Magog, Tubal, Meshech & China

Chapter X

We arrive at one last glaringly obviously left-out nation, on our journey of the identity of nations and principally the seven sons of Japheth. The informed reader will be doing cognitive acrobatics – slight play on words, as this nation is famous for its acrobats and tumblers – seeing not one but three of Japheth’s sons grouped together, after only discussing four sons thus far.

Tubal is the fifth son of Japheth and Meshech, the sixth. For many years I searched for them both. I entertained Korea as Meshech and Japan as Tubal; as well as considering North Korea as Meshech and South Korea as Tubal. Eventually, the pieces of the puzzle led to only one viable answer, the identity arrangement we will now study. When I researched for scientific and historic support, I was astounded to find considerable information. A lesson was learned; investigate the DNA data sooner and delve that little bit deeper into history.

Magog is the second son of Japheth. There are very few Bible verses on Magog, yet ironically, he is probably the most well-known of Japheth’s sons and the one that certainly leaves, the biggest impression. There has been less confusion surrounding Magog – saying that, many have attributed Magog to the Celts or Britain with Gomer – and considerable mis-understanding regarding Meshech and Tubal. So much so, it affected my research considerably.

A H Sayce, page 45, 47-48 – bold mine:

‘Gog is the Gugu of the Assyrian inscriptions, the Gyges of the Greeks… Tubal and Meshech… are almost always coupled together in the Old Testament, and were famous for their skill in archery.’

Israel A History Of:

‘These three sons of Japheth are closely linked throughout scripture. Ezekiel 38:2 mentions all three sons in a prophecy against Gog. Magog’s name possibly means “the place of Gog”, and is very likely that this referred to the region near the Black Sea called Georgia. Josephus states that Magog, or Gog, was the forebearer of the Scythians. The Scythians originally settled in the Black Sea area, which correlates to the meaning of Magog’s name. Ezekiel links these three brothers together in association with Rosh, translated “chief” in the King James… Rosh was the name from which present day Russia was derived. 

By and large, from the line of the sons of Noah, Magog, Meshech, and Tubal have come to be known and accepted by scholars as the originators of the current Russian peoples.’

The Scythians we will discover, are a line from Shem, not Japheth. Meshech and Tubal may well have lived in Russia and left their names while sojourning east. Neither Magog, or his other two brothers identify with Russia. The Hebrew word ‘Rosh’ is just that, a Hebrew word meaning chief. It is a title, not a name or identity. 

Derek Walker – emphasis and bold mine: 

‘One of the most fascinating aspects of Ezekiel 38-39 is that Islam has its own version of the Battle of Gog and Magog, called the War of Yajuj and Majuj. In two places the Koran specifically mentions Yajuj and Majuj by name (18:96; 21:96).

Tubal and Meshech are mentioned together in Ezekiel 38:2. Some believe these people intermarried and became known as Magog, the dominant tribe.* There are two main theories for their location: (1) RUSSIA and (2) TURKEY. Whichever it is does not change the overall picture as both are identified by the other names in Ezekiel. 

(1) Regarding Meshech and Tubal, some assign a Russian identification, connecting these 2 nations with the modern Russian cities of Moscow and Tobolsk. This view is partly based on the similarity of sound in these names and their close proximity to Rosh (Russia). L. Sale-Harrison corroborated this identification on linguistic grounds. 

Wilhelm Gesenius, the world class Hebrew scholar, whose Hebrew Lexicon has never been surpassed, said Gog is undoubtedly the Russians. “Meshech was founder of the Moschi, a barbarous people, who dwelt in the Moschian mountains.” He went on to say that the Greek name “Moschi”, derived from the Hebrew ‘Meshech’, is the source of the name for the city of MOSCOW. In discussing Tubal he said, “Tubal is the son of Rapheth [Japheth], founder of the Tibereni, a people dwelling on the Black Sea to the west of the Moschi.” His conclusion was these people make up the modern Russian people. 

Meshech the 6th son of Japheth, settled in the NE portion of Asia Minor. His posterity extended from the shores of the Black Sea along to the south of the Caucasus. He was the father of the Rossi and Moschi, who dispersed their colonies over a vast portion of Russian territory. And their names are preserved in the names of Russians and Muscovites to this day. The Septuagint version of the Old Testament renders the term: “Meshech” by the words “Mosch” and “Rosch”; while “Moscovy” was a common name for Russia, and the city of Moscow is one of her principal cities. ‘Tubal’ or ‘Tobal’ settled beyond the Caspian and Black Seas in the eastern possessions of Russia, embracing a very large portion of these dominions. The name of this patriarch is still preserved in the river Tobal, which waters an immense tract of Russian territory; and the City of Tobalski in Russia is still a monument to him.

(2) Another line of study reveals that Meschech and Tubal are the ancient Moschi/Mushki and Tubalu/Tibareni peoples who dwelled in the area around, primarily south of, the Black and Caspian Seas in Ezekiel’s day. Meshech was located near what was known as Phrygia, in central and western Asia Minor, while Tubal was located in eastern Asia Minor. So Meshech and Tubal form portions of modern Turkey. Expositors Bible Commentary: “Meshech and Tubal refer to areas in eastern Turkey, southwest of Russia and northwest of Iran.” Assyrian texts & monuments locate Meshech (Mushku) and Tubal (Tabal) in Anatolia (W.Turkey), the areas that became known as Phyygia and Cappadocia. 

Later migrations north from Turkey to Russia could mean that both identifications are valid, and indeed both Turkey and Russia are directly to the north of Israel (as required by Ezekiel 38:6, 15, 39:2). In any case, between them, Magog, Rosh, Mechesh and Tubal certainly represent RUSSIA…’

We will expand on the potential of intermarrying later, with Derek Walker’s final sentence also key, though I would substitute the title Rosh with the personality of Gog.

Herman Hoeh – emphasis his, bold mine:

‘Russia is mentioned almost by name in some versions of the Bible! Turn to Ezekiel 38:2. Here you will find that a certain power called “Gog” is “the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal”. The proper translation is “the prince of Rosh. Meshech and Tubal!” In Hebrew, the word for chief is “Rosh”. That is also the ancient name for “Russia”.’

We will study Russia and their identity as Asshur later and scrutinise the word ‘rosh.’ It may look like Rus-sia but it is not a marker for Russia but rather a clue to Meshech and Tubal’s relationship with Gog.

‘Over half of all Russia is occupied by a people called “Great Russians” today. The Great Russians are divided into two distinctive people who have remained constantly together since the beginning of history. We shall now prove from history that the Great Russians are the descendants of Meshech and Tubal (Genesis 10:2). Here is what the ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA says about the Great Russians: “Not with standing the unity of language, it is easy to detect among the Great Russians themselves two separate branches differing from one another by slight divergencies of language and type and DEEP DIVERSITIES OF NATIONAL CHARACTER…

One branch settled around Moscow. The word Moscow is but an English spelling of the Russian “Moskva”, a word almost identical to the one used by the Assyrians to refer to the the people of Meshech! The other branch constitutes the people of Tubal. This branch of the Great Russians founded the city of Tobolsk in Siberia and named the Tobol River… Meshech and Tubal migrated into Russia! Surely there is no mistaking who Meshech and Tubal are today.’

Meshech and Tubal, as a great many others, traversed and dwelt in present day Russian lands. Their final migratory resting place is not Russia.

‘… Do you know where the word “Siberia” comes from? In Asia Minor, where the people of Tubal first settled, a vast tract of land was called Subaria, sometimes spelled less correctly “Subartu”. This word has puzzled historians no end! Here is the origin of “Siberia!”

What is the origin of the word “Russian” – the “Rosh” of Ezekiel 38:2 (when properly translated)? The INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA gives the answer. Here, under the article “Rosh”, we find that a vast area of the Mesopotamian Valley was called “the land of Rashu!” The word “Russ” or “Rosh” means blonde. In modern times the name “Russ” was first applied to Russia because of the blond people of White Russia who live next to the people of Meshech and Tubal.

Turn again to the prophecy of Ezekiel 38 and 39. Notice the identity of Gog and Magog. Who are the people called “Gog” and “Magog” ? Magog, rather than Gog, is mentioned in Genesis 10:2. Gog is apparently a tribal subdivision of Magog.*In prophecy, Magog comes to great prominence in the West only in the latter days. Here is what the JEWISH ENCYCLOPAEDIA says about Gog and Mogog: ” . . .[a] wall [was] built by . . . (Alexander the Great) to shut them off from the rest of the world. . . . Geographically they represent the extreme northeast, and are placed on the borders of the sea that encircles the earth.”

Notice what the unrivalled McCLINTOCK & STRONG ENCYCLOPAEDIA says about Gog and Magog: “According to Reinegge… some of the Caucasian people call their mountains Gog, and the highest northern points Magog” – because the people of Magog once lived in these regions in Bible times! “The [A]rabians are of the opinion that the descendants of God and Magog inhabit the northern parts of Asia, beyond the Tartars and Sclavonians (or Russians), and they put Yajuj and Majuj always in conjunction, thereby indicating the extreme points in north and north-east of Asia“. Some writers spell these Arabic words Yagog and Magog. Now to what people are these names referring? They dwell in the northern part of Asia, bordering on the ocean, and rise to prominence… “in the latter days” (Ezek.38:8).

The Mongols and their Asiatic kinsmen! In fact, the proper spelling of “Mongol” is ‘Mogol”, obviously a slightly changed form of “Magog”! And in Asiatic Russia live the Yakuts—the Yagog of the Arab historians. The people of Mongolia, together with China, Manchuria, Korea and Japan, are all of this one great branch of mankind. A remnant of the people of Magog appear, with pigtails and yellow skin, on the Egyptian monuments. They were called Kheta by the Egyptians and Ketei by the Greeks. 

When the Russians first met the Mongolians and Chinese they called them Khitai! Western Europeans used a similar word for China in the Middle Ages: Cathay. Here indeed is “Gog, of the land of Magog”.’

Rather, a reference to Kitti, a son of Javan as we have discussed.

Magog principally, is the modern nation of China. The Chinese are an amalgamation of different, related peoples and the answer has been within the Bible all along. Recent discoveries in genetics have confirmed this understanding.

Rosh in Hebrew, means: ‘Head, Chief, Top’. From the root ro’sh [H7218], which has to do with primality and can mean ‘to shake the head (as most easily shaken), whether literal or figurative (in many applications, of place, time, rank…)’ It can also mean, ‘beginning, first, principal, captain, company’ and ‘height.’ It is used as head, 349 times in the KJV of the Bible, chief [91] and top [73]. The head of men, a company or a division, the top or tip of a mountain, the height of stars

The word following rosh in Ezekiel chapter thirty-eight, verse two is the Hebrew word *nasiy’ [H5387] which is translated by the KJV as prince [96], captain [12], chief [10], ruler [6], vapours [3], governor [1]. It refers to ‘one lifted up’ a ‘rising mist’ or ‘vapour.’ It is linked with H5375, ‘an exalted one’ a king.

Abarim Publications: 

‘The name Rosh belongs to a man and to a region in the Bible. Rosh the man is a son of Benjamin (Genesis 46:21), but other Biblical genealogies of Benjamin don’t list Rosh. Rosh the land is mentioned only by Ezekiel in his apocalyptic vision of the attack of Gog of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal (Ezekiel 38:2-3 and 39:1).’

Rosh is being misinterpreted and is, either a title of a person known as Gog, or a description of a region called Gog – not a region called Rosh. Nor does the word rosh come after nasiy’, it precedes it. Thus ‘prince of rosh’ or literally ‘prince of head’ is not what the Hebrew is saying, it is saying: the ‘head prince.’

‘The name Rosh is the same as the noun (ro’sh) meaning head or top… it may also refer to the beginning of a period: adjective (ri’shon) literally means chiefly but is mostly used in the same sense of previous or former. Noun (ri’sha) means pinnacle but may also refer to some past golden age or bygone glory days.’

Magog can be defined as ‘place of Gog’ or agent of Gog’. Magog is derived from the name Gog. Its literal meaning is ‘rooftop’* and ‘place of the roof’, from the noun gag, meaning ‘rooftop.’

Abarim Publications – bold mine:

‘Magog was originally a son of Japheth, son of Noah (Genesis 10:2) but later this name came to denote a region (Ezekiel 38:2). Magog is often mentioned in conjunction with Gog of Reuben (1 Chronicles 5:4).’

We will return to Gog the descendent of Reuben, when we study the sons of Jacob.

‘Magog is often mentioned in conjunction with Gog… but later also the name of a certain prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal, (literally the Chief Prince of the Occupied Zone that is The World… 

The name Magog is the name Gog with a prefixed mem, which may be a particle of inquisition: (me), what, or (mi), who? Or it may come from the particle (min; often abbreviated to a single mem), meaning from. Nouns that start with an m often describe place or agent of the parent verb. Where the name Gog comes from is not clear; BDB Theological Dictionary resolutely declares its root unknown. Jones’ Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names, on the other hand, points towards the Hebrew word (gag), usually meaning roof. The noun (gag) means rooftop, but since a society was a “house’” its “rooftop” referred to that society’s level of science and technology… the most remarkable usage is in Exodus 30:3 and 37:26 where [it] denotes the top of the altar of incense.

Gog may be a region, and Magog is then said to mean From Gog (BDB Theological Dictionary). But Ezekiel 38:2 speaks of a man named Gog who is of the land of Magog (= the land of the land of Gog), which seems overly redundant. 

But Gog may mean Roof, and Magog may subsequently mean Off The Roof, which means more in English than in Hebrew. Magog might literally mean Place Of The Roof and describe a center of wisdom, or Agent Of The Roof and describe a person who works in such [a] center.’

Perhaps place of the roof denotes China’s size and influence on the earth, whether it be technology, military, economic, even the gigantic rooftop covering of its population. China is blanketing civilisation with its increasing number of souls and deluge of exports. Is the roof or top of the world, a prediction that China will be the preeminent power of the world. It surely isn’t a coincidence that Rosh means top and Magog roof-top. A roof covers the whole building beneath it. It also protects those underneath. Lastly, it could be a reference to conquering space and dominance over the rest of the world that is below. China is actively developing its space program to rival that of Russia and the United States. It became only the third nation to retrieve materials from the Moon, bringing back lunar rocks in December 2020.

Science-fiction writer Isaac Asimov proposed the idea for a space power station in 1941. China is planning to launch a fleet of mile-long solar panels into space by 2035, that would convert solar energy into electrical energy and be fully operational by 2050. A microwave transmitter or laser emitter would convert the power to a high frequency radio wave and transmit the highly economical green energy to earth. An Array would capture the signal like a giant fishing net, converting into electricity to be fed into the grid. In 2008, Japan confirmed the idea of space solar power a national goal. The United Kingdom has joined Japan, China, Russia and the United States in pursuing space based power generation, in a new space race. 

The People’s Republic of China receives continual press as an emerging ‘second superpower.’ Barry Buzan said in 2004 that “China certainly presents the most promising all-round profile” of a potential superpower. In 2011, Singapore’s first premier, Lee Kuan Yew, stated that: “[China] have transformed a poor society by an economic miracle to become now the second-largest economy in the world. How could they not aspire to be number 1 in Asia, and in time the world?” using their “huge and increasingly highly skilled and educated workers to out-sell and out-build all others.” Arvind Subramanian an Economist stated in 2012 that “China was a top dog economically for thousands of years prior to the Ming dynasty. In some ways, the past few hundred years have been an aberration.”

Though China is considerably ahead of the other top ten economic powers in the world it is yet to catch the United States; as China is lacking in soft power [the ability to influence others to your advantage] and has a low GDP per person. China also has an ageing and shrinking workforce to tackle in the future. Susan Shirk in China: Fragile Superpower, 2008, lists factors that ‘could constrain China’s ability to become a superpower… limited supplies of energy and raw materials, questions over its innovation capability, inequality and corruption, and risks to social stability and the environment. Minxin Pei said in 2012, that China has used its economic power to influence some nations, yet is surrounded by potentially hostile nations. 

‘This situation could improve if regional territorial disputes were resolved and China participated in an effective regional defence system that would reduce the fears of its neighbours.’ Also, a ‘democratization of China could improve foreign relations with many nations.’

Meshech in Hebrew means: ‘Departed, drawn out’, from the verb mush, ‘to depart’, masha, ‘to draw out’ and mashak, ‘to draw or drag.’

Abarim Publications – emphasis & bold mine:

‘In Genesis 10:23, Mash is listed as a son of Aram, who is a son of Shem… In 1 Chronicles 1:17 the same genealogy occurs, although the various generations are now all listed as sons of Shem. And Mash is called (Meshech). Another man named Meshech is mentioned as a son of Japheth… (Genesis 10:2). He is mentioned about half a dozen times in the Bible, mostly along with Javan and Tubal, and it’s clear that these are the names of nations rather than individuals (Psalm 120:5, Ezekiel 27:13). Older translations may have the ethnonym “the Moschi” instead of Meshech.

The name (Mash) does not occur as a regular word in Hebrew, but it may be viewed as a contraction of the word (mush), meaning depart or remove… The verb (mashash) means to feel; to sense or search for tactilely… and appears most often in the negative, when something is typically not ambulant but stays where it’s at… the sweeping or scanning motion that usually accompanies tactile reconnaissance. This same motion could be applied to describe a being footloose or untethered. Verb (nasa’) describes an upward motion, generally of something that is being pulled up and out so as to remove itto lift up… to bear or carry… to take or take away… to loan on interestto deceive or beguile.

Noun (mas’et), reflects… uprising (of smoke), uplifting (of hands), utterance (of an oracle), a burden or that what’s carried. Noun *(nasi’) describes a lifted-up onea captain or chiefa mist or vapour. Note this keenly observed connection between paying interest and being formally governed… mesho’a, ruin or desolation… Plural noun (mashshu’ot) means deceptions…Noun (si’) means loftiness or pride. Noun (se’et) means dignity, swelling or outburst, a rising up… the verb (sha’a), to be noisy or ruinous

The verb (nasha)… to lend on interest or to forget, or rather to have a memory slowly evaporate away. Noun (neshiya) means forgetfulness or oblivion. Noun (neshi) means debt… Verb (masha) means… a drawing out of waters: to extract from water. NOBSE Study Bible Name List does not translate Mash but reads Extend(ed), or Tall for Meshech.’

An upward motion into mist or vapour could refer to space, or just how high Meshech is over the world. The final definitions of extended and tall alludes to this as does Meshech appearing to have financial power as a lender and the control or governance, that extends from lending – on a worldwide scale.

According to Abarim Publications, Tubal’s definition in Hebrew is incredible in light of both Magog’s and Meshech’s meanings. 

They define it from the noun tebel, as ‘the whole world-economy’ and the verb yabal, meaning ‘to flow or carry along’, ‘to bring, lead, conduct.’

Abarim Publications – emphasis & bold mine:

In the Bible there’s one person named Tubal and one more named Tubal-cain. Tubal-cain and his brothers Jabal and Jubal and sister Naamah are the last in line from Cain, the cursed son of Adam and Eve… Just Tubal descends from Cain’s youngest brother Seth and is a son of Japheth, who is a son of Noah… The latter Tubal shows up quite a bit in prophetic texts, usually in the company of his brothers Meshech and Magog… 

The verb (balal) means to mix something with oil, usually flour products… as ritualistic food preparation. The emphasis… lies on saturation and overflowing: to fill something with oil until it can absorb no more and begins to reject an excess of oil. Noun (belil) describes a very rich mix of animals to eat… and noun (teballul) tells of insoluble material that obstructs a person’s eye. 

Noun (yabal) means water course or conduit… noun (‘ubal) means stream or river… noun (bul) means produce or outgrowth. Noun (yobel)… describes “a carrier” or “a producer” or “something that drives a flow”… Verb (‘abel)… [is]… often used to describe a collective mourning, which either happened in a procession or else contagious enough to drag others along. Nouns (‘ebel) and (‘abel) both mean mourning, but the latter is also the word for actual water stream or brook… adverb (‘abal)… expresses solemn affirmation (verily, truly, yes indeed I’m totally going along with you there) but later texts appear to put somewhat of a breaking force on the momentum (“yes!… but”)

Jones’ Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names settles for the general meaning of the verb and reads Flowing Forth for the meaning of the name Tubal. However, identical to the name Tubal is our root’s derivative (tebel), meaning world. Hence the name Tubal means World, but the whole flow and currencies of the world-economy in its broadest sense.

A ‘very rich mix of animals’ is reflected in the very varied taste of the Chinese and the breadth of animals they will eat. Tubal has a role to play in driving the global economy and therefore the world. The earth appears to comply, though with growing reservation. There are a handful of alternative meanings for Meshech and Tubal, that we will now consider as we study verses on all three brothers.

The Book of Jubilees 8:25:

And for Japheth came forth the third portion beyond the river Tina to the north of the outflow of its waters, and it extends north-easterly to the whole region of Gog, and to all the country east thereof.

Japheth’s area is measured against the land of Gog, as Magog is gigantic compared to his brothers. The Book of Jasher 7:4, 7-8 provides names of the sons of Magog, Tubal and Meshech omitted in the Bible: 

And the sons of Magog were Elichanaf and Lubal… And the sons of Tubal were Ariphi, Kesed and Taari. And the sons of Meshech were Dedon, Zaron and Shebashni.

Notice the similarity with Meshech’s son Dedon and Javan’s son Dodan [Philippines]. 

The book of Ezekiel describes a combined East and South Asian military alliance, though it is far in the future, after the prophesied return of the Son of Man and at the end of a millennial Kingdom He establishes on Earth. The book of Daniel as we noted with Kitti, alludes to a battle between the King of the North and his confrontation with an enemy from the north and east. China could figure prominently twice, in shaping world events through warfare. A plausible scenario could involve the King of the South joining forces with Magog in opposition to the King of the North – Russia and their ally, a German led, European Union.

Ezekiel 38:1-23

New English Translation

A Prophecy Against Gog

38 The Lord’s message came to me: 2 “Son of man, turn toward [Hebrew: “set your face against”], Gog of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal… Look, I am against you, Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal. 

The Interlinear Hebrew text, without punctuation or prepositions says:

‘… set thy face against Gog land Magog chief prince Meshech Tubal… Gog chief prince Meshech…’

4 I will turn you around, put hooks into your jaws, and bring you out with all your army, horses, and horsemen, all of them fully armed, a great company with shields of different types all of them armed with swords. 5 Persia, Ethiopia [Cush], and Put are with them, all of them with shields and helmets. 6 They are joined by Gomer [Continental SE Asia] with all its troops, and by Beth Togarmah [Korea] from the remote parts of the north with all its troopsmany peoples are with you.

7 “‘Be ready and stay ready, you and all your companies assembled around you, and be a guard for them. 8 After many days you will be summoned; in the latter years you will come to a land restored from the ravages of war, from many peoples gathered on the mountains of Israel that had long been in ruins. Its people were brought out from the peoples, and all of them will be living securely. 

9 You will advance; you will come like a storm. You will be like a cloud* covering the earth, you, all your troops, and the many other peoples with you.

10 “‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: On that day thoughts will come into your mind, and you will devise an evil plan. 11 You will say, “I will invade a land of unwalled towns; I will advance against those living quietly in security—all of them living without walls and barred gates— 12 to loot and plunder, to attack the inhabited ruins and the people gathered from the nations, who are acquiring cattle and goods, who live at the center of the earth.” 13 Sheba and Dedan [Cush] and the traders of Tarshish [Japan] with all its young warriors will say to you, “Have you come to loot? Have you assembled your armies to plunder, to carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to haul away a great amount of spoils?”’

14 … On that day when my people Israel are living securely, you will take notice 15 and come from your place, from the remote parts of the north, you and many peoples with you, all of them riding on horses, a great company and a vast army. 16 You will advance against my people Israel like a cloud covering the earth. In future days I will bring you against my land so that the nations may acknowledge me, when before their eyes I magnify myself through you, O Gog.

17 … Are you the one of whom I spoke in former days by my servants the prophets of Israel, who prophesied in those days that I would bring you against them? 18 On that day, when Gog invades the land of Israel, declares the Sovereign Lord, my rage will mount up in my anger. 19 In my zeal, in the fire of my fury, I declare that on that day there will be a great earthquake in the land of Israel. 20 The fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the wild beasts, all the things that creep on the ground, and all people who live on the face of the earth will shake at my presence. The mountains will topple, the cliffs will fall, and every wall will fall to the ground. 21 I will call for a sword to attack Gog on all my mountains, declares the Sovereign Lord; every man’s sword will be against his brother. 22 I will judge him with plague and bloodshed. I will rain down on him, his troops, and the many peoples who are with him a torrential downpour, hailstones, fire, and brimstone.23 I will exalt and magnify myself; I will reveal myself before many nations. Then they will know that I am the Lord.’

Footnote:

38:2 translation Hebrew “the prince, the chief of Meshech and Tubal.” Some translate “the prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal,” butit is more likely that the Hebrew noun in question is a common noun in apposition to “prince,” rather than a proper name. See D. I. Block, Ezekiel (NICOT), 2:434-35. As Block demonstrates, attempts by some popular writers to identify these proper names with later geographical sites in Russia are anachronistic. 

I concur with the NET Bible footnote and do not subscribe to a prince of rosh. It does not make sense to have a ‘prince of head, chief or top’. 

It does make sense to have a ‘head, chief or top prince’. This prince is the head, chief or top of Meshech and Tubal. The top prince, is revealed a few words previously as Gog… of the land of Magog. It is not immediately clear whether Gog is purely a dominant people or region within [and part of] Magog, or an actual leader called Gog. Verses 16 and 21-22 support an individual, with the use of the personal you and him. If it is a ruler, then it is an individual of great authority^ as they have ‘height’ as ‘one lifted up’ and as ‘an exalted one.’ The rebellion of Magog transpires when the devil called Satan, is loosed* from his restraint; thus, the likelihood of Gog being a real leader of Magog is strengthened. As is their identity being linked to the mysterious Nephilim.^ Gog is clearly the leader over all three brothers, even so I will use the word ‘Gog’ when referring to – all three peoples – Magog, Tubal and Meshech from hereon. 

Ezekiel 39:1-16

New English Translation

“… O Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal! 2 I will turn you around and ‘drag you along’ [definition of Tubal and Meshech]; I will lead you up from the remotest parts of the north and bring you against the mountains of Israel…. I will send fire on Magog and those who live securely in the coastlands [principally Kitti and Ashkenaz – Indonesia and Vietnam]… “‘Then those who live in the cities of Israel will go out and use the weapons for kindling—the shields, bows and arrows, war clubs and spears—they will burn them for seven years. 10 They will not need to take wood from the field or cut down trees from the forests because they will make fires with the weapons…

11 “‘On that day I will assign Gog a grave in Israel. It will be the valley of those who travel east of the sea; it will block the way of the travelers. There they will bury [their leader] Gog and all his horde [army]; they will call it the Valley of Hamon Gog. 12 For seven months Israel will bury them, in order to cleanse the land. 13 All the people of the land will bury them… 14 They will designate men to scout continually through the land, burying those who remain on the surface of the ground, in order to cleanse it. They will search for seven full months. 15 When the scouts survey the land and see a human bone, they will place a sign by it, until those assigned to burial duty have buried it in the valley of Hamon Gog. 16 (A city by the name of Hamonah will also be there)…

The inference is that Gog is an identity of a real ruler. A literal dema-gog-ue. Demagogue definition: ‘a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.’ 

Magog [China] is clearly in the ‘north’ as are Togarmah [and remember Asshur too]. Seven months to bury the dead and seven years of using the component parts of their weapons reveals the gigantic size of Magog’s military might and alliance.

As there are Kings of the North and South, there is also a name for the Magog led confederacy from East and Southeast Asia, the Kings of the East.

Revelation 16:12-14

English Standard Version

12 The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up, to prepare the way for the kings from the east. 13 And I saw, coming out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs. 14 For they are demonic spirits, performing signs, who go abroad to the kings of the whole world, to assemble them for battle on the great day of God the Almighty.

Revelation 20:2, 7-9

English Standard Version

2 … the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years… 7 And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released* from his prison 8 and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea.9 And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them…

The book of Revelation is clear in that the gathering of Magog is a vast number of people. Only two nations could provide such a number of personnel – China and India.  We will learn that India does not descend from Japheth, nor does it fulfil the verses that apply to Magog. Also, the timing of this attack against the sons of Jacob is at the end of the millennial rule and devoid of any alliance with the King of the South, or against the King of the North. Interestingly, the dragon is the primary symbol of China. In heraldry the dragon is a powerful emblem. As formidable or more even than that of an eagle or lion as adopted by numerous nations. China’s state flag and the [Manchu] Qing dynasty flag of 1890 – 1912.

The meanings of the names Meshech and Tubal – the ones with a darker connotation – are interesting when compared with Magog’s, to cover like a cloud with an innumerable number of Soldiers.

Meshech as part of Gog also means ‘deception, pride, forgetfulness’ and ‘oblivion’. A plan to deceive fellow nations and encourage them to be involved in the plot to attack Israel [not the State of Israel, rather the sons of Jacob], a pride in their power, a forgetfulness of a prior age of suffering, a disregard for the current age of peace and ultimately, oblivion for the actions taken.

Tubal’s part as Gog, broadly means to ‘lead and drag’ other nations into a conspiracy as like a ‘poisonous wound’ and the forceful ‘flow of water’, other nations ‘agree to be coerced, though with growing reservation’.

Scriptures that pertain to Meshech and Tubal.

Psalm 120:5

New English Translation

How miserable I am. For I have lived temporarily in Meshech; I have resided among the tents of Kedar.

Kedar is a son of Ishmael and is likened to Meshech in a militaristic, austere way of life. 

In reference to trading with Tyre, Ezekiel 27:12-14 NET:

12 “‘Tarshish [Japan] was your trade partner because of your abundant wealth; they exchanged silver, iron, tin, and lead for your products. 13 Javan [Archipelago SE Asia, principally Indonesia], Tubal, and Meshech were your clients; they exchanged slaves and bronze items for your merchandise. 14 Beth Togarmah [Korea] exchanged horses, chargers, and mules for your products.

Ezekiel 32:26 

New Century Version

“Meshech and Tubal are there with the graves of all their soldiers around them. All of them are unclean and have been killed in war. They also frightened people when they lived on earth.

Isaiah 66:19

English Standard Version

and I will set a sign among them. And from them I will send survivors to the nations, to Tarshish [Japan], Pul, and Lud [son of Shem], who draw the bow, to Tubal and Javan, to the coastlands far away, that have not heard my fame or seen my glory. And they shall declare my glory among the nations.

There are a number of scriptures including Magog, Tubal and Meshech together, as well as one each for the brothers where they are accounted for singularly. We could deduce three separate nations or three separate peoples in one nation [as the majority include all three or two together]. As we have run out of East Asian nations or hopefully attributed the other sons of Japheth successfully to their modern descendants, I believe it is the latter option. Obviously at one time the brothers were separate peoples, before amalgamating. For the purpose of understanding the future prophecies in the Bible, they appear as one identity.

It is interesting to note their order. Gog is always before Magog and both are listed first as designated leader of the three brothers. Even though Tubal is older than Meshech, he is always placed second of the two, with one exception. 

It appears that when the context is militaristic, Meshech has dominance. The one verse that highlights economic power, it is Tubal with the superiority and listed first. The individual meanings of their names supports this arrangement. Lastly, the verse where Tubal is listed without Meshech, associates Tubal with Javan’s children and their location furthest east.

China’s major exports.

‘The following export product groups categorize the highest dollar value in Chinese global shipments during 2020.

  1. Electrical machinery, equipment: US$710.1 billion 
  2. Machinery including computers: $440.3 billion
  3. Furniture, bedding, lighting, signs, prefabricated buildings: $109.4 billion
  4. Plastics, plastic articles: $96.4 billion
  5. Optical, technical, medical apparatus: $80.2 billion 
  6. Vehicles: $76.3 billion
  7. Miscellaneous textiles, worn clothing: $75.6 billion
  8. Toys, games: $71.5 billion
  9. Articles of iron or steel: $71.1 billion
  10. Clothing, accessories (not knit or crochet): $62.3 billion


Miscellaneous textiles and worn clothing was China’s fastest grower among the top 10 export categories, up by 170.9% from 2019 to 2020. In second place for improving export sales was plastics including articles made from plastic via a 14.2% gain. China’s shipments of toys and games posted the third-fastest gain in value up by 13.9%.’

China is the world’s second largest economy, with nominal GDP in current dollars of $14.34 trillion. China has opened its economy over the past four decades and its economic development has improved living standards greatly. The government has gradually phased out collectivised agriculture and industry, allowing greater flexibility for market prices and increasing the autonomy of businesses with the result of foreign and domestic trade investment booming. An industrial policy that encourages domestic manufacturing, has made China the world’s number one exporter. Still, China faces the ‘challenges of a rapidly ageing population and severe environmental degradation.’

Of the top ten countries with the most natural resources China tops the list as number one overall, with an estimated worth of $23 trillion. Ninety percent of China’s resources include coal and rare earth metals. Timber is a major natural resource and other resources that China produces are ‘antimony, gold, graphite, lead, molybdenum, phosphates, tin, tungsten, vanadium, and zinc. China is the world’s second largest producer of bauxite, cobalt, copper, manganese, and silver’ and also has deposits of chromium and gem diamond.

China also fulfils the important role, of being one of the world’s breadbaskets. In other words, it has large areas of highly arable land. It is in fact ranked number three in the world. The food produced by the country constitutes about twenty percent of the total world exports. China has the largest agricultural output in the world and seventy-five percent of its farming focuses on food crop farming. The country’s primary crop is rice, with rice fields occupying approximately twenty-five percent of its cultivated land. 

China makes the top ten most technologically advanced nations in the world, positioned at number nine. Recall South Korea is number three and Japan number one. China has a long list of achievements in the last decade. It currently focuses on furthering advances in robotics, semiconductors, high-speed trains, super-computers and genetics.

Of the top ten nations with the largest gold reserves, China is at number six, the highest in Asia. It has 1,948.3 tonnes of gold, yet this is only 3.3% of its foreign reserves. As of 2021, China has allowed ‘domestic and international banks to import large amounts of the precious metal into the country in an effort to support prices.’ The only other East Asian nation in the top ten is Japan in eighth. It has 765.2 tonnes which makes up 3.1 percent of its foreign reserves. In January 2016, ‘it lowered interest rates below zero – which helped fuel demand for gold around the world.’

China’s wealthiest cities – as listed by The Richest website – assist in gauging any demographic patterns. City number 10 Chengdu, is located in the southwest of China. Also in the southwest is Chongqing at number 5. In the southeast is Hangzhou [9], Guangzhou [7], Suzhou [6] and Shenzhen at number 4. Both islands of Hong Kong and Taiwan are situated on the southeast coast of mainland China. A city that we are all now aware is Wuhan, in the southeast and is ranked number 8.

‘Traditionally China’s powerful urban [centres] were along the borders or the coast, but Wuhan has risen up in recent years from central [southeast] China to become an extremely important city in its own right. First settled in 1500 BC, Wuhan is one of the oldest cities in China. Wuhan’s population of 10,220,000 [people] is relatively small by Chinese standards, but the city punches well above its weight economically. Regarded as the key to central China, Wuhan’s economy is based primarily on finance, transportation, and information technology.’

In the northeast there is Tianjin [3] and Beijing [formerly Peking] the capital, at number 2.

‘The national capital of the People’s Republic of China, Beijing is one of China’s cities that the entire world is familiar with. Beijing is China’s political and cultural [centre], and home to virtually all of China’s largest state-owned companies. With a population of 21,150,000 [people], Beijing is home too many of the ruling government’s key leaders and operations, both past and present – the renowned Forbidden City, that housed the Chinese emperors of old, is situated in Beijing. Beijing’s economy is valued at an absolutely astounding 366.11 billion Yuan (approximately $59.88 billion USD). It is by a large margin one of the global economy’s most important hubs, and one of the most prosperous and developed cities in China.’

Stunning photographs of Shanghai 

 

At number 1, is Shanghai – the counter point to Beijing in the north – located in the southeast.

‘Although it might be tempting to assume Beijing is the Chinese economy’s most important city, since it also doubles as the national capital, that would be a mistake. The specter of Shanghai looms large not only over all of China, but also over the entire world.Shanghai proper has a population of 24,000,000 [people] (which doesn’t account for those living just outside the city) making it the most populous city in the entire world. It’s also the world’s busiest port city, and boasts an urban economy valued at an absolutely astounding 410.95 billion Yuan (approximately $67.16 billion USD). 

Shanghai has emerged in post-reform China as the nation’s economic leader, and its policies and practices have served as an example for China’s other rising cities since the influx of foreign investment into China began. Where Shanghai goes, the Chinese economy will follow.’

Recall Tubal in its broadest sense means the whole flow and currencies of the world-economy. ‘To flow or carry along’, ‘to bring, lead, conduct.’ A breakdown of China’s richest cities, two in the southwest, six in the southeast, two in the northwest. Or, eight in the south, two in the north. Those cities located on the east coast of China, [see map] are in keeping with Tubal’s location, name and wealth. China has the world’s biggest population, a staggering 1,446,069,655 people. Magog certainly blankets like a ‘covering’ as the rooftop of the world.

Mandarin is spoken in northern and southwestern China and has by far the most speakers. This language group includes the Beijing dialect which forms the basis for Standard Chinese called Putonghua or Guoyu and often translated as Mandarin or simply Chinese. Wu varieties are spoken in Shanghai, most of Zhejiang and the southern parts of Jiangsu and Anhui. This group comprises hundreds of distinct spoken forms, many of which are not mutually intelligible. The Suzhou dialect is usually taken as representative as Shanghainese features several atypical innovations.

The three richest and prominent cities, representing the three lineages of origin of modern China

Jerry Norman classified ‘the traditional seven dialect groups of China into three larger groups: Northern (Mandarin), Central (Wu, Gan, and Xiang) and Southern (Hakka, Yue, and Min). He argued that the Southern Group is derived from a standard used in the Yangtze valley during the Han dynasty (206 BC – 220 AD), which he called Old Southern Chinese, while the Central group was transitional between the Northern and Southern groups.Some dialect boundaries, such as between Wu and Min, are particularly abrupt, while others, such as between Mandarin and Xiang or between Min and Hakka, are much less clearly defined.’ We will continue to investigate this three-part distinction – as highlighted in the major language groups – as it is a tip of an iceberg in regard to the Chinese composition of China.

There are a number of peoples within China’s borders including the Han, Manchu, Mongol and Tibetan peoples. Tibetan populations are most genetically similar to other modern East Asian peoples. A 2016 study claimed that the Tibetan gene pool diverged from that of the Han Chinese around 15,000 years ago; attributed to a post-LGM [Last Glacial Maximum – the Flood] dispersal. Analysis of around two hundred contemporary populations showed that Tibetans shared ancestry with 82% from East Asia, 11% from Central Asia and also Siberia, 6 % from South Asia, and 1% with western Eurasia and also Oceania. These results support the premise that Tibetans arose from a mixture of multiple ancestral gene pools and that their origins are more complicated and ancient than previously suspected. The date of divergence between Tibetans and the Sherpas [of Nepal] has been estimated to have taken place about 11,000 to 7,000 years ago [between the Flood and the time of Peleg].

After modern Oceanic populations, Tibetan populations show the highest rate of allele sharing with primitive hominins [extinct humans not belonging to Homo sapiens] at over 6%. Remarkably, modern Tibetans show genetic affinities to three ancient peoples: Denisovans, Neanderthals and… an unidentified archaic population.^ In comparison to modern Han populations, modern Tibetans show greater genetic affinity to Denisovans; however, both the Han and Tibetans have similar ratios of genetic affinity to general Neanderthal populations. 

Tibetans have been identified as the modern population that has the most alleles in common with Ust’-Ishim man. Ust’-Ishim man is the term given to the remains of an early modern [Cro-Magnon (Homo sapiens)] human inhabiting western Siberia. The fossil of a male left femur – discovered in 2008 – was a very important discovery, as it had intact DNA. This allowed the complete sequencing of its genome; the oldest modern human genome to be decoded. Dated as forty-five thousand years old, though about half this age is more likely to be accurate. 

Coupled with this discovery was the finding of a fossil jaw in the Himalayan highlands of Tibet, belonging to none other than the vanished human species, Denisovan. From the scientists perspective, this discovery deepened the mystery of human ‘evolution’ in Asia. A local Buddhist monk found the fossil, which shows these ancient human relatives lived on the roof of the world in the rarefied air of almost 11,000 feet. 

This is an altitude that would leave most people starved for oxygen today. This notable contribution of the Denisovan genome, is an allele of a gene involved in adaptation for low oxygen. This allows today’s Tibetans and the Sherpa people to live at high altitude more comfortably than other people. When this was discovered, it was perplexing to scientists because they have inaccurately placed modern humans reaching the region at ‘forty thousand years ago at the earliest’ and yet the same allele is found in modern populations living in much lower altitudes. For instance, Denisova Cave the discovery site, is seven hundred metres above sea level. 

Scientists now entertain that Neanderthals may have lived past forty thousand years ago and are relying on new fossil evidence to resolve the question. Kirk Lohmueller, a University of California geneticist, admitted: ‘That’s a paradox the field needs to address.’ One answer could be that Neanderthals did not die out that long ago, but rather when the great flood occurred. This would place their demise about thirteen thousand years ago and would assist in understanding the amount of Neanderthal DNA that Europeans and especially Asians carry, if it was a far more recent development in our genetic material. In fact, some scientists after a detailed analysis of the DNA of people living in Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, now think our species may have been interbreeding with Denisovans as recently as, fifteen thousand years ago.

Scientists shared interesting evidence in an article, Neanderthal Introgression at Chromosome 3p21.31 Was Under Positive Natural Selection in East Asians, multiple authors, 2014, of ‘accumulation of a Neanderthal DNA region found on chromosome 3 that contains 18 genes, with several [alleles] related to UV-light adaptation, [in] the Hyal2 gene. 

A map showing the global distribution of the introgressive Haplotypes from archaic hominins 

Their results reveal this region was positively selected and enriched in East Asians, ranging from up to [49.4] percent in Japanese to [66.5] percent in Southern [Han] Chinese… [as well as quite high percentages in Native Americans – see map]… the Neanderthal genomic region suggests that UV-light mutations were shown to be lost during the exodus of modern humans from Africa, and reintroduced to Eurasians from Neanderthals.’ 

We touched on the sun light conditions, the UV-light adaptation and the formation of Vitamin D, as well as the atmospheric conditions in the antediluvian epoch, on Noah. We have an extra link between the pre-flood world and the Neanderthal that existed then, though didn’t after the flood. Some researchers believe the Neanderthal and the Nephilim^ are one and the same. This would indicate they are not. The requirement for the Neanderthal to have this genetic adaptation, means that the lines of Japheth and Shem, with their generally fairer skins, both received the adaptation. 

The darker skinned peoples descending from Seth and later Ham are now linked more strongly, as the line of Seth that Noah descended did not inter-marry with the people of Day Six or Cain. Thus, Noah was pure in his genetic composition as discussed in chapter one. Though Cain’s line did mix and may explain some of the Japheth-like names of his family. Plus, we now have the strong likelihood that at least one, maybe two people in Noah’s family had Neanderthal DNA, to then pass on to Shem and Japheth’s children. We also have further support confirming the scientific data from haplogroups, that darker skinned people originated first and lighter skinned people have subsequently descended [mutated] from them.

Though I lean against the ‘out of Africa’ hypothesis and lean towards the out of Ark scenario, they align in two important points, with science actually affirming the Biblical, Sumerian and many other ancient written accounts. First, both show that there was an original environment and then a secondary one afterwards. Secondly, there were a reduced number of ethnicities in this first environment and an increased number in the second. An African continent and post-Africa diversifying and movement of the new European and Asian peoples. An antediluvian world and post-diluvian world with the development of more variety in the ethnic races going from either two or three, to sixteen. 

The Neanderthal were a separate line of human – prior to Homo sapiens – that existed before the flood. Their larger head and increased brain capacity reveals they were  highly intelligent and certainly not ape-like as has been falsely promulgated. It is believed that the Denisovans and Neanderthals split, with the former migrating to Asia and the latter to Europe. In realty, the split is primarily genetic and secondarily geographic. The detailed aspects of the Neanderthal question, parallel humans and the Nephilim^ prior to the flood will be addressed in a separate chapter, though for now, it is relevant to briefly discuss the relevance of Japheth possessing Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA. 

Both Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA is genetically closer than either is to Homo sapiens sapiens – modern man. About two per cent of the genome [ranges from 0-5%] of a typical European contains genetic material almost identical to Neanderthal DNA; though people in China, Japan and other East Asian countries carry 20 per cent [generally ranges from 15-30%] more Neanderthal DNA. This remains an inexplicable puzzle to scientists. 

Kirk Lohmueller and graduate student Bernard Kim constructed a computer model of Europeans and Asians, simulating reproduction over time, adding Neanderthal DNA and observing the emerging genetic differences. The modelling highlighted that the only scenario that could explain why modern Asians have more Neanderthal DNA, was that they had a second encounter with Neanderthals at a later date – another ‘pulse’ of their genes into the Asian pool. Of course, this two pulse hypothesis explanation runs into the same ‘forty thousand years ago’ difficulty, as the Neanderthal would have disappeared well before the European and Asian populations genetically diverged. ‘How could there have been Neanderthals left to interbreed with Asians a second time?’ Mainstream science remains adamant that Neanderthal man became extinct forty thousand years ago, contrary to growing evidence. 

So scientists are still left scratching their heads how Asians received their additional Neanderthal DNA. Weak explanations offered to this quandary are that either ‘European ancestors bred with another yet-to-be discovered species of ancient human that watered down their Neanderthal DNA. Or perhaps Asians also mixed with another group of humans – now extinct – that had interbred with Neanderthals and carried much of their DNA.’ 

Regardless of time frames, the idea of additional inter-breeding between Neanderthal and East Asians, does not account for the fact that they did, and Europeans did not. In a separate section, the Genesis account will be dissected for any answers to this question. What we will find, is that their were people that came into existence before Cro-Magnon [Homo sapiens] man. These people were the Neanderthal, the people of Day Six. The high level of their DNA [with Denisovan] within Oriental Asian people can be answered if it was already included in Japheth’s line. How and when this happened could be answered a number of ways. Input on the technicalities of this process would be welcomed, as white Europeans have much less Neanderthal DNA [and no Denisovan DNA] and black people have neither DNA material. 

A perusal of the East Asians does highlight a few salient points. They standout from the rest of the world in physiognomy and yet with Japheth’s seven sons, there is far less DNA variation amongst them, than we will find exhibited in the four sons of Ham and the five sons of Shem’s descendants. For instance, the Oriental Asians mainly have straight hair, a smaller stature and are by various degrees rather inscrutable. Their languages are pictorial and hieroglyphic, more reminiscent of Ancient Egypt and a distinct alien influence. 

Why do so many Asians wear eye glasses? Myopia or nearsightedness afflicts some twelve percent of Americans and twenty-three percent of Australians. It is rather different in East Asia, where it has been recorded as high as 90%, starting in singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan and spreading to the big cities of China. High myopia affects two percent of Americans, but upwards of sixteen percent in East Asians.

Looking at the haplogroup family trees, it is apparent that with mtDNA, passed from mothers to their sons and daughters, the main East Asian haplogroups [alphabetically] of B, D and M plus the American Indian haplogroups of A, B C and D are more closely linked to the key Ham haplogroups of L and M, as opposed to the main haplogroups of Shem, H, T and U. Whereas the Y-DNA haplogroups passed from fathers only to their sons, show that the main East Asian haplogroups of C, K and O plus the American Indian haplogroups of C and Q are more closely linked to the key Shem haplogroups of I, R1a and R1b, as opposed to the main haplogroups of Ham, A, B, E, H and J. 

Thus Japheth and Ham are closer genetically on the maternal side, whereas Japheth is a little split on the paternal side, though leaning more towards Shem. This is enlightening considering the high levels of Neanderthal DNA in the Oriental Asian, yet with Ham’s closer link to Japheth maternally, the black African people possess 0% Neanderthal DNA, while Shem’s closer link to Japheth paternally, has the white European possessing Neanderthal DNA, albeit in smaller percentages.

The distribution of Haplogroup D-M174, is found among nearly all the populations of Central Asia and Northeast Asia south of the Russian border, although at a low frequency of 2% or less. A significant spike in the frequency of D-M174 occurs towards the Tibetan Plateau. D-M174 is also found at high frequencies among Japanese people as discussed, but it fades into low frequencies in Korea and China – between the vast expanse of land separating Japan and Tibet.

A study carried out in 2018 calculated ‘pairwise FST (a measure of genetic difference) based on genome-wide SNPs, among the Han Chinese (Northern Han from Beijing and Southern Han from Hunan and Fujian provinces), Japanese and Korean populations. It found that the smallest FST value was between North Han Chinese (CHB) and South Han Chinese (CHS) (FST[CHB-CHS] = 0.0014), while CHB and Korean (KOR) (FST[CHB-KOR] = 0.0026) and between KOR and Japanese (JPT) (FST[JPT-KOR] = 0.0033). Generally, pairwise FST between Han Chinese, Japanese and Korean (0.0026~ 0.0090) are greater than that within Han Chinese (0.0014). These results suggested Han Chinese, Japanese and Korean are different in terms of genetic make-up, and the difference among the three groups are much larger than that between northern and southern Han Chinese.’

A genetic study on the remains of people [circa 4000 BCE] ‘from the Mogou site in the Gansu-Qinghai (or Ganqing) region of China revealed more information on the genetic contributions of [the] ancient Di-Quiang people to the ancestors of the Northern Han. It was deduced that 3300–3800 years ago some Mogou [Magog] people had merged into the ancestral Han population, resulting in the Mogou people being similar to some northern Han in sharing up to ~33% paternal [O2a1] and ~70% maternal (D, A, F, M10) haplogroups. The mixture rate was possibly 13-18%.’

The contribution of northern Han to southern Han is substantial in both paternal and maternal lineages and a geographic cline exists for mtDNA. As a result, the northern Han [Magog] are the primary contributors to the gene pool of the southern Han [Tubal and Meshech]. The expansion process was dominated by males, as there is evidence of a greater contribution to the Y-chromosome [paternal] than the mtDNA [female] from northern Han to southern Han. 

These genetic observations are in line with historical records of continually large migratory waves of northern Chinese inhabitants escaping warfare and famine, to southern China. Other smaller southward migrations also occurred during the past two millennia.A study by the Chinese Academy of Sciences into the gene frequency data of Han subpopulations and ethnic minorities in China, showed that Han subpopulations in different regions are also genetically quite close to the local ethnic minorities, meaning that blood of ethnic minorities had mixed into Han, while at the same time, the blood of Han had mixed into the local populations. The most extensive genome-wide association study of the Han population, showed that geographic, genetic stratification from north to south has occurred and centrally placed populations acted as the conduit for outlying ones.Ultimately, with the exception in some ethnolinguistic branches of the Han Chinese, such as Pinghua, ‘there is “coherent genetic structure” (homogeneity) in all Han Chinese.’

Y-chromosome haplogroup O2-M122 [O2a1] is a common DNA marker in Han Chinese, as it appeared in China in prehistoric times. ‘It is found in more than 50% of Chinese males, and ranging up to over 80% in certain regional subgroups of the Han ethnicity. The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of Han Chinese increases in diversity* as one looks from northern to southern China, which suggests that male migrants from northern China married with women from local peoples after arriving in southern China.’ Tests comparing the genetic profiles of northern Han, southern Han and southern natives determined that haplogroups O-M176 [O1b2], O-M88 [O2] and O-M7 [O2a2], which are prevalent in southern natives, were only observed in some southern Han [4% on average], but not in the northern Han. This proves that the male contribution of southern natives on southern Han was limited. 

There are consistent strong genetic similarities in the Y chromosome haplogroup distribution between the southern and northern Chinese population. Analysis indicates almost all Han populations form a tight cluster in their Y chromosome. However, other research has also shown that the paternal lineages Y-DNA O-M119 [O1a], O-P201,O-P203and O-M95are found in both southern Han Chinese and South Chinese minorities, but more commonly in the latter. In fact, these paternal markers are in turn less frequent in northern Han Chinese.

The Han Chinese which form some 90% of China’s population are closely related, though there are variations in the haplogroups to suggest the Han can be split into northern and southern. The southern Han have more variation than the northern Han and indicate a further division again.*

The Mongols are an ethnic group in northern China [Inner Mongolia], Mongolia, parts of Siberia and Western Asia.

The Later Jin dynasty [1616-1636 CE] and subsequent Qing dynasty [1636-1912 CE] were established and ruled by Manchus, descended from the Jurchen people who earlier established the first Jin dynasty [1115-1234 CE] in China. Manchus form the largest branch of the Tungusic peoples and are distributed throughout China, forming the fourth largest ethnic group [2nd Zhuang 17 million, 3rd Hui 10 million].They can be found in thirty-one Chinese provincial regions. They also form the largest minority group in China without an autonomous region.

While the Manchu ruling elite at the Qing imperial court in Beijing and in posts of authority throughout China increasingly adopted Han culture, the Qing imperial government viewed the Manchu communities [as well as those of various tribal people] in Manchuria as a place where traditional Manchu virtues could be preserved and as a vital reservoir of military manpower fully dedicated to the regime. The Qing emperors endeavoured to protect the traditional way of life of the Manchus in central and northern Manchuria. In particular, they restricted the migration of Han settlers to the region. This had to be balanced with practical needs, such as maintaining the defence of northern China against the Russians and the Mongols, supplying government farms with a skilled work force, and conducting trade in the region’s products, though still resulting in a continuous trickle of Han convicts, workers, and merchants to the northeast. There is debate* over whether the Qing equated the lands of the Qing state, [including present-day Manchuria, Xinjiang, Mongolia, Tibet and other areas], with ‘China.’ Most Manchu people now live in Mainland China with a population of 10,410,585 people; approximately nine percent of the ethnic minorities and 0.8% of China’s total population.

‘China’s North’ and ‘China’s South’ are two mega-regions within China. The self-perception of the Chinese nation has been dominated by this concept of two Chinas; as regional differences in culture and language have historically under-pinned distinct regional identities. Used as the geographical dividing line between northern and southern China is the Qinling-Huaihe Line – the Qin Mountains and the Huai River. The Northeast and Inner Mongolia are considered belonging to northern China according to this definition. At certain times in history, Tibet [and other areas] were not considered* as being part of either the north or south, though internal migration has led to previously marginalised areas being seen as the part of the north. The perception of a northern and southern China originates from differences in climate, geography, culture and physical traits; as well as historical periods of political division. 

Northern and north-eastern China is considered too cold and dry for rice cultivation [rice is grown there today, using modern technology] and consists largely of flat plains, grasslands or desert, Southern China is contrastingly, warm and rainy enough for rice and consists of ‘lush mountains cut by river valleys’. These differences have influenced warfare during the pre-modern era; for instance, cavalry could easily dominate the northern plains, though encountering difficulties against river navies used by the south. There are also major differences in cuisine, culture and popular entertainment. The Northern and Southern Dynasties showed such a high level of polarisation between North and South that sometimes northerners and southerners referred to each other as barbarians.

For a large part of Chinese history, northern China was economically more advanced. The Jurchen [Manchu] and Mongol invasion caused migration to southern China, so that the Emperor shifted the Song dynasty capital city from Kaifeng in northern China to Hangzhou, located south of the Yangtze river. The population of Shanghai increased from 12,000 households to over 250,000 inhabitants after Kaifeng was sacked by invading armies. This began a shift of political, economic and cultural power from northern China to southern China. The east coast of southern China has continued as a leading economic and cultural centre for China until the present day.

In 1730 the Kangxi Emperor made the observation in the Tingxun Geyan: “The people of the North are strong; they must not copy the fancy diets of the Southerners, who are physically frail, live in a different environment, and have different stomachs and bowels.” Lu Xun a major Chinese writer, wrote: ‘According to my observation, Northerners are sincere and honest; Southerners are skilled and quick-minded. These are their respective virtues. Yet sincerity and honesty lead to stupidity, whereas skillfulness and quick-mindedness lead to duplicity.’

During the Deng Xiaoping reforms of the 1980s, South China developed more quickly than North China, leading scholars to wonder whether the economic fault line would create political tension between the north and south. This was based on the idea that there would be conflict between the bureaucratic north and the commercial south. This never eventuated ‘because the economic fault lines eventually created divisions between coastal China [Tubal] and the interior [Meshech], as well as between urban and rural China, which run in different directions from the north-south divide, and in part, because neither north or south has any type of obvious advantage within the Chinese central government.’

The concepts of North and South continue to play an important role in regional stereotypes.

‘Northerners are seen as:

  • Taller: according to the 2014 census, the average male height between the age of 20-24 was 173.4 cm in Beijing, 174.9 cm in Jilin province and 177.1 cm in Dalian.
  • Speaking Mandarin Chinese with a northern (rhotic) accent.
  • More likely to eat noodles, dumplings and wheat-based foods (rather than rice-based foods).

Southerners are seen as:

  • Shorter: according to the 2014 census, the average male height between the age of 20–24 was 173.3 cm in Shanghai, 171.6 cm in Zhejiang provinceand 171.9 cm in Fujian province.
  • Speaking Mandarin Chinese with a southern (non-rhotic) accent or speaking any southern Chinese language, such as those under Yue (e.g. Cantonese), Min (e.g. Hokkien), Wu (e.g. Shanghainese), Hakka, Xiang or Gan.
  • More likely to eat rice-based foods (rather than wheat-based foods) and seafood.’

Following: two vital papers regarding Chinese origins. They are lengthy and a little technical for those so inclined. For those not so much inclined, I have highlighted  the key findings. We will then put what we have read so far together, to clarify the puzzle of China’s inhabitants.

Ancient DNA Reveals That the Genetic Structure of the Northern Han Chinese Was Shaped Prior to 3,000 Years Ago, multiple authors, 2015 – emphasis & bold mine:

The Han Chinese are the largest ethnic group in the world, and their origins, development, and expansion are complex. Many genetic studies have shown that Han Chinese can be divided into two distinct groups: northern Han Chinese and southern Han Chinese. The genetic history of the southern Han Chinese has been well studied. However, the genetic history of the northern Han Chinese is still obscure. In order to gain insight into the genetic history of the northern Han Chinese, 89 human remains were sampled from the Hengbei site… We used 64 authentic mtDNA data obtained in this study, 27 Y chromosome SNP data profiles from previously studied Hengbei samples, and genetic datasets of the current Chinese populations and two ancient northern Chinese populations to analyze the relationship between the ancient people of Hengbei and present-day northern Han Chinese. We used a wide range of population genetic analyses, including principal component analyses, shared mtDNA haplotype analyses, and geographic mapping of maternal genetic distances. The results show that the ancient people of Hengbei bore a strong genetic resemblance to present-day northern Han Chinese and were genetically distinct from other present-day Chinese populations and two ancient populations. These findings suggest that the genetic structure of northern Han Chinese was already shaped 3,000 years ago…

The consensus is that the Han Chinese migrated south and contributed greatly to the paternal gene pool of the SH, whereas the Han Chinese and ancient southern ethnic groups both contributed almost equally to the SH maternal gene pool. However, the genetic history of the NH is still obscure. Currently, NH populations inhabit much of northern China, including the Central Plain and many outer regions that were inhabited by ancient northern ethnic groups. The Han Chinese or their ancestors who migrated northward from the Central Plain might have mixed with ancient northern ethnic groups or culturally assimilated the native population. This scenario would indicate that the Han Chinese living in different areas should have genetic profiles that differ from each other. 

However, genetic analyses have shown that there are no significant differences among the northern Han Chinese populations, which has led to conflicting arguments on whether the genetic structure of the NH is the result of an earlier ethnogenesis or, instead, results from a combination of population admixture and continuous migration of the Han Chinese. 

Until now, only a few genetic studies have investigated the ancient Han Chinese or their ancestors. These studies have been restricted by small sample sizes, high levels of kinship among samples, and short fragments of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and thus provide limited insights into the genetic history of the Han Chinese… a large number of graves were excavated at a necropolis called Hengbei located in the southern part of Shanxi Province, China, on the Central Plain, that dates back to approximately 3,000 years ago (Zhou dynasty), a key transitional period for the rise of the Han Chinese. In a previous study investigating when haplogroup Q1a1 entered the genetic pool of the Han Chinese, we analyzed Y chromosome single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from human remains excavated from the Hengbei (HB) site and identified haplogroups for 27 samples. In the present study, we attempted to extract DNA from 89 human remains. Using a combination of Y chromosome SNPs and mtDNA genetic data, we uncover aspects of the genetic structure of the ancient people from the Central Plain region and begin to determine the genetic legacy of the northern Han Chinese in both the maternal and paternal lineages.

According to a previous study, the haplogroups of the Han Chinese can be classified into the northern East Asian-dominating haplogroups, including A, C, D, G, M8, M9, and Z, and the southern East Asian-dominating haplogroups, including B, F, M7, N, and R. These haplogroups account for 52.7% and 33.85% of those in the Northern Han, respectively. Among these haplogroups, D, B, F, and A were predominant in the NH, with frequencies of 25.77%, 11.54%, 11.54%, and 8.08%, respectively. However, in the SH, the northern and southern East Asian-dominating haplogroups accounted for 35.62% and 51.91%, respectively. The frequencies of haplogroups D, B, F, and A reached 15.68%, 20.85%, 16.29%, and 5.63%, respectively. Notably, in the HB samples, haplogroups D, B, F, and A were also predominant and showed frequencies of 23.44%, 12.5%, 10.93%, and 10.93%, respectively. In addition, the frequency of haplogroup M was high and reached 17.19%. Other haplogroups such as C, G, M7, M8, M9, Z, N9a and R had lower frequencies at 3.13%, 1.56%, 1.56%, 3.13%, 7.81%, 3.13%, 3.13% and 1.56%, respectively. The northern and southern East Asian-dominating haplogroups account for 50.04% and 26.56%, respectively, which is similar to the values in the NH.

To further identify the genetic affinities among the HB, two ancient populations and the present-day Chinese population, represented by 9 NH, 9 Northern Minorities, 14 SH and 57 Southern Minority groups, the mtDNA haplogroup distributions were compared using a PCA. The PCA plot of the first and second components (31.81% of the total variance), shows that the current populations largely segregate into three main clusters: Northern Han (in orange), Southern Han (in blue), and Southern Minorities (in gray), and Northern Minorities (in green). The distribution of populations in the PCA plot was in line with their geographic distribution, and these populations were separated by the first principal component. The populations living in northern China (NH and NM) are located on the right side of the PCA, and they contain the northern East Asian-dominating haplogroups A, C, D, G, M8, M9, and Z. 

In contrast, the populations living in southern China (SH and SM) are located on the left side of the PCA, and they contain the southern East Asian-dominating haplogroups B, F, M7, and R. Moreover, the NH can be separated from other populations except for two SH (Hubei and Shanghai), using the second principal component. The HB population (PC1 value: 0.071; PC2 value: 1.453) groups closely with the NH (PC1 value: 0.239±0.269; PC2 value: 1.590±0.336). Overall, these results indicate that the HB [Hengbei] population shares a similar genetic profile with the Northern Han that is distinct from the Northen Minorities and ancient northern ethnic groups.’ 

The Han Chinese originated from the Central Plain region, which is substantially smaller than the region the Han Chinese now occupy. According to historical documents, the Han Chinese suffered many conflicts with natives prior to expansion into their lands. The Han migrated northward into regions inhabited by many ancient northern ethnic groups. Based on the advanced agriculture, technology, and culture, the Han Chinese or their ancestors often had a greater demographic advantage over ancient northern ethnic groups. Thus, the Han Chinese or their ancestors might have played a predominant role in the genetic mixture of populations. This scenario would mean that the genetic structure of the NH was shaped a long time ago. In our study, the HB population showed great genetic affinities with the NH when maternal lineages were tested. First, the HB contained a distribution and component of mtDNA similar to that of the NH and clustered closely together with the NH in the PCA plot. Second, the HB shared more haplotypes with the NH than with other populations in the haplotype-sharing analysis. Third, the FST value from comparisons between the HB and NH populations was lowest and negative. Generally, FST value should theoretically range between 0 and 1. However, if the estimate of within diversity is larger than the estimate obtained of variance among groups, negative FST values should be obtained, and they are represented as equal to zero. It indicated that HB bore a very high similarity to NH populations. Considering the location and culture of the HB, we suggest that the NH might have provided a significant contribution to the HB and find that the maternal genetic profiles of the NH [Magog] were shaped 3,000 years ago.

These conclusions are further supported by the relationship between the HB and NM, XN, and XB. In our study, the PCA plot is consistent with the SH not only mixing with the SM but also with the NH, which is consistent with a previous genetic study that concluded that the SH was formed from almost equal contributions of southward migrating Han Chinese and southern natives. However, the NH and NM group into two separate clusters, which is not consistent with their current geographic distributions because these two populations often live together in the northern region of China. Moreover, XN, XB1 and XB2 pool into the NM and are far away from HB and NH. A haplotype-sharing analysis of the three ancient populations and each present-day Han Chinese population shows that the fraction of haplotypes from HB is significantly higher than that from XN, XB1 and XB2 (all of the p values of HB/XN, HB/XB1 and XB2 are less than 0.01, two-tailed t-test. In the FST comparisons, the FST values of the XN/HB, XB/HB, XB/NH, XN/NH, and NM/NH are significantly higher, and all of the p values are less than 0.05, indicating that the XN and XB were distinct from the NH and HB. This finding indicates that the ancient populations of the XN and XB had a limited maternal genetic impact on present-day Han Chinese.

Y chromosome SNP analysis was consistent with the conclusions drawn from studying the maternal lineages. In the paternal lineage, HB contained the haplogroups or sub-haplogroups N, [O1a, O1b, O2a] and Q1a1. The total frequencies of these haplogroups reached high levels (66%–100%) in current Han Chinese. Haplogroup Q1a1, which was predominant in HB, is highly specific to the Han Chinese. Haplogroup [O2a1], the second highest frequency (33.34%) in HB, occupies the highest frequencies in almost all current Han Chinese populations (32.5%-76.92%). Moreover, in the PCA plot, HB groups closely with the Han Chinese. 

These results indicate that the 3,000-year-old ancient people from the Central Plain region share similar paternal genetic profiles with the current Han Chinese. In contrast, XN yielded three haplogroups (N3, Q, and C) but no haplogroup O. The frequency of O in NM is significantly lower than the frequency of O in NH, but the frequency of haplogroup N shows the inverse trend. Moreover, NM has a relatively high frequency of haplogroup R, but NH does not.’ 

Y Chromosomes of 40% Chinese Descend from Three Neolithic Super-Grandfathers, multiple authors, 2014 – emphasis & bold mine:

‘To achieve sufficiently high coverage in the non-recombining regions of Y chromosome (NRY) and an adequate representation of individual samples, we selected 110 males, encompassing the haplogroups O, C, D, N, and Q which are common in East Eurasians, as well as haplogroups J, G, and R which are common in West Eurasians and sequenced their non-repetitive segments of NRY using a pooling-and-capturing strategy.

Results… Overall ∼4,500 base substitutions were identified in all the samples from the whole Y chromosome, in which >4,300 SNPs that has not been publicly named before 2012 (ISOGG etc.). 

We designated each of these SNP a name beginning with ‘F’ (for Fudan University). We obtained ∼3.90 Mbp of sequences with appropriate quality (at least 1× coverage on >100 out of 110 samples, and identified ∼3,600 SNPs in this region. A maximum parsimony phylogenetic tree of the 78 individuals with good coverage was reconstructed, the topology of which is congruent with the existing tree of human Y chromosome. The tree contained samples from haplogroups C, D, G, J, N, O, Q, and R, and thus represented all the three super-haplogroups out of Africa – C, DE and F. In addition to the known lineages, many new downstream lineages were revealed. 

All the earlier divergences were found to be bifurcations, except for three star-like structures, i.e. multiple lineages branching off from a single node, were observed under Haplogroup [O2a-M324+], indicating strong expansion events. The most surprising discovery in the tree is the three star-like expansions in Haplogroup [O2a-M324+], i.e. under the M117 clade, the M134xM117 paragroup, and the 002611 clade. Here we denote the three star-like expansions as Oα, Oβ, and Oγ, respectively. 

Since the sample selection for high-throughput sequencing was intended for representing a wide variety of clades in East Asian populations, a star-like expansion indicates successful expansion of male lineages within a very short period (<500 years). These three clades are present with high frequency across many extant East Asian populations and encompass more than 40% of the present Han Chinese in total (estimated 16% for Oα, 11% for Oβ, and 14% for Oγ). 

It is conspicuous that roughly 300 million extant males are the patrilineal progenies of only three males in the late Neolithic Age. The expansion dates are estimated 5.4 kya for Oα, 6.5 for Oβ, and 6.8 for Oγ [post Tower of Babel dispersal 6755 BCE]… We therefore propose that in the late Neolithic Age, the three rapidly expanding clans established the founding patrilineal spectrum of the predecessors in East Asia. 

Since all the sequenced Han Chinese M117+ samples are under the Oα expansion, and M117+ subclade exists in moderate to very high frequency in many Tibeto-Burman ethnic groups, it would be of interest to know when the M117+ individuals in other ethnic groups diverged with the ones in Han Chinese, and whether they are also under the Oα expansion, in order to trace the origin and early history of Sino-Tibetan language family.

Although most of the sequences in this study were obtained from individuals in China, the haplogroup representation (C, D, G, J, N, O, Q, and R) already enabled us to calculate the times of most of the major divergence events outside of Africa, like G/IJK, NO/P etc., since the times were achieved using the hypothesis of molecular clock, and the results of divergence time between haplogroups would not be affected by from whichever continent or country the individuals were sampled. One good sequence from each of two haplogroups is enough for calculating their divergence time, and more sequences could only help to enhance the precision but would not greatly change the result.’

Additional Supporting Paper

‘It remained mysterious that how many times the anatomically modern human migrated out of Africa, since that among the three super-haplogroups C, DE and F, Haplogroup F distributes in whole Eurasia, C in Asia and Austronesia, D exclusively in Asia, while D’s brother clade E distribute mainly in Africa, so there are two hypotheses, 

1) haplogroups D and CF migrated out of Africa separately; 

2) the single common ancestor of CF and DE migrated out of Africa followed by a back-migration of E to Africa. From this study, the short interval between CF/DE and C/F divergences weakens the possibility of multiple independent migrations (CF, D, and DE) out of Africa, and thus supports the latter hypothesis.’

We will return to Haplogroup E and the continent of Africa.

Haplogroup D is comprised of subclade D1-M15 and D3-P99, both in continental East Asian, especially frequent in Tibet, subclade D2-M55, nearly exclusively in Japan, and paragroup D, which was discovered mainly in Tibet as well as on the Andaman Islands. In this study, only D1 and D3 samples were sequenced. Except for the sample YCH177 (Zhuang ethnicity), all the tested D1 samples (Han and Yi ethnicities) are derivative at SNP N1.

Together with Haplogroup D, C is also considered as one of the harbingers in East Eurasia and Australia. Soon after its divergence with F, Haplogroup C moved eastwards along the coast of Indian Ocean, reached India and China, and might be associated with the earliest known modern human inhabitants in Australia… In China, the vast majority of Haplogroup C belongs to [C2]-M217, which constitutes ~10% of Han Chinese, as well as great part of Altaic-speaking populations, e.g. Mongol, Manchu, and Kazakh. Here we identified two clades of [C2] which split at 25.9 kya: a northern clade (C3-n) with SNP F1396, including a Mongol and a Manchu sample, and a southern clade (C3-s) with SNP F1144, including all sequenced Han Chinese [C2] samples. The STRs of YCH168 (Mongol ethnicity) is close to the ‘star-cluster’, which is abundant in the steppe ethnicities, indicating that a substantial part of Altaic-speaking population belongs to C3-n. The southern clade expands rather late (only about 6.5 kya, i.e. in the Neolithic Age), including most former [C2] individuals in Han Chinese. Interestingly, the subclade C3d-M407, which is common in Sojot (Turkic) and Buryat (Mongolic), originated only after this expansion of C3-s. The C3-s clade showed a similar expansion time comparing to the three star-like expansions under [O2], and probably will also be found a multifurcation, if more samples will be sequenced.’

The southern clade expanded later than the north^ because it contained Tubal and Meshech who share similar haplogroup sequences not just with each other but also with the northern clade of Magog. The reason why these three brothers have become one is due to their strong similarity genetically, in temperament and in personalty.

‘The Superclade F did not undergo major split since 54.0 kya, until the divergence of Haplogroup G and IJK at 35.8 kya, which was followed by the emergence of all major haplogroups (IJ, and K, and its subclades NO, P, and LT) during the following 3,000 years. Haplogroup NO… split into N and O at 30.0 kya. Haplogroup P diverged into Q and R at ~24.1 kya, slightly before the LGM [this time frame includes the birth of Japheth and Shem].’

Both Japheth and Shem carry Y-DNA Haplogroups Q and R; though Q is more associated with Japheth’s descendants and R with Shem. Specifically, R1a and R1b for Shem, though Japheth lines in Central and East Asia can include R1a.

‘Most Q individuals in Han Chinese belong to the Q1a1-M120 clade, while R’s in Han Chinese are mostly R1a1-M17. The separation events of R1 and R2, and R1a and R1b are estimated here at 19.9 and 14.8 kya, respectively. This study leads to a discovery of 265 new SNPs under Haplogroup N-M231, adding significantly to the only 11 currently known SNPs. 

Haplogroup N is frequently found in Tibeto-Burman, Austroasiatic, Altaic, Uralic, Slavic, and Baltic peoples. Haplogroup N went through a bottleneck lasting for 14 thousand years (30 – 15.8 kya).

Haplogroup O, which covered 1/4 of all males on the world today, began frequent splitting into subclades before the LGM [last glacial maximum]. The ancestor of O-M175 suffered an intermediate bottleneck event at 30 – 25 kya, and expanded rapidly at 24.7 – 21.5 kya [birth of Japheth], indicating a southern distribution during the LGM. We found that Haplogroups O1 and O2 share 6 SNPs (e.g. F75), forming a monophyletic lineage before joined with [O2]-M122… O1a1-P203 is the major clade of Haplogroup O1 in China, especially frequent (>20%) in the eastern provinces like Zhejiang and Jiangsu, corresponding to the Neolithic expansion of the ancient Yue (ancestral group of present Tai-Kadai and southern Han Chinese). Since Tai-Kadai O1 samples were not included in this study, their divergence time with the East China Yue population is not yet clear.

Among the three main branches of Haplogroup O, O2 clade expanded the earliest, fitting the current distribution which is more at the south.^ All the sequenced O2-M268 samples other than [O1b2]-M176 form a monophyletic clade, labeled by F1462, and the SNP PK4 lies inside this clade. Further genotyping of the newly discovered SNPs under F1462 clade will unveil the origin and migration routes and time of the Austro-Asiatic and Tai-Kadai peoples in South China, Southeast Asia and India. Haplogroup [O2] covers more than half of all the Han Chinese population.’

Khazaria – emphasis & bold mine: 

Ancient DNA evidence supports the contribution of Di-Qiang people to the Han Chinese gene pool, multiple authors, 2010: 

“Han Chinese is the largest ethnic group in the world. During its development, it gradually integrated with many neighboring populations. To uncover the origin of the Han Chinese, ancient DNA analysis was performed on the remains of 46 humans (1700 to 1900 years ago) excavated from the Taojiazhai site in Qinghai province, northwest of China, where the Di-Qiang populations had previously lived. In this study, eight mtDNA haplogroups (A, B, D, F, M*, M10, N9a, and Z) and one Y-chromosome haplogroup [O2] were identified. All analyses show that the Taojiazhai population presents close genetic affinity to Tibeto-Burman populations (descendants of Di-Qiang populations) and Han Chinese, suggesting that the Di-Qiang populations may have contributed to the [Northern] Han Chinese [Magog] genetic pool.”

‘The Y-DNA haplogroup O2-M122 is very common in the Han Chinese population and had a presence in prehistoric China, as did Q1a1a1-M120, which is also found among Mongols. Other branches of Q1a are found among Central Asians, Siberians, Amerindians, and Northern Europeans.

Most Han Chinese lineages are of East Eurasian origin, and in autosomal tests most Chinese people score entirely within the East Asian and Southeast Asian categories. However, some male lineages originating from Central-South Eurasia or West Eurasia have been detected in some groups of northern Han, including:

R1a1, which is particularly common in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and South Asia; 

R2a, which is especially found among South Asians and also found among some Central Asians; 

G2a, which is fairly common in Southern Europe, Asia Minor, and the Caucasus; 

J1, which is especially common in the Middle East among Arabs and among Jews of Israelite origin; 

J2a, which is prevalent among Middle Easterners, Italians, southern Spaniards, Pakistanis, and northwestern Indians.’

‘The Han originated in China’s Central Plain (Zhōngyuán) region and were descendants of the Hua and Xia tribes that farmed the lands near the Yellow (Huáng Hé) River. Beginning during the early period of unified China’s rule by kings from the Shang dynasty, beginning around 1600 B.C.E., the Hua and Xia combined to form the Huaxia ethnicity, but they later rebranded themselves the Han after the name of the ruling Han imperial dynasty (260 B.C.E. to 220 C.E.).

The Han people did not originally live as far south as Guangdong or as far southwest as Sichuan, nor in the far northern areas of today’s China. What happened was that in later times, many Han men [Magog] moved southward and northward into lands of other cultures and intermarried with their women, including those from the so-called Yue peoples of the south [Tubal] and the Dian peoples of the southwest [Meshech], and China politically grew to encompass those new lands. The Han culture became dominant in southern China after this expansion and the descendants of Han-Yue intermarriages came to regard themselves as Han. Although the Han are a coherent ethnicity on the paternal side, carrying a core group of Y-chromosomal haplogroups across the geographic span of the ethnicity, there are some genetic differences between the Northern Han and Southern Han that persist to the present day, because Southern Han are somewhat shifted towards southeastern Asians and carry some different mtDNA haplogroups. 

Nevertheless, Razib Khan pointed out that the Southern Han Chinese “are not closer to Southeast Asians than they are to North Chinese (the furthest southern dialect groups, such as those of Guangdong, are about equidistant to Vietnamese).”’

“On the maternal side, however, the mtDNA haplogroup distribution showed substantial differentiation between northern Hans and southern Hans. The overall frequencies of the northern East Asian-dominating haplogroups (A, C, D, G, M8a, Y and Z) are much higher in northern Hans (55%, 49-64%) than are those in southern Hans (36%, 19-52%). In contrast, the frequency of the haplogroups that are dominant lineages (B, F, R9a, R9b and N9a) in southern natives is much higher in southern [Hans] (55%, 36-72%) than it is in northern Hans (33%, 18-42%).”

“… Our results highlight a distinct difference between spatial genetic structures of maternal and paternal lineages. A substantial genetic differentiation between northern and southern populations is the characteristic of maternal structure, with a significant uninterrupted genetic boundary extending approximately along the Huai River and Qin Mountains north to Yangtze River. On the paternal side, however, no obvious genetic differentiation between northern and southern populations is revealed.”

…Fisher’s exact test revealed that [mt-DNA] haplogroups M7, D4, R9, A, and B4… displayed the most significant differences in distribution between northern and southern China… Haplogroups D4 and A contributed most to the north cluster, whereas M7, F1, and B4 to the south cluster […]”

“… Using only 6 populations (two Han Chinese populations, Japanese, Korean and two Mongolian populations) to reconstruct an individual tree, we found the phylogeny of the populations became clearer. Japanese individuals have their own cluster and Korean individuals are almost distinct from Han Chinese. North and South Han Chinese mixed together, but still have some substructure…” 

A Comprehensive Map of Genetic Variation in the World’s Largest Ethnic Group-Han Chinese, multiple authors, 2018:
     

‘A comprehensive autosomal DNA study of the genomes of 11,670 Han women from 19 of China’s provinces plus one autonomous region and all four direct-controlled municipalities. Excerpts from the Abstract: “… We identified previously unrecognized population structure along the East-West axis* of China, demonstrated a general pattern of isolation-by-distance among Han Chinese, and reported unique regional signals of admixture, such as European influences among the Northwestern provinces of China…”’

Case for Two Divisions: It is clear that China has a north-south divide ethnically and culturally, combined with an east-west divide economically. The concentration of prosperity can be located in the east and south [the coasts of Tubal] and the governance [Magog] of the nation in the north. The Han element to the south has more genetic variations, coupled with a greater variety of minorities [Meshech-Tubal]. The north is less diverse, with less minorities that have merged more fully; including the minorities to the far west and far north. This split concept would be indicative of a northern Magog and a southern Meshech-Tubal divide. 

Case for Three Divisions: We have seen the scientific data to support three paternal parentages of the Chinese people, as well as for three main language groups. Anciently, there were three dominant kingdoms: Wei, Shu* and Wu. Wei representing Magog, Shu, Meshech and Wu, Tubal.

Case for Four Divisions: Even though Gog appears strongly to be an individual, it is plausible to consider Gog as a fourth component in China. Geographically, it would sit with Magog in the north. The Manchus would be a good fit for Gog, as they have had prominence as the ruling element of China historically – or it could mean the greater geopolitic region of the Beijing/Tianjin area.

An informative table and map, found online; with much gratitude extended to its author, as they have marked the four territories as I would position them. 

ProvincePopulation (2010)Density (/km2)Area (km2)
NORTHEAST (GREEN) GOG


Jiangsu Province78,659,903767102,600
Hebei Province71,854,202383187,700
Beijing Municipality19,612,3681,16716,800
Tianjin Municipality12,938,2241,14411,305
Shandong Province95,793,065623153,800
Liaoning Province43,746,323300145,900
NORTHEAST TOTAL322,604,085522618,105




SOUTH (YELLOW) TUBAL


Shanghai Municipality23,019,1483,6306,341
Zhejiang Province54,426,891534102,000
Anhui Province59,500,510426139,700
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region7,061,2006,3961,104
Guangdong Province104,303,132579180,000
Jiangxi Province44,567,475267167,000
Fujian Province36,894,216304121,300
Hainan Province8,671,51825534,000
SOUTH TOTAL338,444,090451751,445




WEST (RED) MAGOG


Shaanxi Province37,327,378182205,600
Sichuan Province80,418,200166485,000
Yunnan Province45,966,239117394,000
Jilin Province27,462,297147187,400
Shanxi Province35,712,111228156,300
West subtotal226,886,2251591,428,300
Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region6,301,3509566,400
Heilongjiang Province38,312,22484454,000
Gansu Province25,575,25456454,300
Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region24,706,321211,183,000
Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region21,813,334131,660,400
Qinghai Province5,626,7228721,200
Tibet Autonomous Region3,002,16621,228,400
Rural West subtotal125,337,371225,767,700
WEST TOTAL352,223,596497,196,000




MIDLANDS (BLUE) MESHECH


Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region46,026,629195236,000
Henan Province94,023,567563167,000
Hunan Province65,683,722313210,000
Guizhou Province34,746,468197176,000
Hubei Province57,237,740308185,900
Chongqing Municipality28,846,17035182,300
MIDLANDS TOTAL326,564,2963091,057,200




CHINA TOTAL1,339,836,0671449,622,750

Green and Red equate to Magog, with green specifically Gog. Blue to Meshech and yellow with Tubal. The four quarters containing extremely similar numbers of population, though greater Magog [Gog and Magog] represents half the Chinese population and the dominant tri-partner… as stated in the book of Revelation, their number is like the the sand of the sea. When Gog is addressed separately from Magog, this makes sense whether it is their leader or if Northeast China – the leadership in Beijing, the capital – is being specifically spoken to. 

Ezekiel 38 could read: ‘The Lord’s message came to me: “Son of man, turn toward, Beijing of the land of Manchuria [Northern China]… the leader of Southern China [Meshech-Tubal]…’ 

Alternatively, ‘… turn toward Gog of Northern China… also, the ruling leader of all the rest of China…’

When comparing Y-DNA Haplogroups from China with Tibet, Bhutan [to the east of Tibet and also south of China] Taiwan and Mongolia, we find Tibet and Bhutan have Haplogroup sequencing in common, rather than with China. Mongolia has more haplogroups in common with the Central Asian Republics; though Inner Mongolia within China has less of haplogroup C and a higher percentage of O2 [like China] than Mongolia. Only Taiwan of the four, is similar with China. Not the Aboriginal Taiwanese whom we have discussed in the chapter on Javan, but rather the people known as Han Chinese, though this is a mis-leading appellation. 

Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact, The Taiwanese are not Han Chinese, Lin Kenryo:

‘Many people think the Taiwanese belong to the same ethnic group as the mainland Chinese… that 2% of the Taiwanese population are aborigines, 13% are natives of the mainland who fled to Taiwan with Chiang Kai-Shek in 1949 (and their descendants), and the remaining 85% are natives of the mainland who arrived in Taiwan prior to World War II. Therefore, they reach the conclusion that 98% of Taiwanese are Han Chinese. Dr. Lin Mali, professor of hematology at Mackay Memorial Hospital in Taipei, conducted a hematological survey. By analyzing human lymphocytes, she discovered that the genetic makeup of Taiwanese is completely different from that of Han Chinese. The Taiwanese are not Han Chinese.’

The Taiwanese share a similar level of Y-DNA haplogroup O2a1 with the Southern Han Chinese, though they differ enough in O1a and O1b2, to reveal that they are a unique line of descent within the Meschech-Tubal gene pool.

China:        O2 – O1b – O1a – N – C – K – D – Q

Taiwan:      O2 – O1a – O1b – C – Q – D

Tibet:          D – O2 – N – Q – C – R1a

Bhutan:      DE – O2 – R1a1 – N1 – R2a – K

Mongolia:            C – O2 – N – Q – O1b – D – K – R1a – O1a

Inner Mongolia: C – O2 – N – K – O1b2

China:     O2a1 [56%] – O1b2 [16%] – O1a [13%] – C2 [8%] – N [4%] – D1 [1%] – K [1%] – 

Q1a1 [0.6%] 

Taiwan:   O2a1 [58%] – O1a [22%] – O1b2 [9%] – C [6%] – Q [1%] – D1 [0.3%] 

Tibet:          D1 [52%] – O2a1 [34%] – N1c1 [5%] – Q [3%] – C [2.6%] – R1a1 [2%] 

Mongolia:  C2a [53%] – O2a1 [12%] – N1c [11%] – Q [4%] – O1b2 [1.5%] – D1a [1.5%] – 

K [1.5%] – R1a1 [1%] – O1a [0.2%] 

Inner Mongolia:    C2a [46%] – O2a1 [29%] – N1c [13%] –  K [4%] – O1b2 [2%] 

A comparison of the main haplogroups within China of the Manchu, Northern Han [Magog] and the Southern Han shows the difference with the Northern Han as the Southern Han comprise the two elements of Tubal and Meshech. Taiwan may well show the truer haplogroup sequencing for Tubal. The population of Taiwan is 23,869,343 people.

Manchu:  O2 – O1b – C – N – O1a – D – K – Q

N Han:     O2 – C – O1b – O1a – P – D – N – Q

S Han:      O2 – O1a – O1b – C – N – P – D – Q

Taiwan:    O2 – O1a – O1b – C – Q – D

Manchu:  O2a1 [48%] – O1b2 [22%] – C [20%] – N1 [4%] – O1a [ 3%] – D1 [1%] – K [1%] – 

Q [0.5%] 

N Han:     O2a1 [53%] – C [11%] – O1b2 [10%] – O1a [9%] – P [4%] – D1 [3%] – N1 [2%] – 

Q[2%] 

S Han:     O2a1 [57%] – O1a [15%] – O1b2 [13%] – C [6%] – N1 [3.5%] – P [1%] – D1 [0.5%] 

– Q [0.5%] 

Taiwan:  O2a1 [58%] – O1a [22%] – O1b2 [9%] – C [6%] – Q [1%] – D1 [0.3%] 

A table showing the marked difference between the Northern and Southern Han, but also the strong similarity between the Southern Han and the Taiwanese. Haplogroup C, shows the ancient link between Taiwan and the Manchus of the Qing Dynasty period.

                                C       D1       K     N     O1a    O1b      O2     P        Q                  

Manchus:             20         1       1      4         3       22      48                  1

Northern Han:     11         3              2         9       10      53       4         2

Southern Han:      6          1              4        15       13     57       1         1

Taiwan:                6      0.5                        22        9       58                  1

China, when compared to Korea and Japan, is closer with Korea’s haplogroup sequence, though still distant. In fact, the comparison highlights the marked difference between the three nations. 

Showing that though related as sons of Japheth: (Magog, Tubal, Meshech) with Gomer [Togarmah] and Javan [Tarshish], they are different peoples, not from a similar genealogy just because they dwell in juxtaposition in the northeast of Asia. 

China:     O2 – O1b – O1a – N – C – K – D – Q

Korea:     O2 – O1b – C – K – N – O1a – D1b – Q 

Japan:     D – O1b – O2 – C – K – N – O1a – Q 

China:  O2a1 [56%] – O1b2 [16%] – O1a [13%] – C [8%] – N [4%] – K [1%]

Korea:  O2a1 [42%] – O1b2 [ 33%] – C [13%] – K – [4%] – N [4%] – O1a [3%] 

The main Y-DNA haplogroups of a selection of the major nations descended from Japheth, in order: Tarshish, Kitti, Magog-Tubal-Meshech, Togarmah, Ashkenaz, Dodan and Minni. Tarshish, Kitti and Dodan are sons of Javan; Togarmah and Ashkenaz, sons of Gomer.

Japan:            D1b – O1b2 – O2a1 – C – K – N1a – O1a – D1a – Q – F

Indonesia:     O1b2 – O2a1 – O1a – K – C – F 

China:             O2a1 – O1b2 – O1a – N – C – K – D1 – Q

Korea:             O2a1 – O1b2 – C – N – O1a – D1b – Q 

Vietnam:        O2a1 – O1b2 – Q1a – O1a – C – D1 – N 

Philippines:   O2a1 – O1a – K – C – O1b 

Thailand:       O2a1 – O1a – C – D1 – K 

Japan and Thailand bookend the seven nations, with the widest divergence between them. Japan and Indonesia have O1b as their main haplogroup, the other five, O2a. China sits between them with Korea and Vietnam. The Philippines and Thailand though having O2a as their first haplogroup, O1b does not figure prominently as it does for the other five nations. 

A similar set of nations, [Malaysia (Elishah) substituted for Indonesia with a similar sequence and Taiwan for Thailand] and the three principle Y-DNA haplogroups for East and Southeast Asians, O, C and K. 

Japan:           O1b  [33%]     O2a1   [19%]     O1a   [2%]      K  [2%]      C  [11%]

Malaysia:      O1b  [32%]     O2a1  [28%]     O1a   [8%]      K  [8%]      C   [6%] 

Vietnam:       O1b  [33%]     O2a1  [40%]     O1a   [6%]                          C  [4%] 

Korea:            O1b  [33%]     O2a1  [42%]     O1a   [3%]      K  [4%]      C [13%]

China:            O1b  [12%]     O2a1   [56%]    O1a  [13%]      K  [1%]      C   [8%] 

Taiwan:         O1b    [9%]     O2a1  [58%]     O1a    [2%]                       C   [6%] 

Philippines:  O1b    [3%]      O2a1  [39%]     O1a [28%]     K [20%]     C   [5%] 

The comparison table of the key Y-DNA Haplogroups, O1a, O1b, O2a1, C1a1/C2a, K and D1b – not including D1a, N and Q – shows the unsurprising similarity between Taiwan and the combined north and south Han Chinese percentages; the remarkable similarity between Korea and Vietnam [refer Chapter V Gomer and Chapter VI Togarmah] and the strong resemblance between Japan and Malaysia, excepting Haplgroup D1 [refer Chapter VII Javan and Chapter IX Tarshish], and the strange anomaly that Tibet and Japan share with their high levels of D1.

                           O1a      O1b      O2a1       C        K        D1

Vietnam             6          33          40         4                     3

Korea                  3          33          42       13         4          3

Malaysia            8          32           28        6         8

Japan                 2           33           19       11         2       39

Tibet                                               34        3                   52

Sumatra           18           14          30        5         4          2

Java                  23          42           23        2         2

Philippines      28            3           39        5      20

Taiwan             22             9          58        6                  0.5        

Han Chinese    13           12          56        8                     1

Japheth’s seven sons, or the seven out of sixteen grandsons of Noah are concluded. We may return to some in part as we progress, particularly Madai. Historically, we have been taught incorrectly, that Madai and Magog are mainly attributable European identities, Meshech and Tubal are Russia, Gomer the Germans or Celts and Javan is the Latin peoples of Europe; when really, all these people are actually descended from Shem. The sons of Japheth were predicted to live in the far north and in the far off coastlands and isles. A neon-flashing arrow pointing towards east Asia and the Pacific in one direction and the Americas in the opposite direction. 

The children of Japheth were prophesied to eventually dwell in the lands of Shem and today we are witnessing a wide dispersal of Chinese, Filipinos, Thais and Vietnamese into European nations as well as the new world nations of the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

At a stretch, the word Japheth has the connotation for fair and so identity seekers head off in a tangent of assuming Japheth must be the progenitor of the European peoples. Many East Asians do have fair skin, even a milky white skin, particularly those living in northeast Asia.

It is perplexing, why there has been such a comprehensive inaccuracy in the identities assigned to Japheth’s sons. Some of those interested in the subject, reject out of hand the simplistic view that Japheth, Ham and Shem could actually be the forefathers of the oriental, equatorial and western peoples respectively. This would be too easy and logical an answer. It would also give the scriptures validity, when really they are just fanciful fables, right? 

Regrettably, the complete confusion and lack of coherence on the subject doesn’t overly improve with the sons of Ham with which we shall now turn our attention. I sincerely hope the constant reader has had reward from the journey thus far. The path of discovery will continue to catechise and challenge, though I trust we can continue travelling onwards as co-seekers of knowledge with open hearts and minds.

Spend time with the wise and you will become wise…

Proverbs 13:20 New Century Version

“The thing you resist is the thing you need to hear the most.”

Dr Robert Anthony

© Orion Gold 2020-2021 – All rights reserved. Permission to copy, use or distribute, if acknowledgement of the original authorship is attributed to orion-gold.com

Javan & Archipelago South East Asia

Chapter VII

Javan is the fourth son of Japheth and his sons are the second and last, recorded grandsons of Japheth in the Bible.

Genesis 10:4-5

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition

4 And the sons of Javan: Elisa and Tharsis, Cetthim and Dodanim. 5 By these were divided the islands [isles]in their lands… and their families in their nations.

Living Bible

The sons of Javan: Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, Dodanim. Their descendants became the maritime nations in various lands, each with a separate language.

1 Chronicles 1:7

English Standard Version

The sons of Javan: Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Rodanim.

The sons of Javan are associated with Islands – and the sea. Dodan is called Rodan in 1 Chronicles. Recall, a similar situation with Gomer’s son Riphath [and Diphath] – regarding the reverse transliteration of the first letters R and D. Either, another scribal error has occurred, with a different reference to the same Dodanim who once lived on the Greek Island of Rhodes… or there is an additional son of Javan, [or even a grandson, via Javan’s son Dodan].

I paused, wondering which word to use to describe the situation and checked transcription, which had come to mind, though I did not know what it meant. I then found the following definition, much to my surprise.

‘Transcription is the first of several steps of DNA based gene expression in which a particular segment of DNA is copied into RNA (especially mRNA) by the enzyme RNA polymerase. A molecule that allows the genetic material to be realized as a protein was first hypothesized by Francois Jacob and Jacques Monod. Severo Ochoa won a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1959 for developing a process for synthesizing RNA in vitro with polynucleotide phosphorylase, which was useful for cracking the genetic code.’

I was struck by the coincidence of the letters D and R for DNA and RNA, with the first letters for Dodan and Rodan. [I found this coincidence interesting, but had no reason to pursue the mRNA aspect in 2020, when I began writing this series of articles. It did attract my attention though, when I first heard the term: Covid 19 mRNA vaccine. Please see related article on website, Covid 19 Injection.]

The Book of Jubilees provides the location of Javan some time after the flood when Japheth’s children lived in southern Central Asia, Asia Minor and Southeastern Europe.

Book of Jubilees 9:10-11

And for Javan came forth the fourth portion every island and the islands which are towards the border of Lud.

This is a reference to when Javan lived throughout the Greek Islands and Lud [son of Shem] was located in the west of Asia Minor.

Book of Jasher 7:6 and 10:13

And the sons of Javan were Elisha, Tarshish, Chittim and Dudonim… And the children of Javan are the Javanim who dwell in the land of Makdonia [Macedonia].

We will study Javan, his eldest son Elishah and his youngest son Dodan. Javan’s other two sons, the Kittim [Kitti] and Tarshish, we will discuss separately.

Israel A History Of – emphasis theirs: 

‘The name Javan is the original form of the name Ionia. Ionia is synonymous with Greece. The same Hebrew word is translated “Javan” in some passages, and “Greece” in others. It is recognized and agreed upon by scholars that of the sons of Noah, Japheth, and his son Javan, were the initiators of the Greeks. Hellas, as in Hellespont and Hellenists, is a form of the name Elishah [Javan’s firstborn son], and came to be applied to Greece as a whole. The Tell el Amarna and Ugaritic documents, dating from the 1400’s to the 1300’s B.C., make mention of the Alasians. It appears that the Alasians were from Cyprus, yet another Greek connection to the sons of Noah and their descendants. [Dodan] are apparently the same as the Rodanim, mentioned in I Chronicles 1:7. The influence of Dodanim can be seen in the geographical names of Dardanelles, and Rhodes.’

Ancient Civilisation: 

‘The name of the next grandson, Javan, is the Hebrew word for Greece. Greece, Grecia, or Grecians appears five times in the Old Testament, and is always the Hebrew word Javan. Daniel refers to ‘the king of Grecia’ (Daniel 8:21), literally ‘the king of Javan’. Javan’s sons were Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim (Genesis 10:4), all of whom have connections with the Greek people. The Elysians (an ancient Greek people) obviously received their name from Elishah. Tarshish or Tarsus was located in the region of Cilicia (modern Turkey). Encyclopaedia Britannica says that Kittim is the biblical name for Cyprus… Dodonaeus, possibly a reference to the fourth son of Javan… His oracle was at Dodena.’ 

At the time of Daniel [circa 500’s BCE], the Greeks mentioned are the forerunners of the Greco-Macedonian Empire that would supplant the Medo-Persian Empire. These Greeks are a very different proposition to the original founders of the Greek isles and coasts after the Flood. The sons of Javan dispersed from the Middle East at the time of Peleg and the Tower of Babel circa 6755 BCE and into the Aegean. The later inhabitants of Greece, long after Javan’s descendants had begun their eastward arc towards the Far East [and after the Minoans and Mycenaeans had arrived beginning circa 3500 BCE], began populating Greece from circa 1700 BCE. Please refer to point number two in the introduction.

A H Sayce, page 46-47: 

‘Cyprus was called the island of the lonians by the Assyrians… Tarshish is usually identified with Tartessos in Spain, not far from the modern Gibraltar. It was the furthest point reached in the western basin of the Mediterranean by the Phoenician and Greek traders. The ships which made the voyage were consequently known as the ships which traded to Tarshish, or more briefly, ships of Tarshish. The phrase gradually came to be applied to any kind of merchant vessel, even to those which had never visited Tarshish at all. Kittim was Kition in Cyprus… It was, however, a Phoenician and not a Greek settlement… Dodanim, on the other hand, may represent a Greek colony…. Rodanim is an alternative reading of Dodanim… In this case, it will denote the natives of the island of Rhodes.’

The sons of Javan as the original ‘Greeks’ founded civilisations on the islands of Cyprus, Crete, Rhodes, Sicily, Malta and beyond all the way to Spain – its islands and coastal regions. Much later, the Phoenicians [a maritime people descended from Shem] occupied the Island of Cyprus and many of the other isles located in the Mediterranean Sea.

Dr Hoeh adds the following – emphasis mine:

‘… where are the Greeks, South Italians, Spaniards and Portuguese mentioned in prophecy? Turn to Genesis 10:2, 4. Here is the answer. You find Javan, a son of Japheth, listed. Javan had four sons… In I Chronicles 1:7 the last name is spelled Rodanim. The Bible itself proves how often names were changing in ancient times.

Where are the sons of Javan today? The Bible makes the answer very plain. No need to look for any evidence outside of the Bible this time. Look in either STRONG’s or YOUNG’s CONCORDANCE. There you will find that in the Old Testament, wherever the words “Greece” or “Grecia” are used in English, the word “Javan” is used in Hebrew! Javan is the father of the Greeks, and of the other Latins. His son Elishah spread into “Hellas” —the Greek Isles in the Aegaean Sea and to Cyprus, anciently called “Alisha”. His son Dodanim or Rodanim spread through the Dodecanes, and the Isle of Rhodes and parts of the French Mediterranean coast along the Rhone.’

It is a common assumption interpreting Javan as the Latins of Italy and the Iberian peninsula – due to the apparent Greek-Greece connection. Remembering points one and two in the introduction, the original sons of Javan [from Japheth] travelled throughout the Mediterranean leaving their presence behind them through names of cities. 

Peoples descended from Shem, followed and settled. They may have assumed the original names, for instance ‘Greece’, though todays Greeks are not the sons of Javan, nor are they the remnants of the mighty Greco-Macedonian Empire, as we shall learn. As the constant reader will already know or is beginning to see, it is inaccurate to assume otherwise, merely based on place names.

Javan in Hebrew means: ‘Mire’ from the noun yawen and translated as Ionia, Grecia  or Greece. It has a similar meaning to the root word H3196 effervescing, as in hot and active [like the amazing four hundred Volcanoes in Indonesia, of which one hundred and thirty are active]. In Persian it means ‘young.’ 

Abarim Publications:

‘The name Javan comes from yawen… which is wet [swampy, boggy ground] or soft mud and represents the transitional state between water… and dry land… water (seas and rivers) denote liquidity, growth and potential… in the Bible the great cultures are always associated with their respective great rivers. For a meaning of the name Javan, Jones’ Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names reads Supple, Clay. NOBSE Study Bible Name List simply reads Greece.’

An appropriate name when considering Javan’s relationship with water and where his sons are dwelling today. The descendants of Javan are located [adjacent to their cousins from Gomer] in the principal archipelago nations of South East Asia – Malaysia [Singapore], the Philippines, the Pacific Islands… and Indonesia, to be discussed in the next chapter. 

Elishah in Hebrew means: ‘God supports’, ‘God is my salvation’, also ‘to set upright, to stand.’ Abarim Publications adds that the verb, Sasha means ‘to be unrestricted’ and thus to be free, to be saved from oppression and ultimate demise. The adjective Shoa means: ‘(financially) independent’ or ‘freed in an economic sense’. This definition is indicative of modern Malaysia.

Ezekiel 27:7

New English Translation

Fine linen from Egypt, woven with patterns, was used for your sail to serve as your banner;

blue and purple from the coastlands of Elishah were used for your deck’s awning.

Footnote: This is probably a reference to Cyprus.

The word translated as coastlands is H339 ‘iy meaning: coast, island, shore, region and a desirable, habitable spot. Translated in the KJV as mainly isles [30] or islands [5]. Many translations translate Elishah as Cyprus, which can also mean Kitti the third son of Javan. This is a fascinating connection as Elishah and Kitti both lived on Cyprus, before it became associated mainly with the Kittim. Kitti does work as an identity, for the simple reason they too are a maritime nation sharing territory with Elishah today. Anciently, Elishah lived on islands as well as the Grecian mainland. 

Today, Malaysia is the only nation from Javan that is not entirely comprised of islands. It is divided as West Malaysia on the peninsula and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo [the world’s third largest island]. Malaysia has a long history of maritime activities, whether it be trade through shipping and its practical location for ports or its many shipyards.

Located In the Malay Peninsula, the first inhabitants were Negritos. Traders and settlers from India and China arrived as early as the first century CE and established ports and coastal towns in the second and third centuries. Between the seventh and thirteenth centuries, most of the southern Malay Peninsula was part of the maritime Srivijayan Empire. In the early fifteenth century, Parameswara, a runaway king of the former Kingdom of Singapura [linked to the old Srivijayan court], founded the Malacca Sultanate. Malacca was an important commercial centre attracting trade from all around the region.

Malacca was conquered by Portugal in 1511, after which it was controlled by the Dutch  from 1641. In 1786, the British Empire established a presence in Malaya, when the Sultan of Kedah leased Penang Island to the British East India Company. The British later acquired the town of Singapore in 1819and in 1824 took control of Malacca following the Anglo-Dutch Treaty. By 1826 the British controlled Penang, Malacca and Singapore. Under British rule, the immigration of Chinese and Indians to serve as labourers was encouraged. 

Peninsular Malaysia was unified as the Malayan Union in 1946 and restructured as the Federation of Malaya in 1948, achieving independence in 1957. Malaya united with North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore in 1963 to become Malaysia, though in 1965, Singapore was expelled from the federation. Half the population of Malaysia is ethnically Malay with the additional minorities including Chinese, Indians and indigenous peoples. The population of Malaysia is 32,855,036 people. The Malays account for 13% of the total population in Singapore of 5,903,392 people.

The mtDNA Haplogroup E [2% in the Malay Archipelago] is found throughout Maritime Southeast Asia. It has been detected in populations of the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia [including Sabah of Borneo] as well as Taiwan. It is nearly absent from mainland East Asia, where its sister group M9a [a sub-clade of E also found in Japan] is common. The references to Japan and Taiwan, we will study further. Even though Taiwan is predominantly Han Chinese, there is a residue of haplogroup E because the Malayo-Polynesian [Austronesian] peoples originally entered Taiwan from the Chinese mainland. 

The main mtDNA haplogroups for Malayans include Ma [39%], B5 [11%] and F1a [17%], compared with Thailand that we looked at earlier, of B5a [9.4%], F1a1a [8.9%] and M [8.9%]. Though these are shared Southeast Asian mtDNA haplogroups and Thailand and Malaysia are neighbours, the dividing line between Gomer and Javan is evident in the significant difference in percentage [excepting F1a]. Other key haplogroups for the Malays include: M21a [6%], B4 [8%], N9a [3%] and R [8%].

Dodan in Hebrew means: ‘Leaders’ from the verb dada, ‘to move or lead slowly’

Abarim Publications:

‘In the parallel text of 1 Chronicles 1:7, the Dodanim are called Rodanim. Some scholars believe that the Chronicler made an error and read a Hebrew (resh) for the somewhat similar (daleth — which would be comparable to a professional writer today speaking of Oatar instead of Qatar; rather unlikely), and threw an additional waw) in for good measure. Another possibility is that the Dodanim of old were known as Rodanim in the Chronicler’s days. It’s even possible that by speaking of Rodanim, the Chronicler indicates that his text is not a copy of but rather a commentary on the established text…

The name Dodanim appears to be a plural form of a name similar to Dedan, and is closely similar to the name [Dedan]. The Dedanim, however, are either descendants of Japheth’s brother Ham (Genesis 10:7) or else Jokshan, a son of Abraham and a distant descendant of Japheth’s other brother Shem (Genesis 25:3).’

Two Dedans are mentioned in the Bible: one a grandson of Cush, son of Ham and the other a grandson of Abraham, descended from Shem. Two different Dedans, though commentators have invariably tried to equate them as one and the same person. Dodan’s name is very similar, though he is a separate person, resulting in a total of three people – two Dedans and one Dodan.

‘It’s not immediately clear where the name Dodanim may have come from, but to a Hebrew audience it would have looked related to the following root group: The root (yadad ) has to do with love… in the affectionate, physical sense. Adjective (yadid) means beloved or lovely… an identical verb (yadad II) means to cast a lot… originally meant to cast but which evolved to praise… our root has to do with physical fondling… [and]… to move slowly.’ 

The Filipinos represent the descendants of Dodan today. The writing of Dodan in the plural as Dodanim in the Bible may be linked to the diversity of the Filipino people over such a large volume of island territory. The same maybe true of the Rodanim and Kittim.

The Republic of the Philippines incredibly consists of approximately 7,641 islands that are categorized under three main geographical divisions from north to south: Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. The capital city is Manilla and the most populous city is Quezon City, both within the single urban area of Metro Manilla. The Philippines has a population of 111,265,058 people. It is the 13th most populated country in the world. Multiple ethnicities and cultures are found throughout the islands, with Negritos, some of the archipelago’s earliest inhabitants and they were followed by successive waves of Austronesian peoples [Malayo-Polynesian].

In 1521, Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan arrived and claimed the islands for Spain. In 1543, Spanish explorer Ruy Lopez de Villalobos named the archipelago Las Islas Filipinas in honor of Philip II of Spain. Colonisation began when Spanish explorer Miguel Lopez de Legazpi arrived from Mexico in 1565.In 1571, Spanish Manilla became the capital of the Spanish East Indies which encompassed Spanish territories in Asia and the Pacific.The Spanish considered their war with the Muslims in Southeast Asia an extension of the Reconquista. From 1565 to 1821 the Philippines was governed as part of the Mexico based Viceroyalty of new Spain. Later it was administered from Madrid following the Mexican War of Independence. Manilla was the western hub of the trans-Pacific trade and Catholicism became the dominant religion. 

In 1896 the Philippine Revolution began, which then became entwined with the 1898 Spanish-American War. Spain ceded the territory to the United States and Filipino rebels declared the First Philippine Republic. The ensuing Philippine-American War ended with the United States establishing control over the territory, maintained until the Japanese invasion of the islands during World War II. The Philippines gained independence in 1946.

Oxford Business Group – emphasis & bold mine: 

‘Over the last 50 years, the Philippines has grown to become a leading provider of maritime professionals and is subsequently considered by many to be the seafaring capital of the world.  At present there are over 10.5m Filipinos living and working abroad, and in 2013 they sent total remittances of around $23 [billion] back home to the Philippines. The maritime industry is a major contributor to this: nearly 400,000 Filipino seafarers were working overseas in 2013, contributing a total of more than $5.2 [billion] in remittances. “Seafaring is the Philippines’ biggest strength, currently supplying roughly 30% of the world’s seafarers, which is miles away from the second-largest source country.”’ 

Pommie Travels, Victoria Brewood – emphasis mine:

‘Asia is the last place you’d expect to find an English-speaking nation. A lengthy occupation by the United States introduced Filipinos to English. Today, most Filipinos [5th biggest English speaking nation in the world] speak the world’s most-spoken language… Filipino culture – it stands out noticeably from the rest of Asia. Thanks to 500 years of Spanish and American colonization, you could be forgiven for thinking you’ve arrived in Latin America rather than Asia.’

Philippine Mitochondrial DNA Diversity: A Populated Viaduct between Taiwan and Indonesia? Multiple Authors, 2010 – emphasis & bold mine:

Comparison of the mtDNA haplogroup frequency distributions in the three major island groups of the Philippines showed similar haplogroup profiles. Southeast Asian populations cluster closely together in an MDS plot including groups from Near Oceania and Polynesia. However, an MDS plot of Asians and Southeast Asians reveals genetic differentiation between these groups.’ 

‘Plot of first two dimensions produced by MDS analysis of mtDNA haplogroup frequencies in selected East, Southeast Asian, Near Oceanic, and Polynesian populations, including Borneo (BOR), Hakka (HAK), Hlai (HLA), Java (JAV), Maluku (MAL), Nusa Tenggara—Austronesian (NTA), Northern Han (NOH), Philippines (PHL), Southern Han (SOH), Sulawesi (SLW), Sumatra (SUM), Taiwanese Aborigines (TAB), Thailand (THL) and Vietnam (VTN). (A) Including Nusa Tenggara—Non-Austronesian (NTN), Polynesian (POL), and West Papuan (WEP); Borneo and Sumatra overlap. (B) East Asian and Southeast Asian groups only.’

The Philippines, Taiwanese Aborigines, and Sulawesi cannot be clearly separated in the first dimension of the MDS plot; these groups can only be distinguished in the second dimension. However, the MDS plot does enable us to differentiate between the latter populations and other Island Southeast Asians (Maluku, Java, Borneo, Sumatra, and Austronesian-speaking groups in the Nusa Tenggaras). Han Chinese populations from Taiwan (Hakka) and southern China group closely together, whereas mainland Southeast Asian populations from Vietnam and Thailand are interspersed with other East Asian groups. Genetic distances between these populations are most closely correlated with the distributions of haplogroups B5b, M7b3, and M7c3c (r ≥ 0.25); less so with other frequent haplogroups such as E1a1a and B4a1a. Lineages that comprise a significant proportion (≥5%) of the Philippine population and are generally shared with both Island and/or Mainland Southeast Asians include B4b1, B4c1b, B5b, E, and R9c. Among these mtDNA lineages, haplogroup E is unusual in that it is virtually absent in mainland Asia .’

Frequencies of major mtDNA haplogroups in East Asian, Southeast Asian, Papuan, and Polynesian groups.

‘Haplogroup B4a1a is highly diverse in Taiwan, but the subclade (B4a1a1) characterized by a mutation at np 14,022 is absent there. The identification of haplogroup B4a1a1 in the Philippines may indicate a stage of development of the Polynesian Motif along the north to south pathway proposed in the general Out of Taiwan model for the Austronesian population expansion. This apparently completes a series of genetic links from Taiwan (where the B4a1a motif may have originated), through the Philippines (where the np 14,022 mutation might have evolved) and finally to Indonesia (where the full Polynesian Motif first occurs). However, the observation of a B4a1a1 sample in the Philippine population is not necessarily incompatible with models that argue for an extended development period for the Polynesian Motif in ISEA, if the proposed area of development of the motif is expanded to include the Philippines. Another alternative explanation is that the B4a1a1 lineages might have been brought to the Philippines by a back migration from Indonesia.’

The cluster of island Southeast Asia and Polynesia mtDNA [maternal] haplogroups confirms the genetic link between Polynesia with the rest of southeast of Asia. The article also supports that migration from Taiwan to Indonesia and Polynesia went via the Philippine Islands. The most common Filipino haplogroups include: B4a1a [11%], B5b [8%], D6 [1%], E1a1a [11%], F1a4 [4%], R9c [5%], M7c3c [11%]  and Y2 [5%].

Other mtDNA haplogroups that the Filipinos possess in common with Taiwan include: M7b3 [3%], E1a1a, B4a1a, B4b1 [8%], M7c3c, and B4c1b [5%].

The most common mtDNA haplogroups for Filipinos and Malays compared to Thais and the Vietnamese.

Vietnamese:  M7  [10]%   B5   [7%]    F1    [19%] 

Thais:             M     [9%]    B5a [9%]    F1a  [9%]

Malays:          Ma   [39%]  B5   [11%]   F1a  [17%]

Filipinos:       M7c [11%]   B5b [8%]    F1a  [4%] 

The Filipinos possess more E1a [11%] and this accounts for less F1a, distinguishing them from the other three peoples; otherwise they have similar levels of M and B5 as the Vietnamese. The Vietnamese have a higher level of B4 [17%], with F1 that separates them from the others. The Malays are as high in these three haplogroups [M, B5, F1] as the Thais, their neighbours are low; highlighting their respective difference from each other as well as the Vietnamese and Filipinos. The Malays have a lower, yet still quite high level of B4 [8%], whereas the Filipinos are between the Malays and Vietnamese for B4 [11%].

Complete mtDNA Genomes of Filipino Ethnolinguistic Groups: a melting pot of recent and ancient lineages in the Asia-Pacific region, Multiple Authors, 2013 – emphasis & bold mine:

‘The Philippines is a strategic point in the Asia-Pacific region for the study of human diversity, history and origins, as it is a cross-road for human migrations and consequently exhibits enormous ethnolinguistic diversity. Although some mtDNA haplogroups can be associated with the Austronesian expansion, there are others that associate with South Asia, Near Oceania and Australia that are consistent with a southern migration route [from Taiwan] for ethnolinguistic group ancestors into the Asia-Pacific, with a timeline that overlaps with the initial colonization of the Asia-Pacific region, the initial colonization of the Philippines and a possible separate post-colonization migration into the Philippine archipelago.

Haplogroups B4b1a and B5b1c are of appreciable frequency (> 5%) in [Filipino Ethnolinguistic] groups. However, population comparison was limited to FE groups and Japan because Japan was the only population-based and geographically defined group in the reference data set that possessed B4b1 and B5b1 lineages.FE group and Japanese B4b1a and B5b1 coding sequences fall into distinct clades that diverged some 15–20 kya… suggesting an ancient link. But as macrohaplogroups B4 and B5 and their sublineages are generally associated with mainland East and Southeast Asia, more population-based samples of complete mtDNA genomes from these regions are required in order to verify the observed Filipino–Japanese association.’

We will refer back to this paragraph and the genetic link between the Filipinos and Japanese. It is as revealing and vital as the link we found and investigated between the Vietnamese and Koreans – Ashkenaz and Togarmah of Gomer.

‘In conclusion, this study has demonstrated various features of the mtDNA landscape of the Philippines… mtDNA showed that the Filipino population is heterogeneous and composed of diverse FE groups and Regional Centres groups, with no simple dichotomy between FENegrito and FEnon-Negrito groups… there are different trends in Ne changes that could suggest different demographic histories for the Filipino Ethnolinguistic groups included in the study… FE groups have genetic affinities primarily with northern East Asia and Southeast Asia…’

The most frequently occurring Y-DNA [Paternal] haplogroups among modern Filipinos are haplogroup O1-M119 [O1a] and haplogroup O2-M122 [O2a1], which is found with high frequency in many populations from East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Polynesia^. Haplogroup O1-M119 is shared especially with Taiwan, Western Indonesia and Madagascar.^ Filipinos also possess O1-M268 [O1b] the clade that Vietnam and Korea share. The main Y-DNA haplogroups for Malays and Filipinos:

Malaysia:       O1b – O2a1 – O1a – K – C – F – [R1a – D1 – H1a]

Philippines:  O2a1 – O1a – K – C – O1b 

The Malays and Filipinos share five main key haplogroups and are clearly siblings; though the difference between them is marked by the significant percentage of O1b Malaysia has [32%] – the same haplogroup that Vietnam and Korea share in equal measure of 33%. Certain lesser clades show influence of migration from Indo-China and Thailand in to Malaysia – R1a, D1 and H1a – plus the influence of the Vietnamese with the high percentage of O1b.

Malaysians [apart from the Philippines] are not closely aligned with the other nations mentioned and have a distant affinity with cousins, Vietnam; while the Filipinos [apart from Malaysia] have a distant affinity with cousins, Thailand.

Malaysia:       O1b – O2a1 – O1a – K – C – F – [R1a – D1 – H1a]

Vietnam:        O2a1 – O1b – Q1a – O1a – C – D1 – N 

Philippines:   O2a1 – O1a – K – C – O1b 

Thailand:       O2a1 – O1a – C – D1 – K 

The key Y-DNA East and Southeast Asian haplogroups of O, K and C represented in percentages.

Malaysia:        O1b  [32%]      O2a1 [28%]     O1a  [8%]     K [8%]       C   [6%] 

Philippines:    O1b  [3%]        O2a1 [39%]     O1a  [28%]   K [20%]     C  [5%] 

Vietnam:         O1b  [33%]      O2a1 [40%]     O1a  [6%]                        C  [4%] 

Korea:              O1b  [33%]     O2a1 [42%]     O1a [3%]  K [4%]        C  [13%]

Haplogroup K shows the affinity between brothers Elisha and Dodan – Malaysia and the Philippines – as distinct from their cousins from Gomer. The higher percentage of C, separates Korea. The higher percentage of O1a, coupled with the lesser of O1b distinguishes the Filipinos.  

Turning our attention to [the relationship of Dodan with], Rodan – the Polynesian [and Micronesian] Peoples of the Pacific [Oceania]. 

Their locations include such diverse regions as Madagascar to the west, Hawaii to the north, Easter Island to the eastand New Zealand to the south. 

Riphath and Diphath of Gomer [Cambodia and Laos] were not a scribal error but an indication of two peoples closely aligned, historically, culturally and ethnically, one possibly deriving from the other, or Diphath is a later son of Gomer. Javan’s youngest son Dodan[im] strangely mirrors, the same relationship with Rodan[im].

Herman Hoeh – emphasis & bold mine: 

‘The Mauri, Milyaes and Gasgars migrated from the Mediterranean via Asia Minor… The Gasgars live on the Island of Madagasgar. The word “Madagasgar” means “Gasgars of the land of Madai! “The Milyaes are the Malayas of Southeast Asia; the Mauri are the Maori of the South Pacific, The Maori claim to have come from the West by ship from the land of “Raiatea”(AN INTRODUCTION TO POLYNESIAN ANTHROPOLOGY, by Peter Buck, p.14). Where was Raiatea? Some lost continent? NO! Raiatea was a land familiar to the Romans. They called it Raetia. It was located south of the Danube River… (SMITH’s CLASSICAL DICTIONARY).’

A number of researchers maintain the Polynesians sailed from South America across the Pacific Ocean to the Pacific Islands. In 1947, the Kon Tiki voyage by Thor Heyerdahl using a a Polynesian balsa wood raft sailed across the Pacific, westward from South America, beyond Easter Island to prove it could be done. Polynesians did sail that same direction… only after they had first sailed eastward to South America circa 1100 CE. When they returned, they brought with them bottle gourds, the paper mulberry tree and sweet potatoes [Kumara]. All are found throughout the South Pacific, yet they are sourced from South American varieties. This transference of vegetation has confused some into thinking the Polynesians migrated originally from South America.

The Milyaes or Malays are linked to the Polynesians. Sayce comments on page 32 – bold mine:

‘It was the philologist, for example, who first suggested the common origin of the Malayo- Polynesian race. He found that the languages spoken by the race implied a common mother-speech at no very distant period, and thus made it possible that the speakers also were derived from a common stock.’

The Journal of the Polynesian Society Volume VII: The Malayo-Polynesian Theory III, John Fraser, 1898 – emphasis & bold mine:

‘Scientists have also done much to spread the Malayo-Polynesian theory, chiefly Wilhelm von Humboldt, who, on the very first page of his great work (Über die Kawi Sprache auf der Insel Java), says, “Under this name—the Malayan race—I include the inhabitants of all the islands of the great Southern Ocean.”

The view which I take is a “new theory” so far as I am concerned, for I have never seen it stated by any other. It is shortly this: Whereas others maintain that a conspicuous portion of the Polynesian language has come from the Malays, I hold that these words were Polynesian before they became Malayan; that is, that the Malays, when they came into the Indian Archipelago, found a Polynesian language there from which they borrowed largely. And further, I hold that in Indonesia the first dwellers were of the Melanesian stock, that the ancestry of the present Polynesians was grafted on that, and that the Malays are the last and latest settlement there. Thus I account for the well-known fact that the ground-work of the purely Melanesian languages shows many root-words in common with the languages both of the brown Polynesians and the Malays. Others say that these words come through the Malays; I say that the Malays were the borrowers. “The truth,—the more it’s shook, it shines,” and every question as to the origin of our Polynesians and their speech ought to be worthy of a place in your Journal… for the Malay itself is a borrower from far earlier forms which came originally from India.”’

Ancient Origins, Caleb Strom – emphasis & bold mine:

Although it is plausible that Polynesia was settled by ancient South Americans; all the genetic, linguistic, and ethnographic evidence points toward a predominantly southeast Asian origin. The two main theories today are called the Express Train Hypothesis and the Slow Boat Hypothesis. The Express Train Hypothesis says that Polynesians originally come from Taiwan by way of the Philippines and Melanesia. According to this view, Polynesians are mainly a part of a migration wave that came out of Taiwan.

The western part of Polynesia was settled between 3000 and 1000 BC by people from Taiwan via the Philippines as well as parts of New Guinea. Eastern Polynesia was settled beginning around 900 AD as Polynesian voyagers began to set out from Tonga and Samoa and other islands of western Polynesia to settle the Hawaiian Islands, New Zealand, and Easter Island, among other islands of the region.

According to the Slow Boat Hypothesis, the ancestors of the Polynesians are of Austronesian descent and still have a connection to Taiwan, but the ancestors of modern Polynesians spent several centuries intermarrying with people of Papuan and Indonesian lineage before setting out to Polynesia.

The first view is supported by linguistic and ethnographic data, but there is genetic evidence for the second hypothesis.Genetic studies have shown, for example,that a significant percentage of the Polynesian population has y-chromosomal DNA [father] haplogroups coming from Papua New Guinea while most of the mtDNA [mother] comes from haplogroups in Taiwan and Southeast Asia.

This suggests some degree of intermarriage between Polynesians and other Austronesian groups as well as non-Austronesian groups [Melanesians]. Another possible line of evidence for this hypothesis comes from the fact that there is a gap in the language evolution of Polynesian Austronesian languages. 

Polynesian languages have features that no other Austronesian languages possess. This could be because of interaction with Papuan and Indonesian populations.

A study in 2020 has suggested that the date for Polynesians meeting South Americans should be pushed back even further, to around 1150 AD. The nature of those genetic links and the location for that first contact also differs from previous beliefs. As Ed Whelan writes: 

“Genetic evidence appears to prove that Polynesians are related to present-day Indigenous people, especially from the coast of Colombia and Ecuador. Interestingly, the DNA study concludes that the earliest contact was on Fatu Hiva, an island in the South Marquesas islands, sometime around 1150 AD, and not Rapa Nui which is much closer to the coast of South America.”

Is it possible that Amerindian cultures are partially responsible for the colonization of Polynesia, or at least part of it, after all? Although it is possible that South American voyagers sailed to Polynesia to meet the Rapa Nui or another group of Polynesians, the Polynesians are known to have been more skilled at seafaring at the time, so it is more likely that it was the Polynesians who came to the Americas. The Polynesians may have come to South America to trade with the natives, and as a result may have ended up also bringing home South American brides. Intriguingly, there is circumstantial evidence for pre-Columbian contact between Native Americans and Polynesians – chicken^^ bones that have been found at an archaeological site on a beach in Chile that appear to predate the coming of the Spaniards.

Regardless of where the Polynesians originally came from, their ancestry appears to be more complex than initially thought. The more we learn about historical genetics the more we realize just how convoluted the communication and intermarriage between different populations was in the past. If we go far back enough, current thinking is that we are all a mixture of many lineages of mankind which originally diverged from a single lineage that goes back to Africa, perhaps 200,000 years ago.’

All the way back to [mitochondrial] Eve, though both the time frame and the origin in Africa is gravely disputed.

Ancient Origins, April Holloway – emphasis & bold mine:

‘Research into the origins and dispersal of Polynesian chickens^^ has helped scientists reconstruct the early migrations of the Polynesians and the animals they carried with them. The results revealed that the Philippines is the most likely ancestral homeland of the Polynesians, whose forebears colonised the Pacific about 3,200 years ago.

Polynesian seafarers explored vast areas of the Pacific and settled nearly every inhabitable island in the Pacific Ocean well before European explorers arrived in the 16th century. However, the ancestral relationships of people living in the widely scattered islands of the Pacific Ocean have long puzzled anthropologists. 

The predominant theory is that the Polynesian people are a subset [Rodanim] of the sea-faring Austronesian people who have their origins in Taiwan, having arrived there through South China about 8000 years ago. From there it is believed that the spread out across the Pacific to Polynesia, a sub-region made up of over 1,000 islands scattered over the central and southern Pacific Ocean.’

Eight thousand years ago would be circa 7000-6000 BCE. This fits the time frame after the dispersal of all the nations at the time of Peleg and the Tower of Babel, about 6755 BCE.

‘It is thought that by roughly 1400 BC, the ‘Lapita People’, so-named after their pottery tradition, appeared in the Bismark Archipelago of northwest Melanesia. This culture is seen as having adapted and evolved through time and space since its emergence “Out of Taiwan”. Within a mere three or four centuries between about 1300 and 900 BC, the Lapita archaeological culture spread 6,000 km until it reached as far as Fiji, Tonga, and Samoa.’

It is now held that between 3000 and 1000 BCE speakers of Austronesian languages began spreading from Taiwan into Island Southeast Asia. There are three theories, regarding the spread of peoples across the Pacific to Polynesia. These are outlined by Kayser [2000]and are as follows:

  • Express Train model: ‘A recent (c. 3000–1000 BC) expansion out of Taiwan, via the Philippines and eastern Indonesia and from the northwest of New Guinea, on to Island Melanesia by roughly 1400 BC. Reaching western Polynesian islands around 900 BC. This theory is supported by the majority of current genetic, linguistic and archaeological data.’
  • Entangled Bank model: ‘Emphasizes the long history of Austronesian speakers’ cultural and genetic interactions with indigenous Island Southeast Asians and Melanesians along the way to becoming the first Polynesians.
  • Slow Boat model: ‘Similar to the express-train model but with a longer hiatus in Melanesia along with admixture — genetically, culturally and linguistically — with the local population. This is supported by the Y-chromosome data of Kayser, which shows that all three* haplotypes of Polynesian Y chromosomes can be traced back to Melanesia.’

Polynesians acquired a reputation as great navigators – their canoes reached the most remote corners of the Pacific, allowing the settlement of islands as far apart as Hawaii, Rapanui (Easter Island) and Aotearoa (New Zealand). The people of Polynesia accomplished this voyaging using ancient navigation skills of reading stars, currents, clouds and bird movements – skills passed to successive generations down to the present day.

Fast Trains, Slow Boats, and the Ancestry of the Polynesian Islanders, S Oppenheimer & M Richards, 2001 – emphasis & bold mine:

Our study provides evidence for a dual genetic origin of Pacific Islanders in Asia and Melanesia. This is in agreement with the Slow Boat hypothesis of Polynesian origins (Kayser, Brauer et al. 2000) according to which Polynesian ancestors originated in Asia, moved eastward, and mixed extensively with local Melanesians before colonizing the Pacific Islands. Although dating methods revealed somewhat similar entries of NRY/mtDNA haplogroups into Polynesia, haplotype sharing suggests that haplogroups of Melanesian origin may have appeared earlier in Polynesia than those of Asian origin, although more extensive sampling in Melanesia is needed to confirm this observation. The striking difference observed here between Asian and Melanesian contributions to the paternal and maternal gene pool of Polynesians suggests an admixture bias toward more Melanesian men, perhaps as result of uxorilocal (matrilocal) residence and matrilineal descent in ancestral Polynesian society (Have and Marck 2003)… Fiji played a pivotal role in the history of Polynesia: humans probably first migrated to Fiji, and subsequent settlement of Polynesia came from Fiji.’

After analysis of mitochondrial DNA [mtDNA, female] and Y Chromosome DNA [Y-DNA male], Atholl Anderson stated: ‘the ancestors of Polynesian women came from Taiwan while those of Polynesian men came from New Guinea. Subsequently, it was found that 96% of Polynesian mtDNA has an Asian origin, as does one-third of Polynesian Y chromosomes; the remaining two-thirds from New Guinea and nearby islands; this is consistent with matrilocal residence patterns.Polynesians existed from the intermixing of few ancient Austronesian-Melanesian founders, genetically they belong almost entirely to the Haplogroup B (mtDNA), which is the marker of Austronesian expansions.’ The high frequencies of mtDNA Haplogroup B within the Polynesians is the result of ‘founder effect’, representing the descendants of a few Austronesian females who had intermixed with Papuan men.

A 2010 study using meta-analysis of the most reliable radiocarbon dates available, suggested that ‘the colonisation of Eastern Polynesia [including Hawaii and New Zealand] proceeded in two short episodes: in the Society Islands from 1025 to 1120 AD and further afield from 1190 to 1290 AD,with Easter Island being settled around 1200.’More recent archeological models have projected dates between 300 to 800 CE for the settlement of Easter Island and a date of 500 CE has been suggested for Hawaii. Linguistically, there is a very distinct East Polynesian subgroup, sharing a number of innovations not seen in other Polynesian languages. Hawaiian and Maori oral histories support this, for the earliest varieties of New Zealand Maori speech have multiple sources from around central Eastern Polynesia.

Genetic History of Polynesians and New Zealand Maori… Edana Lord – emphasis and bold mine:

‘As people moved throughout the Pacific and into Polynesia, genetic interactions took place. 

The movement of mitochondrial haplogroups represent the migration of people from South East Asia through Near Oceania into Polynesia. B and Q are two such haplogroups which made it through to Polynesia. The B4 subclade arose… [and]… diverged into many more subclades including B4a1a which is restricted to Taiwan, Island Southeast Asia and the Pacific. The lineage B4a1a1 is prevalent in Near Oceania and has become almost fixed in Polynesia, making up more than 90% of all Polynesian mtDNA haplotypes. Haplotypes from the Q1 lineage have also been reported in Polynesia, in particular Gambier and the Cook Islands.

The majority of the haplotypes can be found within the B4 clade, which is well represented in South East Asian and Pacific regions. Within each of the three populations, haplotypes derived from the B4a1a1 haplogroup was the most common. This haplogroup is seen in high frequency throughout Polynesia, Micronesia, Coastal Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Philippines. As this is common to all of the populations investigated here, it shows that they have a shared ancestry.’ 

This is confirmation of a genetic link between the Filipinos and the Polynesians and Micronesians. One that we would expect for the Dodanim and Rodanim.

‘One haplotype common to all three populations is B4a1a1a…^ which is thought to have arisen in the Bismarck Archipelago11. The haplotypes can be separated into those from West Polynesia (Tokelau) and those from East Polynesia (French Polynesia and New Zealand). The haplotypes seen in West Polynesia are found deeper in the B4 clade than those from East Polynesia. This can be used as further evidence of population migration from West to East.

There are also haplotypes present in East Polynesia that are not seen throughout West Polynesia, such as the B4a1a1c haplotype… This can represent novel mutations in the expanding Polynesian populations or possibly genetic interactions with other groups of Polynesia and Micronesia.

The haplotypes present in the New Zealand population [Maori] are most similar to those from French Polynesia, for example haplotype B4a1a1m… This haplotype is restricted to the French Polynesian and New Zealand Maori populations. This contributes further to the hypothesis that New Zealand Maori are descended from Eastern Polynesians.’

Complete mitochondrial DNA sequences provide new insights into the Polynesian motif and the peopling of Madagascar, Multiple Authors, 2009 – emphasis & bold mime:

‘The ‘Polynesian motif’, popularly named for its high frequency among Polynesians, is characterized by a well known series of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) polymorphisms that now define haplogroup B4a1a1a…^

This lineage probably developed in eastern Island Southeast Asia or Near Oceania, during the mid- to late-Holocene, with recent dates suggesting an origin around 6,200 – 10,900 years before present (YBP)… The haplogroup’s immediate precursor… has been found in Taiwanese aboriginal groups with an estimated age of 13,200 YBP… This incremental series of dates are consistent with a model whereby Austronesian speaking populations expanded out of Taiwan during the mid-to-late-Holocene… Ultimately, the Austronesian expansion spread the immediate ancestor of the Polynesian motif, and later the motif itself, over a vast geographical area – from Taiwan in the north, New Zealand in the south, remote Polynesia in the east, and finally, Madagascar in the far west.’

These dates selected by scientists are closer to events recorded in the Bible than they realise. If we could marry scientific data with the Biblical record, then it would be difficult for either side to continue disbelieving the credentials of each other. The date of 10,900 – 6,200 years ago would be 8880 – 4180 BCE. The flood occurred circa 10,837 BCE. If we calculate enough time for the migrations of Japheth’s descendants and allow for the dispersion of peoples during the Tower of Babel incident [6755 BCE] then the movement of Javan’s grandchildren the Dodanim [Filipinos] and Rodanim [Polynesians] from Taiwan into the Philippines and beyond, was very likely during this time frame. 

The date of 13,200 years ago would equate to 11,180 BCE and this is interesting, as it falls between the birth of Japheth and the time of the flood. Japheth was born circa 11,837 BCE. Japheth as we have discussed, would have inherited and carried the [DNA genetic code] haplogroups that we now associate with the East and Southeast Asian peoples. This would have obviously included the mtDNA B haplogroup received from his mother and that would mutate into all the B clades; including B4a1a1^ that Rodan [the Polynesians] exhibit.

The Polynesian motif is currently found at highest frequency in Polynesia, where it approaches fixation in some populations. It is also common in Micronesia and parts of Near Oceania, where it is not necessarily restricted to Austronesian speaking populations, but also occurs in some rare Papuan speaking groups [proof of ancient admixture with Melanesians]. The motif is much less frequent in Island Southeast Asia, although it has been found sporadically in both central and eastern Indonesia. In Madagascar – the western edge of the Austronesian expansion – the Polynesian motif reaches a frequency of around 20%, thus leading to proposals that the island was settled by an Indonesian population, which later colonized the Pacific Islands, or even more speculatively, by direct migration from Polynesia itself.

Furthermore, these studies revealed that Indonesians have a major role in the colonization of Madagascar, and highlighted Borneo as a likely source of the Asian-derived Y chromosomes found in Malagasy today. This is consistent with linguistic evidence suggesting that the Malayo–Polynesian language spoken by Malagasy is related to the Barito language of southern Borneo. 

Currently, our best model for the settlement of Madagascar suggests that the first settlers reached the island [some] 1500–2000 years ago, when there is clear archeological and paleoecological evidence of their occupation. Ultimately, a complex – and largely unknown – genetic and linguistic admixture process between populations of African and Southeast Asian descent produced the Malagasy we recognize today.

We observed the Polynesian motif at relatively high frequency in all three Malagasy groups: 50.0% in Merina, 21.8% in Vezo, and 13.4% in Mikea… Indeed, the first and second phases of our analysis revealed that 58 of the 266 Malagasy shared a set of mutations… which assign them to haplogroup B4a1a1.^’

There is a genetic line through the mtDNA B4a1a1 haplotype, from the Polynesians [and Micronesians] from Rodan, to the Filipinos of Dodan and then to their ancient ancestral home of the Island of Formosa or Taiwan.

Polynesian regions with significant populations include: New Zealand 887,338, the United States 820,000, French Polynesia 215,000, Australia 210,843, Samoa 192,342 and Tonga 103,036.

Melanesian and Asian Origins of Polynesians: mtDNA and Y Chromosome Gradients Across the Pacific – Molecular Biology and Evolution, Kayser, 2006 – bold mine:

‘Y-DNA RESULTS (Males) These are reported as: HAWAIIAN PATERNAL – Direct paternal line reported as Native Hawaiian

According to researchers, Y-DNA (direct paternal lines) in Polynesia has more haplogroup variations than mtDNA (direct maternal lines); however, about 75% reporting their paternal line as Polynesian are in one of the below three* Y-DNA haplogroups:

1) Haplogroup [C1b3a* (M38)]

This is the haplogroup of about 34% who report their paternal line as Polynesian. C1b3a [formerly C2*] is found in Polynesia, Melanesia, New Guinea, and Indonesia.

2) Haplogroup O (M122)

This is the haplogroup of about 24% who report their paternal line as Polynesian. O2a1 is typical of populations of East Asia, Southeast Asia, and culturally Austronesian regions of Oceania [Polynesia and Micronesia], with a moderate distribution in Central Asia. 

3) Haplogroup K (M9)

This is the haplogroup of about 18% who report their paternal line as Polynesian. K is an old lineage presently found only at low frequencies in Africa, Asia, and in the South Pacific. One descendent line of this lineage is restricted to aboriginal Australians, while another is found at low frequency in southern Europe, Northern Africa, and the Middle East.’ 

A comparison of the main Y-DNA [paternal] haplogroups of the principal Polynesian centres of population, including their original homeland of Taiwan and the stopping off point the Philippines, before migrating into the Pacific proper. 

Taiwan:                         O1a – O2a1 – O1b – C – [K – B – E]

Philippines:                   O2a1 – O1a – K – C – O1b – [B – E]

Tonga:                           O – C – K – [M]

Samoa:                          C1 – O – K – M – S 

Maori:                            C1 – O – K – [B – M – H]

Tahiti:                             C1 – O – K

French Polynesia:         C – O – K

Micronesia:                    K – C – O

Australian Aborigine:   C1b2b – K2b – C – O2a – [F]

Negritos Philippines:    K – O2 – C – P 

Fiji:                                  M1 – K – C1 – O – C – [R2a – R1a  – H1a – J – S]

Papua New Guinea:      M1a – S – C1 – K – O – C2 

Madagascar:                 E1b1a1 – E2b – B – J – [O1a – O2a1 – R – L]

The original indigenous Taiwanese [as opposed to the later Han Chinese immigrants] and the Philippines share at least seven main key haplogroups, supporting the genetic link proposed via migration. The Polynesians, Micronesians and Melanesians share the key Asian Y-DNA haplogroups O, either C or C1, and K. The Melanesians, particularly with their darker skin are a bit of a mystery. The Fijians in part and especially the Papuan New Guineans and Australian Aborigines have facial features and skin tones more reminiscent of the Dravidian Indian of southern India and the Sri Lankans than the Polynesians. Their higher percentages of haplogroup K, plus M show they are different to a degree, but neither of these haplogroups are indicative of the Indian or Sri Lankan – M not all and K partially.

As scientists claim, it certainly seems that the Polynesians have intermarried with Melanesians [from Papua New Guinea and Fiji] while fanning out from Taiwan and the Philippines. The shared K and M haplogroups between the Polynesians and Melanesians, is highly likely to be the evidence of intermarriage. The haplogroups used for Papua New Guinea are an average between the haplogroups for Eastern and Western Papua New Guinea.

The Malagasy [and Malayo-Polynesian] population of Madagascar have a rather random sequence, though the reasonable percentage of haplogroups B [8.6%] and O of the Gascars, supports their including Polynesian haplogroups due to admixture.

The key Y-DNA East and Southeast Asian haplogroups of O, K and C represented in percentages – with the addition of M.

Taiwan:                         O1a  [66%]    O2a1 [11%]    O1b [10.6 %]   C [0.4%]

Philippines:                  O1a  [28%]    O2a1 [39%]   O1b [3%]         C [5%]       K [20%]

Tonga:                            O  [60%]   C  [23%]    K [1%] 

Samoa:                           O  [26%]  C1 [61%]     K [3.2%]   M [3.2%]  S [1.6%] 

Maori:                             O  [6%]     C1 [43%]     K [2%] 

Tahiti:                              O  [29%]   C1 [67%]     K [4%] 

French Polynesia:         O  [37%]    C  [53%]      K [8%] 

Micronesia:                    O   [9%]      C   [19%]      K [65%]

Australian Aborigines:   O   [1%]      C1  [60%]      K [22%]    C  [6%]

Negritos [Philippines] : O2 [14%]    C    [11%]       K [51%]     P  [5%] 

Fiji:                                   O   [13%]    C1  [22%]      K [25%]    M [35%]    C [1%] 

Papua New Guinea:       O   [4%]      C1  [15%]      K [9%]      M [54%]     S [18%]   C [2%] 

The Tongans have the highest ratio of haplogroup O, in common with Taiwan and French Polynesia is next and compares with the Philippines. The peoples of Melanesia, Micronesia and the New Zealand Maori have considerably less haplogroup O. The Aborigine of Australia virtually none. 

Haplogroup C and C1 is common amongst both Polynesia and Melanesia, though not in Micronesia. Haplogroups C1/C are high amongst the Aborigines. Haplogroup K is quite rare amongst the Polynesians; whereas the Melanesians have similar ratios to the Filipinos. This could well be influenced by the Negritos of the Philippines and their high lebel of Haplogroup K. Micronesia also has a high level of haplogroup K. Both Fiji and Papua New Guinea exhibit haplogroup M in larger quantities, supporting the hypothesis that Polynesia originated from Fiji and Papua New Guinea [chronologically after the Philippines] as well as the fact, that Y-DNA haplogroups can be traced to Melanesians, such as M, K and S .  

The branches of some of the principal Y-DNA haplogroups for the Southeast Asian and related peoples of the Pacific, of M, O and S.

Happy is the person who finds wisdom, the one who gets understanding. Wisdom is worth more than silver; it brings more profit than gold.

Proverbs 3:13-14 New Century Version

© Orion Gold 2020-2021 – All rights reserved. Permission to copy, use or distribute, if acknowledgement of the original authorship is attributed to orion-gold.com