dardanian – were originally from Dara, the son of Zarah. Zarah was a twin of Pharez. We will study each in detail. Both twins were to be ancestors of royal lines. We will learn that nearly every royal line in Europe has descended from or included the descendants of Zarah – article: The Life & Death of Charles III.

The Romans, may well have some legitimacy to the claim of Trojan blood, as many royal houses probably could. 

The pivotal issue though is not this, but that the sons of Dara ruled the peoples from Anatolia, the western Luwians. These people became known as Trojans and Dardanians after their rulers – Darda and Tros. The western Luwians were Moabite and Ammonite colonists, descended from Abraham’s brother Haran. Similarly, the eastern Luwians were related to Abraham’s other brother Nahor – refer Chapter XXV Italy: Nahor & the Chaldeans. These peoples were known as the Hatti, who later incorporated the Chaldeans and then many centuries later were the Lombardi and intermingled with the Ostrogoths, settling in northern and central Italy. The original royal houses of Troy and Darda were from the tribe of Judah. A portion of Ammon and Moab comprised the main body of Trojans and Dardanians, who in time migrated to the area of Macedonia and ultimately comprised the later Greeks of the Classical and Hellenistic periods. 

The alternative Trojan history is where Helenus is the lone royal survivor from the Trojan line. Trojan king lists follow Helenus with Genger and then a Francus (or, poetic licence perhaps, a Franco). Many centuries later there is another Francus, a king of the West Franks. Historians say Franc-us is a fabrication of history and inserted into the Trojan line by the Merovingian kings of France. 

What is fascinating, is not whether this is true or not, but rather that the Merovingians in part, with the Franks and the Trojans are actually all one and the same, regardless of whether a Francus was the great grandson of King Priam or not. 

Other kings included in the Trojan king list are Pepin of France, Louis I of France and sandwiched between the two, one of the most influential and important kings in history, Charles I or the Great, better known as Charlemagne. The following works on Troy are all written by French men. This writer wonders if any understood that they themselves were the living descendants of the very people they were writing about; or whether their attachment is a strong subconscious ardour and inclination they have not rationalised or quite put their finger on.

Britannica: 

‘The key work in the medieval exploitation of the Trojan theme was a French romance, the Roman de Troie (1154–60), by Benoit de Sainte-Maure. Later medieval writers used the Roman de Troie until it was superseded by a Latin prose account, the Historia destructionis Troiae (c. 1287; “History of the Destruction of Troy”), by Guido delle Colonne. The French author Raoul Le Fèvre’s Recueil des histoires de Troye (1464), an account based on Guido, was translated into English by William Caxton and became the first book to be printed in English as The Recuyell of the Histories of Troye (c. 1474).’

Regarding the rise of city-states or Poleis in Greece, Britannica states – emphasis theirs: 

‘A related factor is Phoenician influence (related, because the early Phoenicians were great colonizers, who must often have met trading Greeks). The Phoenician coast was settled by communities similar in many respects to the early Greek poleis. It is arguable that Phoenician influence, and Semitic influence generally, on early Greece has been seriously underrated’ – refer Chapter XII Canaan & Africa; Chapter XXIII Aram & Tyre: Spain, Portugal & Brazil; and Chapter XXVII Abraham & Keturah – Benelux & Scandinavia.

The first significant date in Greek history, in the Archaic age was 776 BCE, the year of the first Olympic Games in Olympia, which was located west of Arcadia – recall Acadia, Canada – and northwest of Sparta in the west of Greece. This was the highlight of the Archaic age which culminated with the Persian wars. This era included Homer and his epics The Iliad and The Odyssey.

In the period from Dark to Archaic Greece there were two powerful interrelationships which influenced Greek society, the colonizing mother city and its daughter city and the shared membership of an amphictyony. The most common link was that between two cities with the emphasis of shared ancestry. This diplomatic kinship was taken seriously right until the Hellenistic period and was the basis of key alliances; developing into the proxenia. Proxenoi were citizens of one state who looked after the interests of citizens of their related, neighbour state. This was evident in type between Sparta and Athens against Troy and was really exploited by Athens in the fifth century.

In Archaic Greece an amphictyony – literally, ‘dwellers around’ – comprised a ‘league of neighbors’ called an Amphictyonic League, which was an ancient religious association of Greek tribes and states formed in the dim past, between the Trojan war and the rise of the various Greek poleis. The most important was the Delphic Amphictyony. Originally composed of twelve tribes dwelling around Thermopylae, this league was centred first on the shrine of Demeter and later became associated with the Temple of Apollo at Delphi. The founder is said to be Amphictyon, brother of Hellen – the purported male ancestor of all Hellenes. The twelve founders were the Oetaeans, Boeotians of Thebes, Dolopes, Dorians of Sparta, the Ionians of Athens, Phthian Achaeans, Locrians, Magnesians, Malians, Perrhaebians, Phocians, Pythians of Delphi and the Thessalians. The League doctrine required that no member would be entirely wiped out in war and no water supply of any member would be cut even in wartime. It did not prevent members from the numerous clashes with each other, about dominance over temples. 

Oxford University Press states: ‘[Amphictyony] a word borrowed from institutions in classical Greece and applied by some historians of Israel to its supposed organization before the monarchy [time of the Judges] as a confederation of twelve clans. It was suggested that there was a central shrine at which a cultic object was a shared responsibility among the twelve. But the amphictyony theory has now been generally abandoned.’

The number of twelve tribes is too coincidental to ignore. The premise of not destroying a family clan, is reminiscent of the war of the eleven tribes against the tribe of Benjamin, which would have wiped them out if six hundred men had not fled and hidden, so that the remaining tribes relented – Judges 20:1-48 (Chapter XXX Judah & Benjamin – the Regal Tribes). The early Greeks as mentioned, included the related sons of Jacob. The idea of the amphictyony sounds completely plausible from an Israelite, as well as a Moabite, Ammonite perspective. As a lot of blood had been spilt between the two families. 

The region of Canaan, Palestine or the Levantine, as discussed previously, was a prized parcel of real estate and so became a very crowded part of the world – refer Chapter XII Canaan & Africa. The draw to move away to lands partially established, yet with space and opportunities beckoned to the sons of Jacob and Lot. Just as the New World was attractive a few hundred years ago, ancient Greece and the Aegean was the destination of choice. This explains the flowering of cities, rather than countries or empires in the region as they were colonies of a number of differing tribes and peoples. The influx of migrating peoples also explains why the Myceaneans – formerly Minoans and latterly Philistines – left mainland Greece, for the myriad islands and particularly Crete – Chapter XV The Philistines: Latino-Hispano America.

Another way of reinforcing this relationship between citizens from different city-states was through epigamia. This was enacted through an arrangement by which the husband’s family by marriage were treated as citizens of the wife’s poleis if the husband settled there. In contrast, Plutarch mentions that there was no intermarriage between members of two of the villages of Attica – Pallene and Hagnous. Not because they were dissimilar, rather they were too closely related and thus there was a ban on endogamy. This situation remarkably parallels the peoples of French Ammonite stock in Canada and Louisiana.

The Endogamy Files: What Is Endogamy? The DNA Geek, 2020 – emphasis & bold mine:

‘Endogamy is a word that gets bandied around a lot in genetic genealogy circles, but what it means and how it affects our work is less clear. This post is the first in a series about what endogamy is, why it matters, how to detect it, and how to work with it. Endogamy is the practice of mating within a specific group. All human populations have practiced endogamy to one extent or another. Some still do.  

Endogamy can occur because the group is geographically isolated from other people, like Native Hawaiians were; because they prefer to marry within their religion, ethnicity, language, and/or social caste, as most cultures do; or for other reasons, like consolidating power among royalty. Key to endogamy is that the group is small enough that, over time, marriages occur between cousins. Not necessarily first or even second cousins (although that can occur), but between third, fourth, and more distant cousins. Over and over. And over. 

It’s important to remember that endogamy is not incest, which is sexual relations between close relatives, like a father and daughter or uncle and niece. Incest is associated with a substantial risk of early death or genetic disorders in the child, while marriages between even first cousins are much safer.  

Endogamy causes something called pedigree collapse, but not all pedigree collapse rises to the level of endogamy. The home person… is the child of parents who were third cousins to one another. That is, the parents shared a pair of great-great grandparents. As a result, their child… has 30 unique great-great-great grandparents instead of the expected 32. One set of 3-great grandparents shows up twice in the child’s tree. We say the pedigree is “collapsing” rather than doubling in number with each generation back, as we’d expect. But pedigree collapse is not endogamy. Pedigree collapse is one or a few isolated incidents of cousin marriage, while endogamy occurs repeatedly over many, many generations. 

This is my mother’s tree. She’s Cajun [a Louisianian descended of French Canadian immigrants from Acadia, speaking an archaic form of French], a culture that was geographically and culturally isolated in southern Louisiana and, before that, in what is now Nova Scotia. Cajuns have been marrying mainly within their own population since the 1600s… [like the expression “All Cajuns are cousins”!] My mother’s parents were fourth cousins. I don’t think they knew, because my grandmother’s father was born out of wedlock. My grandfather’s parents were third cousins; they definitely knew. There’s no known incest in this tree, but the cousin marriages go on and on, back to the earliest settlers in Port-Royal, Acadia (now Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia) in the early 1600s, because there simply weren’t a lot of options for marriage partners.

The closest cousin marriages I’ve identified in this tree are between first cousins. Consider Isaure Marie Guidry (1863–1933), my mother’s great grandmother… Her parents, Alexis Onésime Guidry and Palmire Dupré, were first cousins through their shared grandparents Louis–David Guidry and Marie Modeste Borda. To complicate matters even more, Onésime had been widowed before marrying Palmire. His previous wife, Celestine, was Palmire’s older sister, and Celestine had a daughter named Marie. So Marie and Isaure were half sisters their father Onésime, and first cousins through their mothers Celestine and Palmire. (This combination is often termed three-quarter siblings.) But they were also second cousins through Onésime and their mothers. Technically, Marie and Isaure were second cousins twice over, once through Onésime and Celestine and once through Onésime and Palmire, but you get the picture. It’s enough to make your head spin!

Isaure and Marie died more than 75 years before the advent of genetic genealogy using autosomal DNA, but what would their match to one another look like if we could analyze their genomes today? As half sisters, we’d expect them to share about 1750 cM, as first cousins another 850 cM or so, and as double second cousins roughly 200 cM twice over.  In many parts of their genomes, they’d match on both copies of their two chromosomes, much like full siblings do. In fact, they might well be indistinguishable from full sisters using the methods we use for genealogy. While Isaure and Marie are an extreme case, DNA matching is affected to some degree in all endogamous populations. People who are no closer than fourth cousins might share enough DNA to be predicted as third cousins, because they’re picking up “extra” shared DNA through their other relationships.’

‘For example, my mother shares 184 cM with D.M. If you were to plug that number into the DNA Painter SCP tool, you’d see a combined probability of 89.1% that they were either in the second cousin group (38.8% chance) or the second cousin once removed group (50.3%). In fact, their closest relationship is third cousins, who average only about 50 cM. On the other hand, Mom and D.M. are also third cousins once removed twice over, fourth cousins once removed, and fifth cousins… that we know of. All those distant relationships add to the shared centimorgan tally. Thus, the overall effect of endogamy is to make many of our DNA matches appear to be more closely related than they really are. This complicates everything, from basic relationship prediction to more advanced and powerful techniques, like the… What are the Odds? tool.

Is the entire human population endogamous? After all, we only mate (well, mate successfully) with other humans and have been doing so for ten thousand years or more, since the last archaic humans, like Denisovans and Neanderthals, died out. Technically, we’re all (very distant) cousins, and all of our pedigrees collapse eventually. What do you think?’

By the sixth century BCE, the dominant cities in Grecia were Athens, Sparta, Corinth and Thebes. They had all increased their influence to include surrounding smaller towns and rural areas. Athens and Corinth had become major maritime and mercantile powers. Herodotus described one such trader from the later Archaic period, Sostratus of Aegina, a man of fabulous wealth. 

Then in the early 1970s a remarkable inscription was found in Etruria, Italy – a dedication to Apollo, in the name of Sostratus of Aegina. This discovery revealed that the source of his wealth was trade with Etruria and other parts of Italy. A rapidly increasing population in the preceding centuries had resulted in emigration of many Greeks to form colonies in Southern Italy and Sicily. The Greek colonies of Sicily, especially Syracuse were drawn into conflicts with the Carthaginians – ancestors of the Portuguese-Brazilian descended peoples (refer Chapter XXIII Aram & Tyre: Spain, Portugal & Brazil). The conflict lasted from 600 to 265 BCE until the Romans intervened. A year later, the Punic wars began. 

Beginning about 500 BCE, the Athenians and Spartans tussled for hegemony over Greece, though the Athenians were no longer the Israelites – of six hundred years before – but Moab – with Ammon located in Macedonia to the north. For these were the children of Lot, whose migrations southward had pushed the other (earlier) Greeks to leave. 

The Spartans who were distinct and not descended from Moab, Ammon or Jacob, were never defeated by Philip II (or Alexander III) and remained outside of the Greek Empire – refer Chapter XXIX Esau: The Thirteenth Tribe. Around the same time, in 499 BCE, the Ionian city states under Persian rule rebelled against their Persian-backed, tyrannical rulers. Supported by troops predominantly from Athens, they advanced as far as Sardis burning the city before being driven back by a Persian counterattack. The revolt continued for five years until finally the rebel Ionians were defeated. 

Darius I, king from 522 to 486 BCE, did not forget that Athens had assisted the Ionian revolt and he assembled an armada to exact retribution. Though heavily outnumbered, the plucky Athenians and allies, defeated the Persians at the Battle of Marathon in 490. The Athenians and Persians continued to wage war until about 450, with the Athenians driving the Persians out of the Aegean. They then turned on the Spartans during the Peloponnesian War beginning in 431 BCE and lasting to 404 BCE. Eventually, Sparta brought an end to Athens’ empire though was ultimately left severely weakened itself. 

By 360 BCE, the Greek states had worn themselves out and ‘the exhaustion of the Greek heartland coincided with the rise of Macedon, led by Philip II.’ In 359, two strong leaders came to the thrones of both Persia and Macedon, ruling for nearly the exact same periods: Artaxerses III, from 359 to 338 BCE; and Philip II from 359 to 336 BCE. 

The Parthenon situated on the Acropolis of Athens was built between 447 and 438 BCE. A temple dedicated to the goddess Athena. Parthenos meant a ‘maiden, girl, virgin’ or an ‘unmarried woman.’ Construction began at the height of the Athenian Empire. The Parthenon replaced an older temple of Athena which was destroyed in the Persian invasion of 480 BCE. It also served a practical purpose as the city treasury. 

Philip took twenty years in not just unifying his kingdom, but also expanding north and westwards, conquering Thrace as well as Thessaly to the south. His reforms to the Macedonian army were pivotal in his success. In 338 BCE he invaded the southern city-states of Thebes and Athens, defeating them at the Battle of Chaeronea. Now king of all but Sparta; Philip then entered into war against the Achaemenid Empire but was assassinated by one of his bodyguards Pausanias of Orestis, early in the conflict … and so entered, Alexander the Great onto the world stage, aged just twenty, born July 20, 356 BCE.

‘Modern belief in the Greek-ness of the Macedonian language was strengthened by the publication in 1994 of an important curse tablet from Pella that appears provisionally to indicate that the Macedonian language was a form of northwest Greek. Macedonian religion looks Greek; there are local variations, but that is equally true of incontestably Greek places in, for instance, the Peloponnese. Many Macedonian personal names resemble Greek ones… The Classical Age was resplendent with most of the cultural wonders associated with Ancient Greece. It corresponds with the period of the height of democracy, the flowering of Greek tragedy in the hands of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, and the architectural marvels, like the Parthenon, at Athens.’

The Greek word for philosophy, philosophia, translates as the ‘love for wisdom.’ The discipline dates back to ancient times with some of the greatest philosophers, including Pythagoras circa 570 to 495 BCE; Parmenides circa 540-? BCE; Socrates circa 469 to 399 BCE; Plato circa 428 to 348 BCE; Aristotle 384 to 322 BCE; and Epicurus 341 to 270 BCE. 

There are famous modern day philosophical thinkers who have had their contributions recognised as well. The same people descended from Lot, known as the Greeks, are now known as the French and are still producing the majority of the finest thinkers in the world. Examples include: John Calvin, 1509 to 1564; Rene Descartes, 1596 to 1650; Blaise Pascal, 1623 to 1662; Voltaire, 1694 to 1778, Auguste Comte, 1798 to 1857, Jean Paul Sartre, 1905 to 1980; Simone de Beauvoir, 1908 to 1986; Albert Camus, 1913 to 1960; and Michael Foucault, 1926 to 1984. Some of the major Greek contributors to science, lived during the Hellenistic era, including Euclid and Archimedes. 

In 600 BCE, a portion of the Greek Empire – an early enclave of Moabites – settled in Southern France and founded the colony of Massalia; now the city that is called Marseille and the oldest city in France – Kir of Moab. The primary link between the Classical Greeks and the French are not the Gauls, but the Franks. The original Gauls are not the ancestors of Moab and Ammon. We will study these Gauls in detail in a later chapter – Chapter XXXI Reuben, Simeon, Levi & Gad – the Celtic Tribes. 

As the Swedes, Norwegians and Danes believe they are Vikings and identify with that culture and past history, the truth, is that the original Vikings left Scandinavia and settled in Britain and Ireland – Chapter XXXII Issachar, Zebulun, Asher & Naphtali – the Antipodean Tribes. Likewise the French identify with a Gallic past, yet they are not Gauls, for the true Gauls vacated France for the shores of Britain and Ireland. The Gauls were a Celtic race who left their name in northwestern Italy as Gallia, in Belgium as Belgica and in France as Celtica. The nation of France emerged from this Gallic region of the Celtic culture and peoples. Gallia remains a name for France in the Latin, with Francogallia.

The Merovingian dynasty of the Franks attracts considerable interest from researchers and the public alike, in a similar vein to the Trojan kings. We will discuss them further in a subsequent chapter as they are perhaps not all that they seem – Chapter XXXIV Dan: The Invisible Tribe; and Chapter XXX Judah & Benjamin – the Regal Tribes. The Merovingian kings were ostensibly a Frankish, Salian dynasty lasting some three hundred years – 476 to 750 CE – and are traditionally reckoned as the first race of the ‘kings of France.’ They importantly for the French identity, ended the hegemony of the Visigoths in Gaul. Merovingian derives from the name Merovech meaning Sea-Bull – the father of Childeric I, who ruled a tribe of Salian Franks from his capital at Tournai. 

Childeric was succeeded by his son Clovis I in 481/482 CE. Many regard Clovis as the beginning point for the history of France. Clovis I extended his rule over all the Salian Franks by conquering or annexing the territories of the Ripuarian Franks and the Alemanni; uniting nearly all of Gaul except for Burgundy – the seeds of modern Switzerland – and what is now Provence. Important choices by Clovis included making Paris his new capital and converting to Christianity sometime during 496 to 506 CE. 

At Clovis’ death in 511 – and in a situation similar to Alexander at the time of his death – his realm was divided among his four sons, Theuderic I, Chlodomir, Childebert I and Chlotar I. Despite the frequently bloody competition between them, the brothers managed to extend Frankish rule over Thuringia in 531 and Burgundy in 534; as well as gaining control over Septimania on the Mediterranean coast; Bavaria; and the lands of the Saxons to the north. By 558 CE, Chlotar I was the only surviving son of Clovis. 

The Merovingians grew their hair long (refer Chapter XXIX Esau: The Thirteenth Tribe; and Chapter XXXIV Dan: The Invisible Tribe) which distinguished them among the Franks who cut their hair short. Contemporaries referred to them as the ‘long-haired kings’, in Latin reges criniti. A Merovingian whose hair was cut could not rule. The Merovingians used a distinct stock of names. Clovis, evolved into Louis and remained common among French royalty to the 19th century – with claimant for the throne Louis XIX in 1830, allegedly king for twenty minutes.

The Trojan Origins of European Royalty! John D Keyser – capitals and emphasis his, bold mine:

‘The old Trojan Royal House – of the line of DARDANUS – was restored to power after the Greek defeat at Troy in 1149. As noted by Herman L. Hoeh:

“A complete list of TROJAN RULERS after the fall of Troy in 1181 may be found in the original Spanish work by Bartholome Gutierrez entitled: Historia del estado presente y antiguo, de la mui noble y mui leal ciudad de Xerez de la Frontera. It was published in Xerez, Spain in 1886″ (Compendium of World History, Volume II).

‘… HELENUS, the son of Priam and Hecuba, fled Troy after the first Trojan War and settled in Illyria or Epirus. There Helenus and his followers founded the cities of Buthrotum and Chaonia. During the Second Trojan War in 1149, the descendants of Helenus REGAINED CONTROL of Troy from the Greeks and restored the Royal House of DARDANUS to the city. 

The Spanish history by Gutierrez records the names of Helenus’ descendants who controlled Troy and the surrounding region until the Third Trojan War in 677… At the fall of Troy in 677, members of the Trojan Royal Family, and most of the population of the city, fled to the NORTHERN SHORES OF THE BLACK SEA in eastern Europe. For the next 234 years, in this region, the… TROJAN HOUSE provided eleven rulers over the people who fled Troy…

In 442 B.C. MARCOMIR, Antenor’s son, ascended the throne; and in 441 he migrated out of Scythia and settled the people on the DANUBE. In 431 the Goths forced him, along with over 175,000 men, out of the area and into the country now called West Friesland, Gelders and Holland. Then, nine years later, Marcomir crossed the Rhine and conquered part of Gaul – MODERN FRANCE! He made his brother governor, and continued the gradual conquest of the entirety of Gaul.

Eventually this people became known as FRANKS or Franconians after a king called FRANCUS who reigned from 39 – 11 B.C. The last King of the Franks – Marcomir V – won a great victory over the Romans at Cologne in 382 A. D. and recovered all the lands in the possession of the Romans, except Armoria or Little Brittany, in 390. However, he was slain in battle three years later and the Romans conquered the FRANKS – commanding them to refrain from electing kings over themselves. Instead, the Franks elected Dukes to reign over them, starting with Genebald I in 328 A.D.

The fifth duke of the East Franks, Pharamund (404-419) is recognized by early historians as being the FIRST TRUE KING OF FRANCE. In 427 the succession passed to Clodion who founded the MEROVINGIAN DYNASTY. There is something VERY INTERESTING about this dynasty that bears explanation:

“Its kings all wore LONG HAIR. They kept their kingly office until the Pope suggested to the East Franks (Germans) that they could gain the power over the Merovingians by cutting the king’s hair. The last Merovingian was accordingly tonsured. The government thereafter passed to Pippin, father of the German king Charlemagne, who RESTORED the Roman Empire to the west in 800.

The history of the Merovingians, WHO DESCENDED [perhaps] FROM THE [early] TROJAN LINE AND THE HOUSE OF JUDAH [Zarah], is made especially interesting in a book entitled The Long-haired Kings, by J. M. Wallace-Hadrill. (See especially chapter 7.) The Merovingians recognized that… THEY WERE NOT OF THE THRONE OF DAVID [Pharez] and would hold their power only so long as they kept a NAZARITE TRADITION – long hair – symbolizing their subjection to a Higher Power – God – who rules supreme among men. (See Numbers 6)” (Compendium of World History, Volume II, page 183).’

The first consideration by this writer was that the Merovingian kings were descended from Moab (or Ammon) via the later ruling Trojans. Subsequent research lent credence to considering the explanation that the Merovingians were from a tribe of Israel which differed from that of Judah, the tribe of Dan -Chapter XXXIV Dan: The Invisible Tribe.

Further consideration yet and evidence of a DNA lineage via the specific paternal Haplogroup R1b (Z381 > Z331) for the Merovingian kings, led to acknowledging a descent from the tribe of Judah. As Darda (Dara) the fifth and youngest son of Zarah founded Troy, the link between this branch of Zarah and the Merovingians is not beyond realistic foundation – Article: The Life & Death of Charles III. It is then of note that by their own admission, the Merovingians were not descendants of David’s line from Pharaz.

Thus as a branch of Zarah initially ruled Troy prior to Moab and Ammon in the Troad, so too a branch of Zarah (Merovingians) ruled the fledgling Frankish (Salian) kingdom lands prior to the Carolingian rulers of non-Judah (Israelite) descent and with a high degree of probability, were actually of Moabite lineage.

The Genesis 6 Conspiracy, Gary Wayne, 2014, page 445 – emphasis his, bold mine:

‘Even the name Lancelot, according to Ried, derived from L’Alan de Lot, Alan from the Lot Valley of southwest France. The Lot Valley is the same region that the Essenes, Templars, Rex Deus, Cathars, and Merovingians settled in. Lot derives from Lot, the nephew of Abraham, recorded in the Nephilim-infested Sodom and Gomorrrah narrative. Lot also inexplicably shows up in the original Camu-lot. One wonders, were Camulot and the Lot region of France thus considered by Gnostics as the new Sodom and Gomorrah cities of light?’ – Paris is the “City of Light”.

The Franks like other Germanic peoples had resided in Scandinavia before their migration southwards and prior to that, they are linked to the Black Sea area. The Franks from the beginning, were divided into two distinct political yet related groups. The Salian Franks of very probable Moabite descent, dwelt in the west of France. This Frankish kingdom became known as Neustria and encompassed northern France, Burgundy, Orleans – upper central France – and Provence.

The Ripuarian Franks, most likely descended from Ammon, dwelt in the Rhineland region of northwestern Germany; which in turn became known as Austrasia and later encompassed Austria, the Netherlands and northern Germany. The name Ripuarian is thought to mean river people or river dwellers. One is reminded of Ammon’s capital Rabbah, the city of water and Quebec with its strong association with the sea. The name Franci, from Frank is linked with the english word frank, to be ‘free.’ Other accepted meanings include the Germanic words for ‘javelin, fierce, bold’ and ‘insolent.’

The author of the Chronicle of Fredegar in the seventh century, claimed the Franks came originally from Troy, citing the works of Virgil and Hieronymous: ‘Blessed Jerome has written about the ancient kings of the Franks, whose story was first told by the poet Virgil: their first king was Priam and, after Troy was captured by trickery, they departed. Afterwards they had as king Friga, then they split into two parts, the first going into Macedonia, the second group, which left Asia with Friga were called the Frigii, settled on the banks of the Danube and the Ocean Sea – Black Sea. Again splitting into two groups, half of them entered Europe with their king Francio. After crossing Europe with their wives and children they occupied the banks of the Rhine and not far from the Rhine began to build the city of “Troy.”

The Liber Historiae Francorum (or Gesta regum Francoru) describes how 12,000 Trojans, alledgely led by Priam and Antenor (or rather descendants) sailed from Troy to the River Don and on to Pannonia which is on the River Danube settling near the Sea of Azov. There they founded a city called Sicambria. The Sicambri circa 55 BCE are linked to the area occupied by the Salian Franks in northwestern France. The Trojans joined the Roman army in accomplishing the task of driving enemies into the marshes of Mæotis, for which it is claimed they received the name of Franks, meaning ‘savage.’

There are many kings called great and within that group, there are only a select few who cast a long shadow over the other rulers labelled great. The great of the great, if you will. For instance, Alexander the Great of Macedon. Another is Charles I or Charlemagne, who lived from 742 to 814 CE. He was the son of Pepin III, king from 751 to 768 and Bertrada of Laon. 

Charlemagne co-ruled with his brother Carloman I from 768 until his death in 771. Pepin had peacefully wrenched the monarchy away from Chileric III, by beseeching Pope Zachary (741-752 CE) for the need of a strong ruler such as himself: the Mayor of the Palace, effectively wielding the true power over the Frankish kingdom. Charlemagne is considered a founder of both the French and German monarchies. The French monarchy would continue to be a great power in Europe for the following thousand years. 

It is thought that Charlemagne was born in either Liege in Belgium, or Aachen in Germany, where he died. He displayed a talent for languages and could speak Latin and understood Greek, amongst others. Charlemagne expanded the Frankish kingdom; establishing the Carolingian Empire. As a zealous defender of ‘Christianity’, Charlemagne gave money and land to the Catholic church and protected successive popes. 

To acknowledge Charlemagne’s power and reinforce his support of the church, Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne emperor of the Romans on December 25, 800, at St Peter’s Basilica in Rome – thus uniting Western Europe and the Holy Roman Empire for the first time since the fall of Rome. ‘Charlemagne ruled from the start by force of his personality which embodied the warrior-king ethos combined with Christian vision.’

Charlemagne maintained a violent and protracted thirty year series of battles from 772 to 804 CE – called the Saxon Wars – against the German Saxons, a ‘pagan’ worshipping Germanic tribe who had earned a reputation for ruthlessness. 

Bust of Charlemagne – note the symbols of the German Eagle and the French Fleur-de-lis

In 782 at the Massacre of Verden, Charlemagne ordered the slaughter of some four and a half thousand Saxons and tried to force them to convert to Christianity; declaring that anyone who did not get baptised or follow the Catholic faith, would be put to death. The aim was to break the Saxon’s will to fight, but they still would not surrender their autonomy or repudiate their religion. In 804, Charlemagne deported over ten thousand Saxons to his kingdom in Neustria and replaced them in Saxony with his own people. This effectively won the conflict, while earning the enmity of the Scandinavian kings; who bid their time until Charlemagne’s death and who then unleashed Viking raids on Francia during 820 to 840. 

Charlemagne’s son Louis was born in 778 to his second wife, Hildegard of the Vinzgau, who had nine children by the time she died at the age of 26 in 783. When King Louis I, the Pious died in 840, the empire was divided among his three sons who fought each other for supremacy. Their conflict was concluded by the Treaty of Verdun in 843 which divided the empire between Louis’ sons. Louis II, the German (843-876) received East Francia; Lothair I (843-855), Middle Francia; and Charles II, the Bald (843-877) gained West Francia. None of the kings were interested in working with their brothers and the empire’s infrastructure, as well as most of the reforms advanced by Charlemagne, deteriorated. His notable reforms included the first public schools and a monetary standard. 

Hollister describes the king: ‘Charlemagne towered over his contemporaries both figuratively and literally. He was 6 feet 3 ½ inches tall [ironic as his father was very short], thick-necked, and pot bellied yet imposing in appearance for all that. He could be warm and talkative, but he could also be hard, cruel, and violent, and his subjects came to regard him with both admiration and fear… Above all else, Charlemagne was a warrior-king. He led his armies on yearly campaigns as a matter of course. Only gradually did he develop a notion of Christian mission and a program of unifying and systematically expanding the Christian West.’ 

Notable events in French history include, the Hundred Years War with the English, beginning in 1337. Then in 1348, the plague of Black Death spread through France killing a large percentage of the population. In 1415, the English defeated the French at the Battle of Agincourt. In 1453, the Hundred Years’ War finally drew to a close when the French defeated the English at the Battle of Castillon. The year 1643 saw Louis XIV become King of France. He ruled for seventy-two years and was known as Louis the Great and the Sun King. In 1778, France became involved in the American War of Independence, siding with the colonies in their drive for independent governance from Great Britain. The most popular French king names have been Louis with eighteen kings; Charles with ten; and Philip with five – the name of Alexander the Great’s father.

In 1789, the French Revolution began with the storming of the Bastille. In 1792, the French Republic was proclaimed and the following year, King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were executed by guillotine. In 1799, Napoleon seized power, overthrowing the French Directory; making himself Emperor. Conquering most of Europe by 1811, he had been officially crowned Emperor of France in 1804. By 1815, Napoleon was defeated by a coalition, led by England’s the Duke of Wellington.

Much could be said regarding Napoleon I, who like a reincarnated Alexander, embodied more than a passing similarity. The following, is a brief synopsis from Britannia – emphasis mine: 

‘Napoleon I, French in full Napoléon Bonaparte… byname the Corsican or the Little Corporal, French byname Le Corse or Le Petit Caporal, (born August 15, 1769, Ajaccio, Corsica – died May 5, 1821, St. Helena Island), French general, first consul (1799-1804), and emperor of the French (1804-1814/15), one of the most celebrated personages in the history of the West. He revolutionized military organization and training; sponsored the Naploeonic Code, the prototype of later civil-law codes; reorganized education; and established the long-lived Concordat with the papacy. Napoleon’s many reforms left a lasting mark on the institutions of France and of much of western Europe. But his driving passion was the military expansion of French dominion, and, though at his fall he left France little larger than it had been at the outbreak of the revolution in 1789, he was almost unanimously revered during his lifetime and until the end of the Second Empire under his nephew Napoleon III as one of history’s great heroes.’

There is an air of the Germanic or perhaps Flemish-Dutch about Charlemagne, not so with Napoleon Bonaparte who is wholly French like his spiritual antecedent, Alexander the Great. Both of which shared one major attribute and that was superior military innovation. It gave them the edge over their opponents. Sandwiched between Charlemagne and Napoleon was another formidable French leader and warrior, Joan of Arc. It was vital that England did not gain a stranglehold on France and Joan was the difference.

Britannia – emphasis mine:

‘St. Joan of Arc, byname the Maid of Orléans… (born circa 1412, Domrémy, Bar, France – died May 30, 1431, Rouen; canonized May 16, 1920… national heroine of France, a peasant girl who, believing that she was acting under divine guidance, led the French army in a momentous victory at Orleans [in 1429] that repulsed an English attempt to conquer France during the Hundred Years’ War. 

Captured a year afterward, Joan was burned to death by the English and their French collaborators as a heretic. She became the greatest national heroine of her compatriots, and her achievement was a decisive factor in the later awakening of French national consciousness. Joan was the daughter of a tenant farmer… In her mission of expelling the English and their Burgundian allies… she felt herself to be guided by the voices of St. Michael [and others]… Joan was endowed with remarkable mental and physical courage, as well as a robust common sense, and she possessed many attributes characteristic of the female visionaries who were a noted feature of her time. These qualities included extreme personal piety, a claim to direct communication with the saints, and a consequent reliance upon individual experience of God’s presence beyond the ministrations of the priesthood and the confines of the institutional church.’

The 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Notice the similarity with the customary tablets used for the Ten commandments; with the United States Declaration of Independence; and with the Eye of Providence – the all-seeing eye of a god (Article: Thoth). This Eye is a symbol that has an eye enclosed in a pyramid, surrounded by rays of light from the Sun to represent superficially, the divine providence of God watching over humanity – Article: The Pyramid Perplexity. In reality, the god who watches, is the one who holds this world captive – Articles: 33; and Asherah.

The Eye of Providence appears on the reverse of the Great Seal of the United States, depicted on the one dollar bill. The Eye of Providence was adopted in 1782, but was first proposed as an element of the Great Seal in 1776. Coincidentally, it is thought to be the suggestion of the artistic consultant, Pierre Eugene du Simitiere – of French ancestry born in Geneva, Switzerland.

In 1889, the iconic Eiffel Tower was built in Paris for the World’s Fair

France suffered greatly in both World War I and World War II, with considerable loss of life and spilt blood on its soil. In 1940 During World War II, France was occupied by the Germans and under their direct control. German officials oversaw all aspects of government, supported by the military. Any infraction of the rules could be dealt with by the Nazis bureaucrats or by the military. Vichy France was a puppet government. It was governed by French officials, with the Germans maintaining only a small oversight group to ensure that Vichy France did not contravene the interests of the Germans. The Vichy government generally cooperated with the Germans; rounding up and deporting Jews and anyone else the Nazis declared as their enemies.

Most Resistance activity was fought in the occupied territories, as there was little incentive to take action against the Germans in Vichy France. It would have impacted the measure of self-governance the French already had and run the risk of inciting severe penalties against the civilian population. Relatively few French actually took an active part in the Resistance. Many offered passive support by not reporting Resistance movements, but the vast majority of French citizens in both occupied and Vichy France simply avoided doing anything to attract the attention of the gestapo or of collaborating Frenchmen. Allied forces liberated the country in 1944. 

An additional interesting coincidence is France’s close association with the Modern Olympic Games. It was the Greeks who staged the first Olympic Games in Olympia during 776 BCE and it was a modern ‘Greek’, a French aristocrat, Baron Pierre de Coubertin who spoke of the Games’ revival. Athens was understandably, awarded the first re-instituted Games in 1896 in homage to the Olympics’ Greek origins. Though Paris hosting the second games in 1900, was truer to its returning to its spiritual and physical origin. Paris was the first home of the International Olympic Committee, before it moved to Lausanne, Switzerland. France also hosted the Summer Olympics in 1924 and has hosted the Winter Games three times. Paris is hosted the Olympic Games exactly one hundred years later, in 2024. It will join Athens and London in hosting the games a record three times; while Los Angeles is set to host for a third time in 2028.

Britannica: ‘France has long provided a geographic, economic, and linguistic bridge joining northern and southern Europe. It is Europe’s most important agricultural producer and one of the world’s leading industrial powers.’ A long standing and well known theme of the French nation, is the insistence on the supremacy of the individual. Historian Jules Michelet remarked…

“England is an empire, Germany is a nation, a race, France is a person.”

‘This is surely reflective of the French national character; one that was born from a familial origin more intimate than the beginning of other nations. Writer Gustave Flaubert philosophically deduced: ‘I am no more modern than I am ancient, no more French than Chinese; and the idea of la patrie, the fatherland – that is, the obligation to live on a bit of earth coloured red or blue on a map, and to detest the other bits coloured green or black – has always seemed to me narrow, restricted, and ferociously stupid.’ 

France is a major world power as evidenced in being one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council with the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom and China. In 2015 France was listed as being ‘the best networked state in the world’ as a country that ‘is [a] member of more multi-lateral organisations than any other country.’ Reminds of Lot and his participation and position in Sodom. France is a leading member of the International Francophone Organisation (OIF) of eighty-four fully or partly French speaking nations. In 2017 France was the fourth largest donor of development aid in the world, after the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom. A 2018 study by Credit Suisse ranked the French Armed Forces as the world’s sixth largest military and most powerful in Europe, behind Russia. 

France is an integral member of the intergovernmental organisation comprising the seven most powerful economies – not including China and India – in the world, the G7. France’s second biggest export is automobiles. French automobile brands include renowned Renault, Peugeot, Citroen, Alpine and Bugatti. France is famous for the most prestigious wines in the world; as well as for champagne – from the region of the same name – and cognac exports. Many cosmetic brands originate from France, including Vichy, Nuxe, Yves-Rocher and Bioderma. 

France has a GDP of $3.21 trillion in 2025, ranking as the seventh largest economy in the world. Tourism is a very important industry and France receives the most visitors of any country each year with Paris the most visited capital in the world and voted the most romantic city destination. France is a mixed economy, with many private and semi-private businesses across a diverse range of industries. There is heavy government involvement in certain key sectors such as defence and electrical power generation. The French government’s commitment to economic intervention in favour of social equality, creates challenges for the economy such as a rigid labor market with high unemployment and a large public debt relative to other advanced economies.

‘The following product groups represent the highest dollar value in France’s import purchases during 2021

1. Machinery including computers: US$84.2 billion
2. Vehicles: $75.9 billion 
3. Mineral fuels including oil: $70.8 billion 
4. Electrical machinery, equipment: $64.1 billion 
5. Pharmaceuticals: $33.9 billion 
6. Plastics, plastic articles: $29.2 billion 
7. Optical, technical, medical apparatus: $23.3 billion 
8. Organic chemicals: $16.5 billion 
9. Iron, steel: $15.2 billion 
10. Articles of iron or steel: $14.3 billion

The fastest growers among the top product categories from 2020 to 2021 were mineral fuels including oil (up 80.4%), iron or steel as materials (up 57.1%), items made from iron or steel (up 37.2%), plastics as a material and items made from plastic (up 31.4%) and electrical machinery or equipment (up 19.5%).’

The French Tricolore

France ranks highly in the top ten countries with the largest gold reserves, one behind Italy at number three. France in fourth position is ahead of those nations we have investigated so far, such as Russia (5), China (6), Switzerland (7), Japan (8) and India (9). France has 2,436.0 tonnes of gold which represents 64.5 percent of its foreign reserves. The French central bank has sold little of its gold reserves in recent years. ‘The Banque de France vaults in Paris are one of the four designated depositories of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).’

France was the most populous nation in Europe in 1801, containing about one sixth of the continent’s inhabitants. By 1936, the French population had increased by fifty percent; though in the same period the number of people in Italy and Germany had nearly trebled and in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands the population had nearly quadrupled. The population of France today is 66,647,930 people, the fourth highest in Europe between the United Kingdom and Italy. France has never been a major source of international migrants like the other prominent nations surrounding it. 

In the seventeenth century due to religious persecution, France lost more than four hundred thousand Huguenot refugees – usually highly skilled – mainly to Prussia in northeast Germany, to England, the Netherlands and the United States. In the same century, relatively small numbers of emigrants first settled in North America, particularly eastern Canada and Quebec and in the southern state of Louisiana. Small numbers of French, especially from Brittany and Normandy continue to relocate to Canada.

An online encyclopaedia states, that ‘most French people are of Celtic (Gauls) origin, with an admixture of Italic (Roman) and Germanic (Franks) groups.’ As touched upon, the Gauls were in fact early British and Irish peoples and it is the Salian and Ripuarian Franks who are the nucleus of the French nation. The Latin and Celtic component reveals their familial resemblance to the Italians and Swiss respectively; whom represent their cousins from both Nahor and Haran respectively. We will discover when we investigate Haran’s brother Abraham and his descendants the why and where of the Germanic component in the French people. The fact that France is composed of two brothers is the key piece of the French puzzle and explains their approximate north western to south eastern population demographic divide.

The major differences between the North and South of France, Santa Fe Relocation, 2017 – emphasis & bold mine:

‘The two regions of France are heavily influenced by the surrounding countries and the weather. While many aspects of Northern France are reminiscent of Germany and Belgium, such as the architecture [industry and commerce], Southern France feels more Mediterranean, sharing many features [such as cuisine and pace of life] with Spain and Italy. The lifestyle and culture varies between the two regions… In Northern France most people tend to be quite honest and blunt, but they also tend to form much deeper relationships with people… The easiest way to make friends in Southern France is to speak the language.’

Encyclopaedia: ‘Large-scale immigration over the last century and a half has led to a more multicultural society. In 2004, the Institute Montaigne estimated that within Metropolitan France, 51 million people were White (85% of the population), 6 million were Northwest African (10%), 2 million were Black (3.3%), and 1 million were Asian (1.7%). In 2005, it was Western Europe’s leading recipient of asylum seekers… In 2010, France… [was] among the top five asylum recipients in the world… [even though] France established controls to curb Eastern European migration. Immigration remains a contentious political issue.’

Recall Ezekiel 25:10 ESV: ‘I will give [Moab] along with the Ammonites to the people of the East as a possession, that the Ammonites may be remembered no more among the nations…’

The region of Catalonia though within Spain, also includes Catalan speakers in the historical French region of Roussillon. For some four hundred years this Catalan territory has been united with France, called Catalunya nord and today known as Pyrenees Orientales with the city of Perpignan. The autonomous community of Catalonia is the richest and most highly industrialised region of Spain; reflecting its difference from the rest of the Spanish. For instance, the Catalan textile industry achieved prominence between 1283 and 1313; long remaining the premier industry of Spain until the 1950s. 

Britannia – emphasis & bold mine: 

‘Catalonia was formerly a principality of the crown of Aragon, and it has played an important role in the history of the Iberian Peninsula. From the 17th century it was the centre of a separatist movement that sometimes dominated Spanish affairs. In 2006 Catalonia was granted “nation” status and given the same level of taxation responsibility as the Spanish central government. Spain’s Constitutional Court struck down portions of this autonomy statute in 2010, ruling that Catalans constituted a “nationality” but that Catalonia was not, itself, a “nation.”

This is strikingly similar to the ruling accorded to Quebec in Canada.

‘Scotland’s referendum on independence from the United Kingdom in… 2014, although ultimately unsuccessful, [galvanised] the independence movement in Catalonia. Convergence and Union leader Artur Mas called for the long-promised, albeit nonbinding, independence referendum to be held… The move was immediately challenged by Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, and the independence campaign was suspended while the Constitutional Court considered the legality of the vote. Ultimately, Mas proceeded with the referendum but framed it as an informal poll of Catalan opinion. With more than one-third of registered voters participating in the balloting, over 80 percent expressed a desire for independence.’

This sentiment survives till this day, though there has been a power struggle between the central government in Madrid and that of the Catalonian capital, Barcelona; which is currently stalled and in Madrid’s favour. The Catalan government surveys regularly its people regarding its “sentiment of belonging.” In July 2019, the results indicated that 46.7% of Catalans would favour independence from Spain. This has dropped markedly after the heavy handed response from Madrid in 2018. With the stronger centralist tendencies in France however, French Catalans display a much less open sense of uniqueness, having been integrated more seamlessly ‘into the unitary French national identity.’ 

There are 7,596,131 people in Catalonia and in France 423,112 Catalonians. It is not surprising that the French Catalonians feel more at home in France than their Spanish counter parts if they are from similar stock. We only learn of Spanish Catalonian and Basque discontent not French Catalonian and Basque grievances.

The etymology of Basque according to some scholars is based on bhar-s-, meaning ‘summit, point’ or ‘leaves.’ Barscunes may have meant ‘the mountain people, the tall ones’ or the proud ones. The last definition is interesting considering the pride of Moab. Euskal Herria is the oldest documented Basque name for the area they inhabit, dating from the sixteenth century. The Spanish Basque Country, is the largest and most populated part of the Basque territories. It includes two main regions, the Basque Autonomous Community – capital city, Vitoria-Gasteiz – and the Chartered Community of Navarre – capital city, Pamplona. The Spanish Constitution of 1978 states ‘that Navarre may become a part of the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country if it is so decided by its people and institutions… To date, there has been no implementation of this law.’

For many French Basques, their identity is mixed with a sense of being Basque and French. Whereas in the Spanish Basque Country, there are many Basques who don’t have a sense of Spanish identity at all. Former Basque rugby union player and French international, Imanol Harinordoquy, said about his national identity: ‘I am French and Basque. There is no conflict, I am proud of both… I have friends who are involved in the political side of things but that is not for me. My only interest is the culture, the Euskera language, the people, our history and ways.’

Rugby union is an important sport in parts of France, particularly in Paris and Marseille. It is also a popular sport among French Basques, with major clubs Biarritz Olympique and Aviron Bayonnais traditional heavy weights in the premier division of French Rugby. Biarritz regularly play Champion Cup matches, especially knockout matches in San Sebastian, Spain. Games between the Basque clubs and Catalan club USA Perpignan are always hard fought. The fact that the French Basque and Catalans are so keen on rugby may allude to their Moab and Ammon heritage. Though Rugby is played in Spain, it is amongst the French that it is a passion. These French consider France the spiritual home of rugby, even in lieu of its origins in England.

An online encyclopaedia mentions: ‘Strabo’s account of the north of Spain in his Geographica (written between approximately 20 BC and 20 AD) makes a mention of “a sort of woman-rule…” a first mention of the – for the period – unusual position of women. Women could inherit and control property as well as officiate in churches… matrilineal inheritance laws, and agricultural work performed by women continued in Basque country until the early twentieth century. Could this be a hearkening back to the unique circumstances and reverence surrounding Moab and Ammon’s respective mothers?

For more than a century, scholars have widely discussed the high status of Basque women in law codes, as well as their positions as judges, inheritors, and arbitrators through ante-Roman, medieval, and modern times. The system of laws governing succession in the French Basque region reflected total equality between the sexes. Up until the eve of the French Revolution, the Basque woman was truly ‘the mistress of the house, hereditary guardian, and head of the lineage.’ This may have a link to the Amazons who lived in the Aegean Sea – south of the Troad and the isle of Lesbos – either a clan of warrior women or a female dominated society.

Basque Country Flag above (notice its similarity to the Union Jack of the United Kingdom) and the Catalonia Flag below.

Interestingly, the French capital Paris, apart from being known as the City of Love and the number one visited city in the world, is also known as mentioned as the City of Lights. Paris played a leading role during the Age of Enlightenment as well as literally being one of the first European cities to install gas city street lights in 1820; with the first electric streetlight appearing in 1878. 

A somber and stygian matter is the aspect of Moab and Ammon’s origin. Surveys have labelled the French as the most depressed nation. In 2011, the World Health Organisation in a report, said the French are the most likely to suffer from ‘a major depressive episode’ in their lifetimes. This followed a report in 2008, where the French learned ‘they consume more anti-depressants than any other country’ in the world. What could be an underlying cause?

The coincidence of a Frenchman is repeated here in the undertaking of the following study and the nature of its subject matter. Claude Lévi-Strauss, a French and Jewish anthropologist and ethnologist ‘was key in the development of the theory of structuralism and structural anthropology.’ The chair of Social Anthropology at the Collège de France from 1959 to 1982; he was elected a member of the Académie française in 1973 and was also a member of the School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences in Paris. Levi-Strauss received a number of honours from universities and institutions throughout the world and with James George Frazer and Franz Boas, is considered a ‘father of modern anthropology.’ His significant work was aimed – through a structural method – ‘at discovering universal invariants in human society, chief among which he believed to be the incest taboo.’

A poll by Ipsos in late 2020, estimated one in ten French people have been the victim of sexual abuse within the family as children or adolescents: 78% were female and 22% male. The poll suggested the number of incest cases has risen from 3% of the population in 2009 – equating to 2 million victims – to 10% in 2020; an alarming 6.7 million victims. This is shocking, though it is worth noting that the countries with the highest rate of incest are… France and Spain. Also, not all people polled are forthcoming, thus the ten percent figure may actually be higher as evidenced by the anti-depressant consumption. 

At time of writing, under French law there is no legal age of consent, though the Senate voted for the threshold to be set at 13. At present a victim of rape or abuse is considered consenting by default and has to prove non-consent. New legislation proposes criminalising sexual acts between an adult and a child under 13 – currently an “offence” and not a “crime” – and extending the statute of limitations to give victims more time to bring legal proceedings. Not to single France out entirely, there are other nations with either a lax view or lenient laws regarding consenting adult incest. France is not being confined as unique by this measure; though the percentage of its occurrence is of significance, in the shadow of the French descending originally from Moab and Ammon. 

The continuous perpetuation of a certain percentage of incestuous births within the population (and original endogamy), could have a bearing on the blood, hormone and DNA composition of said people in society. 

Nota Bene

The original section which followed concerning Rhesus negative blood has been removed. The material is reproduced in its entirety in the article ‘Rhesus Negative Blood Factor’ and is now available there for the interested reader.

Forensic Science International: Genetics, Martin Zieger & Silvia Utz, Volume 48 September 2020 – emphasis & bold mine:

‘The Y-chromosomal Haplotype and Haplogroup distribution of modern Switzerland still reflects the alpine divide as a geographical barrier for human migration.’

‘A sample of 606 Swiss individuals has been characterized for 27 Y-STR and 34 Y-SNPs, defining major European haplogroups. For the first time, a subsample from the southernmost part of Switzerland, the Italian speaking canton Ticino, has been included. The data reveals significant intra-national differences in the distribution of haplogroups R1b-U106, R1b-U152, I1 and J2a north and south of the alpine divide, with R1b-U152 being the most frequent haplogroup among all Swiss subpopulations [also the dominant R1b Haplogroup in France and Italy], reaching 26% in average and 53 % in the Ticino sample. 

In addition, a high percentage of haplogroup E1b1b-M35 in Eastern Switzerland corresponds well with data reported from Western Austria. In general, we detected a low level of differentiation between the subgroups north of the alpine divide. This is the first comprehensive Y chromosomal dataset for Switzerland, demonstrating significant population substructure due to an intra-national geographical barrier.’

Swiss men

‘Pairwise FST calculations based on the maximal STR marker set (YFilerPlus® + PowerPlex Y23®) show little intra-national differentiation among the 6 regional subpopulations (Table 2). In line with our previous observations, all subpopulations show the largest FST values in pairwise comparison with the southernmost Swiss canton Ticino subpopulation, with the largest difference being the one between Northwestern Switzerland and Ticino. We also compared our dataset to datasets from other countries, using the AMOVA tool from YHRD. The multiple dimensional scaling plot in Fig. 2a localizes the Swiss data between the datasets from neighboring countries. For one of the direct neighboring countries, no data was included, since there was no French dataset forPowerPlex® Y23 available on the YHRD. 

If we divide the sample into language subgroups, the German speaking subpopulation locates even closer to the Austrian sample, whereas the French speaking subpopulation is somewhat closer to the samples from Belgium and Spain. Surprisingly, the Italian speaking sample co-localizes with the sample from Spain and is significantly different from the Italian sample, registered on YHRD [due to the Swiss being a distinct people from the Italians, French and Germans, regardless of the different languages spoken]. As a control, we also checked the genetic distance of our regional subsamples to the four other Swiss YFiler datasets registered on YHRD. They show all a high degree of similarity, except for the sample from Basel that exhibits extremely large RST values towards all the other subpopulations, ranging from 0.084 to 0.173, even towards the sample from the same region of Northwestern Switzerland (0.101). All RST values and corresponding p-values generated with the YHRD AMOVA tool are available in Supplementary Table 2. 

Pairwise FST values among the different regional subgroups. NW = Northwestern Switzerland; CS = Central Switzerland; BE = Bern area; TI = Ticino; WS = Western Switzerland; SG = St. Gallen.’

	NW	CS	BE	TI	WS	SG
SG	0.0068	0.0063	0.0064	0.0109	0.0049	–
WS	0.0043	0.0032	0.0036	0.0077	–
TI	0.0141	0.0102	0.0085	–
BE	0.0050	0.0044	–
CS	0.0063	–
NW	–

Swiss women

‘Fig. 2. Multiple dimensional scaling blot based on RST values, generated for PowerPlex® Y23 datasets with the AMOVA tool from YHRD. A) Comparison of the whole sample (“Switzerland”) to other national European datasets, registered on YHRD. B) Comparison of Swiss (“CH”) subpopulations based on mother tongue to national datasets from neighboring countries. Spain was included as the next western country in mainland Europe, since no French sample for PowerPlex® Y23 was available on the YHRD. The data points for Spain and the Italian speaking Swiss subsample collapse into one.’

On PCA graphs, the Swiss-French are marginally closer to the French than Swiss-Germans, though all three form an equilateral triangle. The Swiss-Germans have an affinity with Western Germans and also with the Dutch in the southern provinces of the Netherlands. We will see this confirmed between the Swiss and Dutch later when observing their respective Haplogroups. The fact that Swiss-Italians* are genetically closer to the Spanish rather than Italians as a whole, will not be a surprise to the constant reader who has read the preceding chapters – refer Chapter XXIII Aram & Tyre: Spain, Portugal & Brazil; and Chapter XXV Italy: Nahor & the Chaldeans.

Zieger & Utz: ‘For the comparison of the haplogroup distributions among different regional subgroups, the regions defined in our previous work were maintained. All haplogroup proportions are listed in Table 5. We detected five significant regional differences in haplogroup spread. Whereas the [Y-DNA] haplogroups I1-M253 and R1b-U106 are more or less evenly distributed north of the Alps, they are almost absent from the Ticino sample. In return, haplogroups J2a-M410 and R1b-U152 are far more abundant in the Ticino sample than in the rest of the country. Furthermore, we detected a significant enrichment of haplogroup E1b1b-M35 in the easternmost sample from St. Gallen. We could also detect a slightly larger proportion of E1b1b-M35 in the sample from Western Switzerland. However, this observation [proved] not to be significant.

As expected, we observe a good correspondence of the dataset with the metapopulation “Western European”, what can be concluded from the distribution of the estimated haplotype frequencies. The fact that 90% of the haplotypes are predicted to be more frequent in the Western European than in the global panel, can be seen as a successful quality control of the sampling scheme. The population sample also fits well in the context of the neighboring countries and shows no noteworthy differences compared to the Swiss datasets previously registered on the YHRD. 

The only exception concerns the sample from Basel. However, since the Basel sample on YHRD shows large genetic differences with all other Swiss samples, including our sample collected from the same region, we assume some kind of sampling error for this regional subsample and we would like to suggest that it should be used with caution for any interpretation and comparison. The fact that the Italian* speaking subsample co-locates rather with the sample from Spain than with the sample from Italy, might be attributed to the higher overall percentage of haplogroup R1b in Spain than in Italy. The fraction of R1b in the Spanish population corresponds better to the 70 % R1b in the Ticino sample. Given the dubious reputation of the prediction tools, we were surprised how well the haplogroup predictions corresponded to the haplogroups determined by SNaPshot assay.’ 

	NW	CS	WS	SG	BE	TI	Hg (tot)
E1b1b (M35)	4	4	9	13**	4	6	7
G (M201)	12	9	6	6	12	4	9
I1 (M253)	13	9	10	12	11	2*	10
I2 (M223)	7	5	3	4	4	–	4
I2 (P215)	4	4	2	1	2	2	2
J1 (M267)	1	1	–	–	1	–	0
J2a (M410)	1	1	4	6	–	10*	3
J2b (M102)	4	3	3	1	3	4	3
N (M46)	–	–	–	1	–	–	0
O (M175)	–	–	1	–	–	–	0
QR (M45)	–	–	–	–	2	–	0
R1a (M198)	7	4	5	4	4	2	4
R1b (U106)	12	15	12	13	17	2*	13
R1b (U152)	19	29	24	28	20	53***	26
R1b (U198)	1	–	–	–	1	–	0
R1b (M269)	14	14	19	13	18	16	16
R1b (M343)	–	–	1	–	–	–	0
R2 (M124)	–	–	–	–	1	–	0
KLT (M9)	2	1	1	–	2	–	1
F (M213)	–	1	–	–	–	–	0

‘So, even though we would agree that for reliable results, every SNP should be finally determined in the wet lab, we cannot deny that for samples of Western European ancestry, predictors seem to deliver good preliminary results. The HAPEST predictor we used here has already been shown to deliver accurate predictions for typical European haplogroups. We assume that such a high accuracy of haplogroup prediction of 95% could be achieved only because we have very good data coverage for Western Europe. For most reliable predictions, we recommend combining an YHRD search with the haplogroup prediction tool. All haplogroups that were concordant between YHRD ancestry information and HAPEST haplogroup prediction turned out to be correct.

SNP typing for common European haplogroups revealed some expected patterns, demonstrating that the modern Swiss population still reflects the Alps as geographical barrier for human migration. We detected significantly less haplogroup I1-M253 south of the alpine divide than in the German and French speaking parts of Switzerland. This was expected, since I1 is most common in Northern Europe and can only be found in small proportions south of the Alps. We detected significant differences in the distribution of two sublineages of R1b-M269 north and south of the Alps: notably lineages R1b-U106 [Germanic -Germany and England] and R1b-U152 [Latin – Italy and France]. R1b-U106 is mainly spread along the river Rhine, reaching the largest proportions at the southern coast of the North Sea. R1b-U106 evolved approximately at the same time [as] haplogroup R1b-P312/S116. R1b-U152 is a sublineage of R1b-P312/S116 of younger origin.‘

This writer remains unconvinced in the exact thread of the R1b genetic tree at its tail end – that is, it’s most recent mutations (see below). Briefly, the Atlantic Celtic M529 would seem logically to be either next to the Proto-Germanic U106 (beneath L11) or deriving from U106. Similarly, the Italo-Gaulish U152 would also seem better placed deriving from L11 and located between the Proto-Germanic U106 and (the Ibero-Atlantic DF27 stemming from) P312.

Martin Zieger & Silvia Utz: ‘It has been suggested that [U152] originates from a Franco-Cantabrian region and has been brought to the Alps and northern Italy by migration along the Mediterranean coast. Today [U152] reaches its highest percentages in northern Italy. Northwestern Italy has a very high percentage of haplogroup R1b (around 70 %) with the highest proportions in the area of Bergamo. In this pre-alpine region, located about 50 km from Ticino, the percentage of individuals with haplogroup R1b-U152 is around 50 %, just as for our Ticino sample. Haplogroup R1b-U152 is significantly less frequent north of the Alps, but remains the most frequent haplogroup throughout the entire country [as it is in both Italy and France].’

These findings concerning Y-DNA Haplogroup R1b as evidenced by the preceding table confirm that the Swiss are less like the northern Germans or southern English in that they do not possess R1b-U198 beyond a trace element. The Alpine split of the north and south, confirms that though many Swiss men are related to the Germans through R1b-U106; the fact remains that R1b-U152 is the main Haplogroup throughout all Switzerland. Confirming that they are more closely related to the French and Italians. This should not be a surprise when we understand that the Swiss descend from Haran, who is the grandfather of Lot’s descendants in France; and the elder brother of Nahor, the father of many Northern and to a lesser degree, Central Italians.

The Genomic Heritage of French Canadians, Razib Khan, 2011 – emphasis & bold mine:

‘One of the great things about the mass personal genomic revolution is that it allows people to have direct access to their own information. This is important for the more than 90% of the human population which has sketchy genealogical records.’ 

‘But even with genealogical records there are often omissions and biases in transmission of information. This is one reason that HAP, Dodecad and Eurogenes BGA are so interesting: they combine what people already know with scientific genealogy. This intersection can often be very inferentially fruitful.

But what about if you had a whole population with rich robust conventional genealogical records? Combined with the power of the new genomics you could really crank up the level of insight. Where to find these records? A reason that Jewish genetics is so useful and interesting is that there is often a relative dearth of records when it comes to the lineages of American Ashkenazi Jews. Many American Jews even today are often sketchy about the region of the “Old Country” from which their forebears arrived. Jews have been interesting from a genetic perspective because of the relative excess of ethnically distinctive Mendelian disorders within their population. 

There happens to be another group in North America with the same characteristic: the French Canadians. And importantly, in the French Canadian population you do have copious genealogical records. The origins of this group lay in the 17th and 18th century, and the Roman Catholic Church has often been a punctilious institution when it comes to preserving events under its purview such as baptisms and marriages. The genealogical archives are so robust that last fall a research group input centuries of ancestry for [2,221] French Canadians, and used it to infer patterns of genetic relationships as a function of geography, as well as long term contribution by provenance.

That paper found that nearly 70% of the immigrant founding stock in this data set came directly from France. For the period before 1700 that fraction exceeds 95%. Of the remainder, about 15% of the founding stock were Acadians, who themselves were presumably mostly of French origin. Because of the earlier migration of the French founding stock, they left a stronger impact on future generations: But this research did not look directly at genetics. Rather, these inferences were generated from genealogical records which go back to the founding of Quebec and maintained coherency and integrity from generation to generation. Some of the members of the same research group now have a paper out which looks at the genomics of French Canadians, and directly compares their results to that of the earlier paper.’

Genomic and genealogical investigation of the French Canadian founder population structure – emphasis & bold mine: 

‘Characterizing the genetic structure of worldwide populations is important for understanding human history and is essential to the design and analysis of genetic epidemiological [health and disease conditions] studies. In this study, we examined genetic structure and distant relatedness and their effect on the extent of linkage disequilibrium (LD) and homozygosity in the founder population of Quebec (Canada). In the French Canadian founder population, such analysis can be performed using both genomic and genealogical data. We investigated genetic differences, extent of LD, and homozygosity in 140 individuals from seven sub-populations of Quebec characterized by different demographic histories reflecting complex founder events. 

Genetic findings from genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism data were correlated with genealogical information on each of these sub-populations. Our genomic data showed significant population structure and relatedness present in the contemporary Quebec population, also reflected in LD and homozygosity levels. 

Our extended genealogical data corroborated these findings and indicated that this structure is consistent with the settlement patterns involving several founder events. This provides an independent and complementary validation of genomic-based studies of population structure. Combined genomic and genealogical data in the Quebec founder population provide insights into the effects of the interplay of two important sources of bias in genetic epidemiological studies, unrecognized genetic structure and cryptic relatedness.’

‘In 1760 there were 70,000 residents in the areas of Canada which were under French rule. A substantial fraction of these derived from the much smaller 17th century founding population. Today the number of North Americans with some known French Canadian ancestry numbers around [10 million people]. I happen to know an individual whose great-great-grandmother was French Canadian. Using the internet it turned out that I could trace this woman’s ancestry along one line back to the countryside outside of Poitiers in the mid 16th century! Being conservative it seems that at least 5 million North Americans have overwhelming descent from the 1760 founding stock. These are the core French Canadians.

An immediate inference one might make from these background facts, the rapid expansion of the French Canadian ethnic group from a small core founding stock, is that they would have gone through a “population bottleneck.” The data here are mixed. On the one hand, there are particular Mendelian diseases associated with French Canadians. This is evidence of some level of inbreeding which would randomly increase the frequencies of deleterious recessively expressed alleles. 

And yet as noted in the paper French Canadians do not seem to have lower genetic diversity than the parental stock of French in the HGDP data set. Why? Because to go through a population bottleneck which is genetically significant you need a very small window of census size indeed. Tens of thousands is sufficiently large enough to preserve most of the genetic variation in the founder population which is not private to families. The sort of genetic polymorphisms which might have been typed for in widely distributed SNP chips. But that’s not the end of the story.’

‘Though French Canadians don’t seem [to] exhibit the hallmarks of having gone through an extreme population bottleneck as an aggregate, it turns out that in the populations surveyed there was evidence of substructure. The map… shows you the regions where the samples were drawn. Unlike the earlier study the sample size is smaller; this is a nod to the difference between a purely genealogical study and a genomic one. There needs to be money and time invested in typing individuals. Relatively public genealogical records are a different matter. Apparently the Gaspesia sample population were from a relatively later settlement. The urban samples naturally include descendants of local French Canadians, as well as rural to urban transplants.’

‘As one would expect the French Canadian sample clustered with the CEU (Utah whites from the HapMap) and French (from the HGDP) in the world wide PCA. And not surprisingly they exhibited smaller genetic distance to the French than to the Utah whites (who were of mostly British extraction). 

Using Fst, which measures the extent of genetic variance partitioning between populations, the values from the aggregate French Canadian sample to the CEU sample was 0.0014 and to the French HGDP sample was 0.00078. The Montreal French Canadian group exhibited values of 0.0020 and 0.0012. But, it is important to observe that there was statistically significant differences between the various French Canadian populations as well (excluding the Montreal-Quebec City pairing). This may explain the existence of particular Mendelian diseases in the French Canadian population despite their lack of reduced genetic variation: there’s localized pockets of inbreeding which are not smoked out by looking at total variation statistics. Additionally, the authors conclude that not taking this substructure into account in medical genetics could lead to false positives. Inter-population differences in disease susceptibilities correlated with genome-wide differences in allele frequencies could produce spurious associations.

In the final section the paper notes that there are some peculiarities in the genetics of the French Canadians which do indicate some level of genetic homogeneity, at least by locality. To explore this issue they focus on two genomic phenomena which measure correlations of alleles, genetic variations, over spans of the genome within populations. The two phenomena are linkage disequilibrium, which measures association across loci of particular variants, and runs-of-homozygosity, which highlights genomic regions where homozygosity seems enriched beyond expectation (the former is inter-locus, while the latter is intra-locus). Both of these values could be indicators of some level of population bottleneck or substructure, where stochastic evolutionary forces shift a population away from equilibrium as measured by the balance of parameters such as drift, selection, and mutation.’

‘To the right is a mashup of figures 5 and 6. On the left you have a figure which shows the extent of linkage disequilibrium as a function of distance between SNP. As you would expect the greater the distance between two SNPs, the more likely they’re to be in equilibrium as recombination has broken apart associations. The closer and closer two markers, the more likely they’re to be linked, physically and statistically. But there’s a difference between the two LD plots. There’s no difference between the CEU and French Canadian samples in the top panel, but there is in the bottom one. Why? The bottom panel shows LD between markers much further apart. Acadians in particular seem to exhibit more long distance LD than the other populations. This may be a sign of a population bottleneck and inbreeding.

Also, please note that the Utah white CEU sample is probably relatively similar to the French Canadians in its demographic history as North American groups go. It is homogeneous and expanded rapidly from a small founder group. To the right you have in the top panel total length of ROH per individual, and the bottom length of ROH greater than 1 MB. Again, the Acadians seem to be standouts in terms of their difference from the CEU reference. Interestingly, there’s no difference between CEU, French, and the two French Canadian urban samples. I suspect this is due to the fact that in Montreal and Quebec City the distinctive inbreeding found in the other samples has been eliminated through intermarriage. ROH disappear when you introduce heterozygosity through outbreeding.

What has all this told us? From a medical genetic perspective it is implying that population structure matters when evaluating French Canadians, an Acadian is not interchangeable with a native of Montreal. In terms of ethnically clustered diseases of French Canadians, in the USA the Cajuns, it may not be that there are patterns across the whole ethnic group, but trends within subgroups characterized by long-term endogamy. I wonder if the same might be true of Ashkenazi. 

Is there is a difference between Galicians and Litvaks? Such regional differences among European Jews are new, but the French Canadians themselves are the result of the past three centuries. These results also seem to reinforce the Frenchness of the French Canadians. A group which one could analyze in a similar vein would be the Boers, who are an amalgam of French Protestants, Dutch, and Germans, but seem to exhibit a dominance of the Dutch element culturally’ – refer Chapter XXVII Abraham & Keturah Benelux & Scandinavia.

‘Finally, the French Canadians may give us a small window in the long term demographic patterns and genetic dynamics which might be operative on a nearby ethnic group: the Puritans of New England. Because of their fecundity [fruitfulness] it seems likely that tens of millions of Americans today descend from the 30,000 or so English settlers who arrived in New England in the two decades between 1620 and 1640 [this very likely to be accurate]. This is the subject of the Greta Migration Project. With numbers in the few tens of thousands it seems unlikely that much of a thorough population bottleneck occurred with this group in a genetic sense in the aggregate. But the results from the French Canadians indicate that isolated groups can be subject to stochastic dynamics, and develop in their own peculiar directions.’

In later chapters, the Jews, Boers and Puritans will be investigated. What this article is confirming is that these peoples, regardless of religious, cultural and historical factors or influences, all remain homogenous peoples genetically. This evidence validates the proposal that these three peoples, with French Canadians are distinct peoples in their own right and not an amalgam of different unrelated ethnic groups.

Catalonians and Gascons of France, Khazaria – emphasis & bold mine:

‘Being Western Europeans, it is no surprise that the most common Y-DNA haplogroup among Catalans is a branch of the R1b [M269] haplogroup. R1b1b2a1 [now R1b1a1a2] is nearly exclusive to western Europe, and the sub-haplogroup [M153] R1b1b2a1a2c [now R1b1b2a2c] is common among Catalans and Gascons.

The place of the Basques in the European Y-chromosome diversity landscape. European Journal of Human Genetics 13:12, multiple authors, (2005): pages 1293-1302.’

“The Y chromosomes of 68 male Basques were analyzed. About 86 percent of them carried varieties of haplogroup R1*(xR1a,R1b3f)-M173 [R1b-M173], of which most carried R1b3*-M269 [R1b-M269]. This is a commonality between Basques and other western Europeans. 7.1 percent of the Basques in this study (a lower frequency than other scientists had found) carried the Iberian-specific subclades R1b3d-M153 [R1b-M153 – Basque and Gascon] and R1b3f-SRY2627 [R1b-M167 Catalonian]…”

An mtDNA perspective of French genetic variation. Annals of Human Biology 34:1 multiple authors, (January-February 2007): pages 68-79.

‘This mitochondrial DNA study of 868 people from 12 areas of France includes Basques from the Basque province of Lapurdi in France. These French Basques were found to have noteworthy differences in mtDNA distribution compared to Spanish Basques.

Excerpts from the body of the paper: 

“… It is somewhat surprising to find Hg U4 at a relatively high frequency (6.2%) and diversity among the French Basques (absent in Spanish Basques), because this sub-clade of U is largely East European and West Siberian (Tambets et al. 2003) in its distribution. In contrast to U4, Hg U5b2 is rare among French Basques (2.5%), and more frequent in the Spanish Basques [as is HV0]. One other particularity of the French Basque is found within Hg J, more frequent than in the Spanish Basques, and also the presence of the Hg J1c haplotype with HVS-I motif 16069-16126-16300. The derivatives of this branch of Hg J have been so far found mostly in Near Eastern populations (Richards et al. 2002; Metspalu et al. 2004; and authors’ unpublished data). Likewise to U4, Hg T1 is found only in French Basques.

The pattern observed in the mtDNA pool of the French Basques from the Lapurdi region may be explained by genetic drift and cultural isolation in a relatively small long-term effective population size. In addition, it is also likely that both French and Spanish Basques, although sharing a common linguistic and probably also genetic ancestry, have been affected by admixture from different sources. 

Meanwhile, the overall high frequency of autosomal recessive coagulation factors deficiencies in French Basques population (Bauduer et al. 2004) argues in favour of genetic drift acting on this population… Taken together, our findings support the notion that ‘Basques’ are a strongly sub-divided population and support a conclusion that French and Spanish Basques have been effectively isolated from each other for a long enough period to allow random genetic drift to differentiate them.”

In other words, the Basque – who are related to the French – have retained their ‘Frenchness’, whereas those Basque who have dwelt with the Aramaean Spanish for many centuries or longer, show the resulting admixture. PCA graphs place the French Basque equally distant from southwest French and northwest Spanish. Ethnologists and geneticists have stressed the differences; saying the Basque especially and Catalonians, are entirely distinct from the Spanish, which is correct and the French, which is less true. The mixing with the Spanish on their side of the border has had an impact on the Basque and Catalonian Haplogroups and autosomal DNA. The Basque and Catalonians on the French side of the border have remained truer to their French origin culturally and ethnically, as descendants of probably Moab (possibly Ammon), rather than Aram – Chapter XXIII Aram & Tyre: Spain, Portugal & Brazil. 

We Are Not Our Ancestors: Evidence for Discontinuity between Prehistoric and Modern Europeans – Journal of Genetic Genealogy, Ellen Levy-Coffman, 2005 – emphasis & bold mine:

‘Other genetic studies on the Basque have focused on examining blood groups, STR loci, and autosomal markers, often in an attempt to support the Paleolithic paradigm. However, in light of the aDNA studies, Basque distinctiveness can be accounted for by the processes of genetic drift, inbreeding over long periods of time and natural selective processes. Moreover, the researchers noted that the Basque are unique among European populations due to their extremely high rate of consanguinity [‘close relationship or connection by descent from a common ancestor’]. Basque social and cultural traditions continue to promote consanguinity. 

The genetic impact of such inbreeding has yet to fully explored by geneticists, but the high frequency of inherited disorders among the Basque, including Coagulation Deficiences (Factor XI) and Mutation F508 (Cystic Fibrosis Gene), support the suggestion that drift, inbreeding, and a small population size maintained over many generations, as opposed to significant retention of Paleolithic genetic ancestry, best explains the present genetic makeup of the Basque (Alonso 2005; Bauduer 2005).

Finally, even researchers that have found limited genetic evidence of probable Paleolithic ancestry among the Basque also acknowledge that such findings do not support the contention that contemporary Basque retain significant genetic links with indigenous Paleolithic Europeans. (Gonzalez 2006) For instance, although the Basque mtDNA lineage U8a may date to the late Paleolithic, it is rarely found today among modern-day Europeans and, furthermore, constitutes only [one percent] of contemporary Basque mtDNA results. Thus, U8a has diminished in frequency among populations today in a manner similar to the N1a lineage.’

French Genetics: Abstracts and Summaries, Kevin Alan Brook – Emphasis & bold mine:

‘French people mostly live in France but also live in neighboring Belgium and Switzerland and their descendants notably moved in large numbers to Quebec and Acadia. They are called Walloons in Belgium. The French are a complex mixture of ancient Celtic [Abraham], Iberian [Aram], Italic [Moab], Germanic [Ammon], and [ancient] Greek peoples [Moab and Ammon]. The standard French, Norman, and Occitan languages are members of the Romance linguistic family and all are written in the Latin alphabet.

Participants in the French Heritage DNA project belong to such Y-DNA (paternal-line) haplogroups as I-M253, I-P109, I-P37, J-P58, J-Z387, R-L21 [northwest France – Celtic] (a branch of R1b), R-M269 (R1b1a2, [now R1b1a1a2] the most common branch of R1b in western Europe), R-L552, and R-U198 [English].

Participants in the French Swiss DNA Project whose most distantly known ancestors were French people from Switzerland carry the Y-DNA haplogroups E-L542, E-V13, E-V36, E-M78, G-P15, G-M201, I-M253, I-Z138, N-M178, R-M269, R-U106 [Germanic], and R-U152 [Italian and French].

Y-chromosomal DNA analysis in French male lineages. Forensic Science International: Genetics 9, multiple authors, (March 2014): pages 162-168. First published online on December 29, 2013. 

The authors analyze Y-DNA haplogroups’ variation across France using a pool of 558 samples taken from men from 7 French regions: Alsace, Auvergne, Bretagne, Île-de-France, Midi-Pyrénées, Nord-Pas-de-Calais, and Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur. Figure 2 lists all the Y-chromosomal haplogroups they found and their frequencies on a per-region basis.

The haplogroups are BD,

E*, E1b1b1*, E1b1b1a, E1b1b1b, E1b1b1c*, E1b1b1c1,

F*, G,

I*, I2a2,

J*, J1a, J2,

K*, L, N1c, P*,

R1*, R1a,

R1b1*, R1b1b2*, R1b1b2a1*, R1b1b2a1a, R1b1b2a2d, R1b1b2a2e, R1b1b2a2g,

and T.’

Excerpt from the Abstract: 

“Even though we find that most of the individual populations in France were not differentiated from each other, Bretagne population shows population substructure…”

Excerpt from the body of the article: 

“From a total of 27 binary markers typed in the seven regions of France, 22 different haplogroups were found. The most frequent haplogroup in all the regions was R1b1b2* [M269] (xR1b1b2a1, 2d, 2e, 2g), with the exception of Alsace, where the most common one was R1b1b2a2g [U152].”

The coming of the Greeks to Provence and Corsica: Y-chromosome models of archaic Greek colonisation of the western Mediterranean. BMC Evolutionary Biology 11:69, multiple authors, (March 14, 2011). 

‘This paper’s goal was to study the genetic traces of Greek colonization in Provence in southern mainland France. 51 samples from Provençal Frenchmen were compared with 58 samples from people from Smyrna and 31 from Asia Minor Phokaia. The Y-DNA haplogroup E-V13 is known to be “characteristic of the Greek and Balkan mainland”. It was found among 19% of the Phokaian samples and 12% of the Smyrnian samples as well as among 4% of the Provençal Frenchmen, 4.6% of East Corsicans, and 1.6% of West Corsicans. Altogether, according to the Results section, taking into account all haplogroups, “An admixture analysis estimated that 17% of the Y-chromosomes of Provence may be attributed to Greek colonization.”

An mtDNA perspective of French genetic variation. Annals of Human Biology 34:1, multiple authors, (January-February 2007): pages 68-79. 

‘Mitochondrial DNA was evaluated for 868 samples these researchers and previous researchers gathered from inhabitants of France, predominantly from 12 specific locations, including but not limited to regions like Normandy, Seine-Maritime, and North-East in the north and Languedoc and Provence in the south. Ethnic French people proper as well as Bretons, Corsicans, and Basques living in France were tested…

H is by far the most common mtDNA haplogroup in France with the frequency of 45.56%.

Others include (but are not limited to) K at 8.74%, U5 at 8.3%, J at 7.65%, HV0 at 4.77%, U4 at 2.31%, I at 2.02%, and T1 at 1.66%.

The authors conclude: “The mtDNA haplogroup composition of the French does not differ significantly from the surrounding European genetic landscape.” However, they did find some level of distinctiveness among the Bretons and Basques…’

Eupedia, Genetic history of the Benelux and France, Maciamo Hay, 2017 – emphasis & bold mine:

‘Note that the total [Haplogroups] for France is biased towards North Americans of French descent (mostly from Québec), as genealogical DNA tests have not yet become popular among French people. 

R1b is the most common haplogroup in France. It includes four main subclades:

the Atlantic Celtic R1b-L21 in the north-west,

the Gascon-Iberian R1b-DF27 (including the Basque R1b-M153) in the south-west,

the Germanic R1b-U106 in the north,

and the Gaulish Celtic and Italic R1b-U152 in the east.’

R1b–L21 (M529/S145) is concentrated in Brittany and shared with the Celtic nations of Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

R1b–DF27 not only includes M153 associated with the Basque and the Gascon, but also M167 (SRY2627) which is concentrated in Catalonia and shared with the Basque as well as being found in Cornwall, England; Wales, Bavaria, Germany; Belgium and the Netherlands.

R1b–U106 (M405/S21) is concentrated in Frisia, northern Netherlands and shared with Benelux, Germany, Austria, Norway and England. 

R1b–U152 (S28) is predominately found in northern and central Italy and shared with Switzerland and France.

Notice that these various R1b Haplogroup strains are principally aligned (apart from DF27) with northern and central Europe rather than with southern Europe. People often think of France as a Latin country; it is actually more Teutonic. For even its supposed ‘Latin’ influence as shown by its genetic links with Switzerland and Italy, are actually non-Latin, for both these nations though containing a Latin element, are still predominantly Teutonic, ‘Germanic’ nations – having R1b-U152 as the dominating paternal Haplogroup – refer Chapter XXV Italy: Nahor & the Chaldeans.

Hay: ‘The ancient Burgundians, a Germanic tribe from eastern Denmark, appear to have carried considerable percentages of haplogroups R1a* and Q*, two haplogroups that are now found at unusually high frequencies around the former Kingdom of the Burgundians, in what is now the Rhône-Alpes region and the north of Provence [refer Switzerland]. 

Haplogroup R1b has numerous branches, each with their own origins. The ancient Gauls during the Bronze Age and Iron Age belonged primarily to R1b-P312 [S116 Iberia: Spain & Portugal], which is divided in three main subclades: DF27, L21 [Celtic] and U152. All of them are found throughout France, but DF27 is more common in the southern half of France, while L21 is especially common [in] the Northwest. Britons fleeing the Anglo-Saxon invasions in the 5th and 6th centuries crossed the Channel and settled in great number in Brittany, which increased the percentage of R1b-L21 in that region. Nowadays half of all R1b in Brittany is L21 (35% of all Y-DNA). 

Later in the Middle Ages Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and other parts of western France came under English rule, and some L21 may have come from England during that period. But it is most likely that Northwest Gaul already had a substantial percentage of L21 during the Iron Age.

The U152 clade of R1b is the most homogeneously distributed, with between 15% and 20% in most French regions. It is associated with Hallstatt and La Tène Celts that migrated from the North of the Alps to Gaul during the Iron Age, but also with the Cisalpine Gauls and Italic people from Italy. The ancient Romans and other Italic peoples would have belonged to the U152>Z56, U152>Z193 and some U152>L2 subclades [an incorrect assumption about the Romans]. Other L2 subclades [NW Europe] and the Z36 clade were found among the Etruscans (confirmed) [correct as we will discover] and probably also among the Alpine Celts [incorrect]. 

Data about deep clades is still sparse in France, but Italic Z56 and Z193 appear to be most common in Provence (~9%), followed by Champagne-Lorraine (5%), Alsace and Poitou-Charentes (both ~4.5%), Bourgogne-France Comté (4%) and Rhône-Alpes (3%). The ancient Romans also carried Greek/Balkanic R1b-Z2103 lineages [incorrect]. This haplogroup is found in the same regions, with a peak in the Rhône-Alpes region (~9%).

Germanic tribes brought R1b-U106 to France. It was particularly common among the Franks and was the lineage of the Kings of France.’ As we shall discover, Y-DNA Haplogroup R1b-U106 is a marker for all the male royal lines in Europe.

Hay: ‘Nowadays it is most common in Ile-de-France [including the capital, Paris] and Picardy (both ~16%), followed by Alsace (14.5%), Normandy (13.5%) and Flanders-Artois (11%). Other Germanic lineages are I1, I2a2a-L801, R1a-L664 and R1a-Z284. Almost all the I2a2a and R1a in northern and eastern France is of Germanic origin.’

‘Around 80% of G2a in France [ancient lineage from Shem] falls under the Celtic Z1816 clade. Another 15% is made up of the U1 branch, typically the L13 clade, which is usually of Italic/Roman origin. The remaining 5% of G2a descends from local Neolithic farmers. Most J2a in France belongs to the M67 and the M319 subclades, which were found among ancient Etruscans and Greeks.’ 

This is highly telling, as we will discover that the Etruscans were ‘Greek’ before leaving the Aegean and settling in central Italy. The Etruscans are related to the Classical and Hellenistic Greeks who formed the Greco-Macedonian Empire. In other words, the Etruscans and Moab and Ammon are closely related. The dominant connecting Y-DNA Haplogroup is R1b (U106) and not the ancient Haplogroup G2a from Shem and definitely not the Hamitic J2a, derived from admixture.

Hay: ‘These lineages probably came from Italy in Roman times, apart from some Greek lineages in the Côte d’Azur. J1 was also found among the Etruscans and is the likely source of the non-Jewish J1 in France. J2b was found in Bronze Age Illyria, among Iron Age Etruscans and Daunians, but was probably also found in other parts of central and southern Italy as well as in Greece. In France it would be mostly of Graeco-Roman (including Etruscan) origin [not so, J1 and J2 Haplogroups are the result of admixture with Arab men and related peoples]. Nowadays J2b makes up roughly half of all J2 in Provence and Languedoc, one third in Midi-Pyrénées and Lorraine, but under 20% in Aquitaine and Poitou-Charentes. It’s rare elsewhere.’

‘This map shows an estimation of the dominant ancestry in each region of France based on anthropological studies. Will DNA confirm this general pattern? Here is a summary of Y-DNA haplogroups found in France, and the ancient ethnicities associated with them:

• Germanic/Nordic: R1b-U106, I1, I2-L801
• Gaulish Celtic: R1b-U152 [Alpine]
• Atlantic Celts: R1b-L21 [British and Irish Celts]
• Iberian Celts: R1b-DF27, R1b-P312
• Basque: R1b-DF27, R1b-M153 
• Greek: E1b1b, E-M123, J2, R1b-L23 [Balkans, Greece, Turkey, Southern Italy], G2a, T1a, J1′

Regardless of descriptive labels for regions and ancestry, or where one draws an approximate line to split France into approximate halves, the above map confirms the dual nature of the French. The areas encompassing the Germanic, Celto-Germanic and Celto-Italic lineages roughly highlight one half and the Celtic, Greco-Roman and Celtiberian the other half.

The defining marker paternal group for French men is Haplogroup R1b. Principally it is U152 (Gaulish-Celtic-Italic); whereas all the others, R1b-U106, R1b-L21, R1b-DF27, R1b-L23 and E1b1b, J1, J2 and T1a are from intermixing and intermarriage. Finally, Haplogroups G2a, I1 and I2 are older lineages which are indicative of men related though distinct from the later defining R1b-U152 line.

The mtDNA Haplogroups for the Swiss and French are as follows:

Switzerland: H [47.9%] – J [11.5%] – T2 [9.3%] – U5 [6.7%] – K [5.3%] – 

HV0+V [4.9%] – U4 [3.1%] – T1 [2.2%] – W [1.8%] – L [0.9%] –

U2 [0.9%] – U3 [0.9%] – I [0.9%] – HV [0.4%] – U [0.4] – X [0.4]

France: H [44.3%] – K [8.7%] – U5 [8.2%] – J [7.7%] – T2 [6.2%] – 

HV0+V [5%] – U4 [2.5%] – HV [2%] – I [2%] – T1 [1.9%] – W [1.9%] –

U2 [1.6%] – U [1.4%] – U3 [1%] – L [0.9%] – X [0.9%] 

The mtDNA table showing the family resemblance between the Swiss and the French, yet the subtle difference between Haran and Lot’s children Moab and Ammon.

                                 H     J    T2   U5   K  HV0+V  HV    U4    T1

Switzerland          48    12     9     7     5        5         0.5      3       2

France                   44     8      6    8     9        5             3      3       2

Comparing the Swiss and French with their immediate neighbours, cements the family ties between cousins. Something we will see repeated frequently as we progress with the peoples of northwestern Europe. The French and Spanish are alike in frequency levels of H, T2 and U5, though in the other main mt-DNA Haplogroups comprising J, K, HV0+V, HV, U4 and T1, the French align more closely with the Italians. 

                               H    J    T2   U5     K     HV0+V   HV    U4    T1

Switzerland          48   12     9      7       5          5        0.5       3       2

Spain                     44     7     6      8       6          8        0.7       2       2

France                   44     8     6     8       9          5            3        3      2

Italy                       40     8     8     5       8          3            3        2      3

Adding Switzerland and France to our table of nations descended from Shem thus far, has Switzerland now as one bookend of the European descended peoples replacing Brazil, with Iran remaining at the other end. A pattern has emerged showing the percentage levels for the main European mt-DNA Haplogroup H, increasing as one heads west across Europe, with France following this pattern. Switzerland though, has not fitted into this genetic type as it sits firmly in central Europe. What we will notice as we progress, is that the nations of northwestern Europe – in the main – exhibit higher levels of mtDNA Haplogroup H further north; with the Swiss being the first to evidence this fact.

                          H       HV   HV0+V    J        T2        U        U5       K

Switzerland    48    0.4          5          12         9      0.4         7         5

France             44       2           5           8          6         1          8        9

Brazil               44        2                      11 

Portugal          44     0.1          5           7         6          3          7         6

Spain               44     0.7          8           7         6          2         8         6

Poland            44         1          5            8         7       1.4        10        4

Russia             41         2          4            8         7          2        10        4

Greece             41        3        1.8          10         7          3          5        5

Italy                 40       3           3            8          8         3          5        8            

Ukraine          39        4           4            8         8      0.6        10        5

Romania        37        2           4           11          5         2          7        8

Finland           36                       7          6          2     0.8        21        5

Turkey            31         5       0.7            9          4         6         3         6

Iran                 17         7       0.6          14           5       12         3         7

It is worth reminding ourselves that Haplogroup R-M269 is the sub-clade of human Y-chromosome Haplogroup R1b which is defined by the SNP marker M269. According to ISOGG 2020 it is phylogenetically classified as R1b1a1b (now R1b1a1a2). R-M269 is the most common European Haplogroup in the genetic composition of mainly Western Europe; increasing in frequency from an east to west gradient. For instance in Poland, it is found in 22.7% of the male population, compared to Wales at 92.3%. It is carried by over 110 million European men. 

Scientists propose that the age of the M269 mutation is somewhere between 4,000 to 10,000 years ago. This time frame is plausible and neatly fits with the birth of Peleg and hence the beginning of the R1b mutation, circa 7727 BCE, according to an unconventional chronology. The most recently significant R1b mutations originated with Abraham and his descendants beginning with his birth in 1977 BCE.

The sub-Haplogroup of R1b, U106 (S21), is frequent in central to western Europe, reaching 66.8% in Germany; while the sub-lineage R-S116 is the most frequent in the Iberian Peninsula. R-U152 is more frequent in France and Italy; R-U198 in England; and R-M529 in the Celtic nations of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

As we progress through the descendants of Shem, the levels of R1b vary and gradually increase. We will keep a record of the levels for the two main R1b sub-Haplogroups – M269 and U106 – for some of the nations we will study.

Italys dominant Haplogroup is R1b and we can see the marked difference comparing with nations from Eastern Europe and beyond. It is worth mentioning that the North to south axis is as important as the East to west and so this explains why for instance Poland has slightly higher percentages of both clades of R1b than Russia as it is further west. Comparably, the Czech Republic displays a higher level of R-U106 than Italy (due to admixture with Germany) which is further south; yet less R-M269 overall as it is the descendants of Peleg and Aram which have the highest levels of R1b – refer Chapter XV The Philistines: Latino-Hispano America; and Chapter XXIII Aram & Tyre: Spain, Portugal & Brazil.

Turkey:    R-M269   14%   –  R-U106   0.4%

Russia:     R-M269   21%   –  R-U106   5.4%

Slovenia  R-M269   17%    –  R-U106      4%

Czech       R-M269  28%    –  R-U106    14% 

Poland     R-M269  23%    –  R-U106      8% 

Ukraine   R-M269  25%    –  R-U106      9%

Italy         R-M269   53%   –  R-U106      6%

France     R-M269   52%   –  R-U106      7%

Swiss       R-M269   58%   –  R-U106    13%

The addition of Switzerland and France highlights the north to south and east to west pattern we have noted. The Swiss exhibit higher levels of the Germanic R-U106 as reflected by their geographic position in central Europe. Switzerland’s position northwards of both France and Italy is reflected by their higher level of R-M269. The French and Italian men unsurprisingly, share an almost exact measure of R1b-M269 and R1b-U106.

The Y-DNA Haplogroups for the Swiss and French:

Switzerland: R1b [50%] – I1 [14%] – I2a2 [8%] – E1b1b [7.5%] – 

G2a [7.5%] – R1a [3.5%] – J2 [3%] – Ia21 [1.5%] –

Q [1.5%] – N1c1 [ 1%] – J1 [0.5%] – T1a [0.5%] 

France: R1b [58.5%] – I1 [8.5%] – E1b1b [7.5%] – J2 [6%] – 

G2a [5.5%] – I2a2 [3.5%] – I2a1 [3%] – R1a [3%] –

J1 [1.5%] – T1a [1%] – Q [0.5%] 

In keeping with cousins exhibiting similar traits and sharing more in common – more than they have with their own siblings – we will find that the Swiss Y-DNA Haplogroup sequencing is reminisce of the Dutch. Closer bonds shared with a cousin rather than a sibling can be explained, due to a more exact sharing of common Haplogroups and genetic DNA code.

                         R1b     R1a     I1    I2a1     I2a2    E1b1b    J2     J1     G2a

Switzerland    50         4       14      2          8             8        3     0.5       8

France             59         3         9      3          4             8        6         2       6

Comparing the main Y-DNA Haplogroups, we see a greater divergence between Switzerland and France than with the mtDNA Haplogroups; though still close enough to express a family relationship. 

The main Y-DNA Haplogroup R1b is highest in Brittany with 77.3% and then Centre-Val de Loire with 70.6%. The lowest level of R1b is in Alsace with 43.7% and then Aquitaine with 48%. The highest percentage for I1 is found in Flanders-Artois with 16% and then Alsace with 15%. The highest level of R1a is in Languedoc-Roussillon with 10%; the highest level of J2 is found in Corsica with 14%; and the highest percentage of E1b1b is in Ile-de-France with 19% – due to the higher percentage of Africans from former French colonies.

                         R1b     R1a     I1    I2a1   I2a2    E1b1b    J2     J1     G2a

N Italy              50        5        7       1          4           11       10      2        8  

Switzerland     50       4      14       2          8            8         3      1         8

Tuscany           53        4       4       2           3            9       12      2         9

Lombardy       59        4       3       1            5           10        6               10

France             59        3       9       3            4            8        6       2        6

A comparison with the Northern Italian region of Lombardy shows a similarity with France. Switzerland has commonalty with the Central region Tuscany. Both France and Switzerland have common ground with northern Italy as a whole from a Y-DNA perspective. From a PCA standpoint, The French and Swiss have more in common than they do with Italy.

Continuing our Y-DNA comparison table from the previous chapters, with the addition of Switzerland and France – the second major descendants from Peleg’s line, of Haran and his son Lot . 

                         J        J1      J2     E1b1b    G      R1a     R1b      R1    

Georgia         43      16       27         2        30        9        10       19 

Armenia        33      11       22        6         12         5        30      35  

Turkey           33       9       24       11         11         8        16       24

Iran                32       9       23         7        10       16        10       26

Greece           26       3       23       21          6       12        16       28

Italy               19       3        16       14          9         4        39       43

Romania       15        1       14        14          3       18        16       34

Portugal        13        3       10       14          7       1.5       56       58

Brazil             10                 10       11          5          4       54       58

Spain             10     1.5         8         7          3         2        69       71     

France            8        2         6          8         6         3        59       62

Ukraine          5     0.5     4.5          7          3       44         8       52

Switzerland   4     0.5        3          8          8        4        50       54

Poland            3                   3          4          2       58       13        71

Russia             3                   3         3           1       46         6       52

Finland                                        0.5                      5         4         9

Georgia continues as one bookend with the highest Haplogroup J2, J1 and G2a percentages. Finland is the opposite bookend, with no Haplogroup J and the lowest R1 levels. Poland exhibits the highest percentage of R1a while Greece has the most E1b1b. Spain’s total R1 is equalled by Poland, though in opposite percentages for R1a and R1b. France has the second highest percentage of R1b after Spain, indicative of its westerly location. 

Focussing on the key Y-DNA Haplogroups associated with the majority of the European nations, Haplogroups R1a, R1b, I1 and I2 segment Europe roughly into quarters. Haplogroup R1b is dominant in the West; R1a in the East; I1 and I2a2 in the North and west; with I2a1 in the South and east. Added to this, is N1c1 from admixture with Japheth, prevalent in northern Europe and in counter balance to Haplogroups J2 and J1 derived from Ham, which are more common in southern Europe.

                       R1a      R1b       I1     I2a1      I2a2    N1c

Portugal        1.5         56         2      1.5           5          

Spain                2         69      1.5         5           1

France              3         59        9          3          4            

Switzerland     4         50      14          2          8          1

Brazil                4         54                  [9]            

Italy                  4         39         5        3           3         

Finland            5           4       28                   0.5      62

Turkey             8         16         1         4         0.5        4  

Greece            12         16         4       10         1.5      

Iran                 16         10                 0.5                      1           

Romania        18         16         4       28           3        2

Ukraine          44          8         5        21       0.5         6

Russia             46          6         5        11                    23

Poland            58         13        9          6          2         4

The comparison table shifts in emphasis when northern European Y-DNA Haplogroups from Shem comprising the intermediate, yet relatively old Haplogroups of I1 and I2a2 are compared with the ancient Haplogroup G2a also from Shem. Switzerland and France are sandwiched between Portugal, Spain and Italy, Brazil. They are both at the low end of Haplogroup R1a and the higher end with R1b.

Two Haplogroups are of note for the Swiss. First they have a trace of the very northern Haplogroup N1c1 (from admixture) – unlike France – in common with nations in the far northeast of Europe or its periphery, such as Finland and Russia. Second, Switzerland has the highest levels of Haplogroup I2a2 so far; and the second highest in Haplogroup I1 – after Finland – prevalent especially in northwestern Europe.

Y-DNA Haplogroups I1 and I2a2 reveal an older lineage of males amongst the Swiss, whom while related and also stemming from Shem’s son Arphaxad (and subsequently Peleg), they are not the same (later) line of descent from Haran (or his brother Nahor) as evidenced by Haplogroup R1b-U152.

We are increasingly able to observe more clearly the palpable east and west European divide as revealed by those nations with either R1a or R1b as their predominant paternal Haplogroup.

We have concluded the descendants of Abraham’s older brothers Haran (Swiss and French) and Nahor (Northern and Central Italians). The constant reader will be aware of the European peoples now remaining to be studied. These are all the descendants of Abraham. They reside in Northwestern Europe as well as their former colonies in the New World.

The next chapter will concentrate on Abraham’s children by his forgotten and mysterious second wife, Keturah.

One’s pride will bring him low, but he who is lowly in spirit will obtain honour.

Proverbs 29:23 English Standard Version

“All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them. I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”

Galileo Galilei [1564-1642]

“Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.”

Mahatma Gandhi

© Orion Gold 2021 – All rights reserved. Permission to copy, use or distribute, if acknowledgement of the original authorship is attributed to Orion Gold