Elizabeth II

on the

Throne of

David and Solomon



A series of discoveries, revolutionary interpretations and reconstructions of history are bringing us remarkable revelations and asking new questions while at the same time offer­ing new perspectives on the plan for the unification of Europe. Are all the peoples living to the north of the Pyrenees, the Alps, the Carpathian and Caucuses moun­tains, descendants of the Assyrians and the Ten Lost tribes of Israel? Does Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, sit today on the same throne as did David and Solomon? Are the peoples of northern Europe the inheritors of these great civilisations of pre-classical Antiquity, whose importance was so great? And, if all of this is contributing to the unification of our continent, are we living in at the End of the Age, while at the same time rediscover­ing this lost knowledge (since, as is well known, it is only at this juncture that we would rediscover these lost origins)?


by Cosmas Megalommitis

translated from the French by Walter Steensby

(Professor Megalommitis is one of Greece's foremost historians)



I.                   The concept of the “chosen people.”


A. In Mesopotamia

Reconstruction of pre-classical myth has made it clear that this term originated in Mesopotamia at the end of the 3rd Millennium (and did not derive from the Bible). The “Troisième Oeil” [“Third Eye”] has published articles (fasc. 10, p. 60–64 and fasc. 8, p. 68–71) about the rivalry between two sets of priesthood, the mono­theistic and the polytheistic, to which we owe a great number of names for the two, either chosen by the priesthood concerned or attributed to it by the rival set. The well-known term “Chosen People” was selected by the monotheistic priesthood for themselves and was the opposite of the term “nations.” The Assyro-Babylonians had first used the term “men” to designate the Chosen People and used the expression “beings with a human appearance and animal instincts” to designate the “nations.” And, like the Sumerians, it is they themselves who had “divinised” the Chosen People. Sin, symbolised by the Moon, was, among all the gods of all the mythologies, the only one in constant danger, given the difficult route he had to follow across History, for a long time losing his identity, his faith, his ideology, his language, and his customs — all the time far from his land and his country, whence he would have departed at the time of the first “End of the Age” and to where he would have returned at the time of the second “End of the Age.” In both cases, he would have been led by the Messiah and this would have been the principal work of the Messiah himself.


B. Among the Hebrews

The term, of Semitic-Assyro-Babylonian origin, has been diffused among the Hebrews: Abraham was a Babylonian of Ur. As with the Assyrian monotheists, this term continues to combine ideological and racial characters — perhaps without the Assyrian intensity and emphasis.


After the division of Solomon’s kingdom (930 b.c.) and the creation of the two Hebrew kingdoms, Israel (in the north; ten tribes) and Judah (in the south; two tribes: Benjamin and Judah), there is no doubt that, though the throne of David and Solomon remains in Jerusalem, and though the centre of religion is still on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem, all that is of greater importance unfolds in Israel: it is there that Elijah lived and moved, the prophets take an interest in the land of the North (before 720 b.c.), Israel itself constitutes the Chosen People and, finally, the prophecies for the “End of the Age” concern only Israel; and all of this in spite of her ideological and religious faults (deviations from the authentic monotheistic line) which brought about her punishment, namely, her dispersion and loss of her identity, religion and language. The prophecies can be corroborated today with the help of historical research and science: the Jews are not the scattered Chosen People for they have not lost their language, their faith or, above all, their identity, and the Messiah has not helped them to recover these.


II.                The scientific approach to the subject of the Ten Tribes of Israel and their identification


All Assyriologists have believed for some years, that the Bit Ghumri (changed to “Gomer” in Biblical Hebrew, and to “Cimmerians,” in Greek), as well as the Ishkuzi (an Assyrian form of the Urartuan “Ishki Gulu,” later changed to “Ashkenazim” in Hebrew and to “Scythians,” in Greek), came from Central Asia and, having crossed the Caucuses, settled in the outskirts of North-East Assyria. However, the publications of the Danish Assyriologist, Anne Katrine Gade-Kristensen, have shown that the migrations of the Bit Ghumri, as opposed to the westward progress of the Scythians who preceded them — this route can be reconstructed thanks to Urartuan and Assyrian texts, which refer continually and especially to regions close to Assyria, and to archaeological indexes — remain obscure. It is not until 714 b.c. that they suddenly appear in the Assyrian kingdom in the areas where Sargon had settled the Israelites. But the traditional Assyrian name for the northern kingdom was not “Sirilaa” (i.e. “Israel,” rarely used) but rather Bit Humri (that is, House of Omri / Ambri, according to the Septuagint, that is, the name of an Israelitish king at the beginning of the 9th century). Besides, the conversion of the laryngeal h to gh is very frequent in the Assyrian of the second half of the 8th century.


Hence, the Bit Gumri are in fact the Ten Tribes of Israel, transported to Zagros, to whom many Assyrian texts refer, describing their activity in Zagros (as well as their arrival in that mountainous region).


III.             The trail of the Cimmerians and Scythians


During the first half of the 8th century the Cimmerians and the Scythians, whom the Sargonides entrusted with various undertakings, intermingled in Zagros and in Anatolia. We must suppose that most of the first-generation Israelite-Cimmerians would have been dead by 640. Those born in Samaria in 723 would have been 83 years of age by 640! Life among the Assyrians, who were not strongly attached to monotheism, plus cultural mingling with the polytheistic peoples of the Empire and above all with those who lived in the same region (Medes, Manaï, Umman-Manda, Scythians, Urartuans, etc), and the partial loss of their identity and religion, were all undeniable facts. During this period the art of the Cimmerians appears as derivative of the Assyrian (as shown by the “treasure of Ziviyeh”).


The trail of the Scythians and Cimmerians, who had become completely inter­mingled by 650, has long been known: first northward up to the Caucuses, and then, after crossing this mountainous area, to the north-west and west, across the Ukrainian plains, parallelling the north coast of the Black Sea. Thus they spread into an almost deserted northern Europe, right to its north-west extremities, from where they crossed into the British Isles, first to Ireland, thence to Scotland, and finally southward to the area known today as England. Cimbrians, Celts and Teutons all make up the ancient substrate common to all the peoples and races of northern Europe, from Russia to Ireland. Since Antiquity it has been known that Cimbrian and Cimmerian are the same word. Celts and Gauls are also the same word — this was known to scientists of last century. The etymology of the word Teuton has not yet been made clear (for lack of Celtic or Teutonic texts), but without doubt it can be considered as “Celtic” (this term being a convention, since one could also speak of a “Cimbrian” or “Cimmerian” etymology!); it is very probable that the word Teuton derives from the word Tuatha, which lives on in Gaelic (the neo-Celtic of Wales) and which means race. The German name for Germany is Deutschland or “land of the Teutons,” the initial “T” having been changed to a “D.” The Celts would have used the word race in as “recent” an era as the 4th or 3rd centuries b.c. to denote men of more eastern regions, whom they considered to be familiars. Similar migrations, greater or smaller in extent, would have been frequent. All of this has been known for much time.


What has not been known is the identification of the word “Cimmerian” with the Ten Tribes of Israel, and this has opened the way to interpreting what became of Assyria. When speaking of the Scythians (and the Cimmerians) during the period 600 – 550 b.c., for example, we use names derived from altered words from their original language; unfortunately, we don’t know what they originally called them­selves or if they distinguished between themselves. Archaeological data indicates that they did not do so, and hence the word “Scythian” would have been used in 600 b.c. to designate other peoples whom it did not include in the initial term of 725 b.c. (Ishki-Gulu in Urartuan) . This means that the original Scythians from Central Asia would have been totally “lost,” or assimilated. The terms “Cimmerian” and “Scythian” designate the Israelites and the Assyrians whose departure took place between 640 and 630 b.c.. Some Israelites left earlier, while others, far fewer in number, later remained in the region of Zagros. As for the Assyrians, it would be quite easy for them to lose their name, since in Assyrian the expressions  “land of Assyria,” “town of Assyria,” “king of Assyria” and the word “Assyrian” simply mean “divine country,” “divine town,” “divine king” and “divine” (this latter term being used to characterise the people). Consequently, it would have been enough to teach the people the name of a different god (instead of Assur) so that the name “Assyrian” would be forgotten.

IV.      Assyrian, Egyptian and Biblical References to the disappearance of the Assyrians and the Israelites

A.     Assyrian References


From the beginning of the 2nd millennium, the monotheistic Assyrians composed the myth of Etana, in order to spread among the people a general but precise idea of their history and development over time. At the Second Coming, Etana (Messiah) would give the Eagle ( in the myth the symbol of the monotheistic priesthood) his long-ago removed wings (as in Revelation 12:14: “but the woman received the two wings of a great eagle”), regather the scattered people and bring them to the One Tree, this expression of human potential as well as the human approach to the divine. The Assyrians further composed the myth of Ninurta, of “the one who spreads the light,” of the “Shining King” (in a manner which predetermines and announces the biblical references to the Messiah; see Amos 7:7–8 and Daniel 10:5–6) to describe his final magnificent return. Further, they developed prophetic myths in a symbolic context, according to which the monotheistic priesthood (Ishtar) would have completely disappeared from history during the absence of the Chosen People from their land, to reappear at the End of the Age;  this is how they would serve at the final Return of the Messiah and in the organisation of the purely monotheistic period which would follow. The disappearance of Ishtar (not of the people but of the priesthood) from the scene is described in the tragic epic titled “The Descent of Ishtar into the Underworld,” which is capable of double interpretation, realistic and symbolic. The Underworld (Hell) is but the actual surface of the earth after the departure of Ishtar from the historic scene until the End of the Age (sym­bolic interpretation); but at the same time the disappearance of the monotheistic priesthood was followed by the setting-up of underground caverns used as studios for work, research and archives, and also for initiation and induction rooms, the opponents of which could approach only with difficulty. Further, Assyrian sages at the time of Tukulti-Ninurta I (1244–1208 b.c.) added a new nuance to the character of Sin (the Moon), by attributing to him, in various encoded symbols, character­istics of the “Chosen People:” just like his moon-shaped symbol, the people would always be “in danger.” The terrible moonless night symbolised the scattering of the people. Just as “god” determined destiny, so Sin — the Chosen People — while deprived of his identity, would take in hand the development of History. It would not be odd for an Assyrian to abandon his house at the time the High Priest of the Temple of Ishtar at Arbeles would signal that the End of the Age had arrived. All Assyrians would have lived with this knowledge and expectation. Today, we understand that we cannot use our ways of thinking to interpret what took place at the heart of a different cultural ensemble in an epoch when the land surface of the earth had not yet been shared out and subdivided into nations.


B. Egyptian References

In Egypt the descent of the Monotheistic Priesthood into the Underworld is dealt with in the mythical and prophetic cycle of Isis, presented as a quest of Isis during which she seeks to regather the fragments of Osiris, namely, the human knowledge of God which has been lost. The Egyptians were centred about Ra, Isis and Horus and so they dealt with God, the monotheistic priesthood and the Messiah without developing a myth about the Chosen People, unlike the Assyrians who had done so with their myth of Sin. This is evidently related to the fact that the Egyptians were not the Chosen People (nor any part of them); so in this case we have a mono­theistic priesthood imposing a monotheistic culture upon a people which this priest­hood does not even consider to be the Chosen People. This may be astonishing perhaps, but today we know of many similar cases (for example, the messianic doctrines of Zoroaster which do not involve the Persians).



C. Historical and Biblical References

• The Assyrians, a Chosen People according to the Bible •

The Old Testament is filled with references to the scattering of the “Chosen People.” We should note here that Assyria’s heeding of Jonah’s warning made them a new part of the “Chosen People,” and this is not their own doing but is according to the Bible. Jonah’s warning was “in accordance with the prior warning” [Fr: sermon], that is, with that of Moses after which the Hebrews became a “Chosen People” in form and in substance. Consequently Jonah’s warning constituted, according to biblical criteria, the most important moment in history since the day Moses brought down the Ten Commandments. Even God asked, “and should I not pity Nineveh, that great city” ? (Jonah 4:11) The texts of [1 and 2] Kings approve of the anti-polytheistic activity of the Sargonides. Finally, Asshurbanipal is described as “great and noble” (Ezra 4:10); he is the only non-Hebrew king named in the Bible accorded a stature equal to that of David or Solomon. We may conclude that biblical referen­ces to the scattering of the “Chosen People” involve the Assyrians also.


• The Hebrews •

The tragic scattering of the “Chosen People” had long been predicted. In Deutero­nomy God states: “I said, I would scatter them into corners, I would make the remembrance of them to cease from among men” (32:26). Isaiah adds that “with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people” (28:11) and that all other nations on earth will call them by a new name (62:2). Amos emphasises: “For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations,” (9:9) yet noting that this is not a final scattering: it is not certain that I will also crush the children of Jacob”; “not the least grain [will] fall upon the earth.” Also, it is evident that in certain cases it involves a migration to a precise locale: “Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime,” (2 Samuel 7:10). In other words, they would go to almost uninhabited areas where there were no Arameans, Babylonians, Phoen­icians, Urartuans, Neohittites, Egyptians, Arabs, Persians, Phrygians or Lydians around them, as there had been up to the 7th century b.c. (see 1 Chronicles 17:7).


• The Direction of Flight •

The Bible does mention the direction taken by the “Chosen People” to the north and north-west, and their arrival in the British Isles. Psalm 89:25 mentions the dominion of the descendants of David upon the sea! This certainly involves neither the Jews (who, as we know, have never been prominent in this domain), nor the ancient kingdom of Israel. Among all the Cimmero-Scythian peoples who came to north-west Europe, only those who were dominant in England and their descendants could lay claim to such a thalassocracy [an empire of the sea]. This is not accidental, since the phrase “I will set his hand also in the sea” signifies that the sceptre, the power, the very throne of David would be established in a country dominating the seas. Hosea is specific: “Ephraim herds the wind, and pursues the east wind all day long” (12:1), where the east wind (the sirocco) comes from north-east Assyria and blows to the north-west. Why does Isaiah (41:1) call on the “islands” to hear the message of the Lord? Why does Jeremiah (31:10)  declare to the “isles afar off” that it will be the same God who scattered Israel, that “will gather him, and keep him” ?


• The Assyrians •

Besides the fact that the Assyrians themselves may be named “Israel” (meaning “strong”) after they heeded Jonah’s warning (which means that every­thing we have so far read from the Bible applies also to them), there is a number of biblical refer­ences to the removal of the Assyrians from their country — a fact whose import­ance, compared to that of the flight of Israel, is undoubtedly much greater since this is a matter of a voluntary action by the sovereign people of the world empire par excellence ! It is a tragic and sudden act, a deed which even Jonah cannot endure: at the instant that the Assyrians heeded his warning and “God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did [it] not”, that is, when every­thing seemed to be going well, “it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry” ! It is quite evident that Jonah profoundly regretted something which he had at first refused to do and tried to sidestep his duty towards Nineveh. The cause of his sorrow was the fact, which he knew beforehand, that faithful citizens would have to evacuate their city whether they wished to or not. “So Jonah went out of the city, and sat on the east side of the city, and there made him a booth, and sat under it in the shadow, till he might see what would become of the city.” Although Jonah disappears from history after departing from the Assyrians, satisfied with the mani­festation of divine interest in Nineveh at the End of the Age (Jonah 4:11), Nahum provides more detail: “Yet [was] she carried away, she went into captivity” (3:10). Nahum, who titled his text “The burden of Nineveh. The book of the vision of Nahum” mentions the secret work of a particular Assyrian king (Asshurbanipal most certainly) who prepared for the departure of the Assyrians without the polytheistic priesthood and their political allies noticing it. “Your shepherds are asleep, O king of Assyria; your nobles [Fr: generals] slumber. Your people are scattered on the moun­tains with none to gather them.” (3:18) But note: what is more important is that the Assyrians did not go to a locale with native inhabitants to welcome them; there was no “state” where they ended up! Zephaniah’s statement about Nineveh, “how is she become a desolation” (2:15) exactly expresses his powerlessness to understand how the Mistress of the world disappeared without being either destroyed, enslaved or exterminated. Much earlier, Hosea had noted in the 8th century b.c. that difficulties and obstacles were part of the punishment of the “Chosen People,” or as God puts it: “I will fall upon them like a bear robbed of her cubs” (13:8) The elderly Tobias, one of the last Israelites living in Ecbatana in about 610 b.c., “before his death … had the opportun­ity of rejoicing over the fate of Nineveh” (Tobit 14:15), not because of a malevolent or vindictive character, but because he had perhaps understood in his great age the true meaning of the words of his father Tobit: “I believe everything that Jonah said about Nineveh, that it will be destroyed. But in Media there will be peace to the end of the age.… I believe also that our brothers will be scattered far from the holy land … but God will pardon them again and He will bring them into our land.” (14:4–6; trans. by the author.)

IV.              Latest scientific data on the identification of the Assyrians and Israelites


So far we have based the general outline of this synthesis of history upon four points:

A. interpretation of ancient Assyrian and Biblical concepts about the “Chosen People” and their historic destiny;

B. interpretation of data from ancient Middle Eastern history;

C. a historical and scientific identification of the Israelites and Cimmerians; and

D. archaeological data on the evacuation of northern Mesopotamia, plus the long trail of the Cimmerians and Scythians (or the Assyro-Israelites) to the north-west.

But there are still two areas of research (rather limited to be honest) which can com­plete the reconstruction of the past and throw more light on some of its aspects, and these deal with the true character and name of a people and a race. It must be empha­sised that this does not at all mean that every nation living today in northern Europe is without exception directly descended from the Assyro-Israelites. Not all are their descendants; those who are have also been well intermingled with various peoples. There were some native inhabitants already in the area, and later they mingled them­selves with other nations and amongst themselves. Since antiquity migrations have been taking place with consequent intermingling, during the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages, up to the present era. However, none of this refutes the fact that there is a part of the contemp­orary population which can be identified as descended from the Assyro-Israelites; and, above all, nothing can refute what Assyrian prophetic myths, plus texts from the Bible and the Koran, have predicted for them at the End of the Age, that is, the time during which the matter of their identity would be raised for the first time in 27 centuries.

(1) Identification of names


We begin with names, for since Antiquity it has been that a name expresses character. The most important fact in this domain is provided by the tribe of Dan (??? according to the Greek translation in the Septuagint). According to the ancient characterisation which Jacob attributes in a decisive manner to his descendants, and more precisely to the heads of the Twelve Tribes (and the place of Levi and Joseph have been taken by the two sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh), “Dan shall be a serpent by the way” (Gen. 49:17) by leaving his traces, his mark, everywhere he goes; but also there are historical books such as Judges which lead us to the same conclusion. For example, in Judges 18:11–13 we read that the place name Kiriath-Jearim occupied by Dan was renamed Mahaneh-Dan, or “camp of Dan.” This behaviour was known to the other tribes. Right from the first days of their occupy­ing of Canaan when the city of Leshem was captured and renamed Leshem Dan. (Joshua 19:48) (In this case, the original Massoretic Hebrew and the Alexandrine Codex are correct, while the Codex Vaticanus has a copying error which changes the original to Lashendak, the Hebrew letters for n and k being very similar.)


Dan would act in the same manner during their migration into north-east Assyria and later during their flight. In this way we can explain the fact that the whole region, extending from the Caucuses to the coasts and the islands of north-west Europe, passing through the plains of Russia and the Black Sea shores, is character­ised by an incredible number of place names having the same root: the word Dan or one of its forms (Don, Den, Dn, etc). Consider: Dniepr, Dniestr, Don, Danube (or Donau), Daninn, Danaster, Dandari, Danez, Dan, Udon, Eridon, Denmark. But the progress of this expansion was not direct and without detours: first it was the western extremity of Europe and the British Isles which were flooded with immi­grants: Dunkirk (the theatre of the wfamous battle during World War 2) in Flemish-Dutch means “church of Dan,” and it is quite probable that this has to do with the change of an old Celtic temple, which kept the name of Dan, into a Christian church. In Great Britain we can cite Edinburgh, London, Dundee, Dunraven, Aberdeen. In Ireland, where they arrived first (according to archaeological data and later traditions which preserve history) before moving on to Great Britain, we find: Danslaugh, Dansower, Dundalk, Dundrum, Donegal Bay, Donegal city, Dungloe, Dingle, Dunsmor, etc. Irish traditions even tell us that this island was first occupied by a certain Tuatha de Danaan (“tribe of Dan”) who came from the east. This certainly does not indicate that this tribe was the only one to settle in Ireland, but that it is the only one whose name has remained to this day.



The name of another tribe of Israel has also survived down through the centuries, that of, or Gilead, the name of a mountain which was very close by. This name underlies the origin of Celts, Gauls, Wales (Galles in French), Walloons (the French-speaking people in the Walloon region of Belgium; also the “neo-Celtic” language of Ireland and Wales, which still survives today, is called Gaelic. Contemporary historians are well aware of the connections between all these names, and their identification with the Gaulish substrate (non-Franc) who dwelt alone in early France (it is not just Greek which has kept the traditional name Gallia, for the country known today as France, Frankreich, etc); and they also know that the Romans were not the first to use these names, but that the these are the Latin forms of Cimmerian names for themselves. These are their transcription in Latin (and it is through Latin that they have remained to our day). Only after a process of research, discovery, interpretation, identification and, especially, after the revelation of the identity of the Cimmerians, have we come to establish (no only for the link between the Cimmerians and the Scythians but also) the identification of all these names with one or other of the tribes of Israel. (However, it must be emphasised that  this does not lead to the conclusion that all the Celtic peoples known to the Romans had a common origin.)


There is another, definitive detail: Gilead and Reuben were two tribes who intermingled greatly. This is mentioned not just in Deuteronomy (3:12: “And this land, [which] we possessed at that time, from Aroer, which [is] by the river Arnon, and half mount Gilead, and the cities thereof, gave I unto the Reubenites and to the Gadites.”); further, we have evidence which bears clear witness to the fact that these tribes were located to the east of the Jordan and the Dead Sea, where the Gaulonite and Jaoulan (Arabic) place names remind us (from Late Antiquity to the modern era) of their presence. Philemon, a contemporary of Aristotle, tells us that the Cimbrians (one part of them) called the Dead Sea “Mori Maroussa,” as far as Cape Roubéa. “Mori Maroussa” can mean Dead Sea in their native language!



The Behistun inscription, wherein Darius commemorates the suppression of a revolt against Cambyses, his assassinated predecessor, shows us that the “great king” was not good at discerning the Scytho-Cimmerian populations in the far reaches of his empire, beyond the Caucuses, because the Scythians and the Cimmerians had been intermingling since the beginning of the 7th century b.c.. The trilingual inscription is in Babylonian (which continued as the official and administrative language for about twenty years after the fall of the Babylonian empire), Elamite (a dead language from 640 b.c. when the Assyrians annihilated Elam, and which was mainly a literary language), and Old Persian (from the Ashemenide era). In the place where the Babylonian text refers to the Ghimri (Ghumri, Cimmerians, i.e. Israelites), the Elamite text mentions the Saka, while the Persian alludes to the Sakka. This is the first mention of this name in these two languages. To whom does it refer? In fact, it is none other than the Scythian people, who the Ashemenidean scribe identifies with the Cimmerian-Israelites. Modern scientists render the word “Sakka” as “Scythian,” but they are only partly right, since the first ones are but a part of the later ones. Further, the name Sak(k)a has no connection either with the Ishki-Gulu / Ishkuzi / Ashkenazim / Scythians, or with the Saxons [Fr: Saces] of the Persian and Greek texts, who were so-called only out of confusion, as they were a Scythian people from the East, living on what is today the border area between Iran and Afghanistan. But the Saxons of the West, also known as Sakaï-Suna (i.e. sons of Sakaï) in Celtic tradition, have long ago been identified as Saxons. This identification is very widely known and is presented in popular works (see New English Dictionary, article “Scots”; and Turner, The History of the Anglo-Saxons, vol. 2, ch. 1, p.81). It is to be noted that these first Saxons are not identified as the later Saxons, who lived on the Cimbrian Peninsula, of Cimmerian origins, and would have already been assimilated into other peoples before heading west and giving their name to a region of Germany (Sachsen).


The fact that the Saxons and Scythians in the final analysis are the same people adds another important element to our thesis, even if the connection of the name Saka or Sakaï with that of Isaac, father of Jacob, might not be confirmed and established in the future. But such connections would not be at all extravagant: the initial letter yod (Hebrew Yitzhak) disappeared when Hebrew names were transliterated into Assyro-Babylonian, while the Hebrew letter tsade is rendered by s in all other languages. Lastly, the non-aspirated letter he always disappeared when Hebrew names were transliterated into Assyro-Babylonian. It is certain that this connection has not yet been widely accepted or else presented in an analytical scientific article based on solid evidence, even though it is more than probable. But, apart from that, the identification of the Sak(k)a “Scythians” with the Cimmerian-Israelites is certain. This fact had made a permanent impression in all Antiquity: even Diadorus of Sicily (II, 3), who lived during the time of Caesar, knew that certain peoples of the Scythians came from Assyria as well as from regions then inhabited by the Medes!



A linguistic essay on the origin of the name of the Britons (or British) links it to the Hebrew word berit (covenant); in this way berit-ish could mean “covenant men,” a reality which according to the Bible characterises the Hebrews. It matters little if this identification is right or wrong, as there exist a number of other elements which allow us to link the British with the tribe of Ephraim.


(2) Identification of Character

The character of Reuben-Gad (the French), like that of Dan (the Danes), of which we spoke earlier when analysing their name, has been traced in the prophecies of Jacob (Genesis 49:3–4, 19). Reuben would be rough and insolent, quite ingenious (see the description in Genesis 37:21–22) and characteristically frivolous. Because of this, he loses the birthright (1 Chronicles 5:1). Also, his agricultural bent is well known (Numbers 32:1). All these traits which make up the character of the Gauls, and that of the “French,” are thrown into relief by certain Frenchmen (such as La Bruyère) who conducted themselves seriously and moderately. Germans and Muscovites are the same people. The name of the Russian capital takes its origins from the name of a people, the Mushki, whose presence in southern Russia, north of the Caucuses, was known to the Assyrians before 1200 b.c. and of whom a part, after having crossed the Caucuses and Anatolia, were predominant in the north-west reaches of Assyria and, gradually intermingling with the other people in the region, gave rise to the people known to the Greeks as “Phrygians.” The name “Moscow” has existed in their region for centuries and millennia. Indeed, modern Muscovites have no true racial connection with the other Russian peoples, whom they still regard today as different. The true ancestors of the Muscovites arrived in a later epoch. Despite much inter­mingling of their descendants with Slavic peoples, the ancient Muscovites were in fact a nordic Celtic people (the Varengians) who, leaving Scandinavia, turned east and moved to the region around Moscow in an epoch as late as the 9th and 10th centuries. The name Varengians [Fr: Varègues] (Warag) has the same origin as the Gaelic name of Wallach. The Germans, as well as the Muscovites, are continental and imperial peoples, agriculturalists, stock breeders, traders, and fierce warriors. In other words, in them are all the character traits of the Assyrians. Furthermore, they are, despite their intermingling with other peoples, quite numerous. Finally, it has been prophesied that the very throne of David would be preserved and be found in Ephraim, or among the Britons.

V.                 Transfer of the throne from Judah in Jerusalem to Ephraim (Great Britain) in London


Before examining how the very throne of David was carried to Great Britain, where it remains today (in Westminster Abbey, “West Minster,” the “western monastery”), serving as the Coronation Throne of every British king (that is, every Israelite king of the tribe of Ephraim) until the End of the Age, we need to examine several biblical references to the throne, as well as to its preservation until the return of the Messiah the End of the Age.



• A Single Throne from Jacob to the Messiah •

The Bible provides no information at all about the destiny of the stone of Jacob (Genesis 28:11–22). Evidently Jacob, as part of the blessing ritual, carved an inscription on it. In Antiquity it was impossible to perform such a ritual, just as with changing the name of the region in question, without fulfilling the event with a brief inscription, preferably carved on a sacred object. It is very probable that Jacob, on his journey, had carried with him the “house of God” (the name of the stone), as part and parcel of the sacred site where he had had the Vision. It is for this very reason that during the ritual he erected the stone as a “stele,” as stones placed on end symbolised a divine manifestation among the Hebrews, as it did among the mono­theistic Assyrians from the end of the 3rd millennium. The Twelve Tribes of Israel did not, properly speaking, constitute a “kingdom” either in Egypt, or in Sinai under Moses, or under Joshua or the judges. Even so, they carried this stone with them for hundreds of years! It was not until Saul that they had their first king, when the Twelve Tribes decided to establish a kingdom, imitating the other “nations.” But there has been no heir.


However, since the accession of David and Solomon to the throne, there has been a continuous line of kings uninterrupted to our day, each crowned on the same throne; and so it will continue until the End of the Age. Solomon ( Hebrew Shlomo) “sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father” (1 Chronicles 29:23). The Queen of Sheba, sent by God, told Solomon that “because your God loved Israel and would establish them for ever, he has made you king over them” (9:8). This throne could be no other than the stone blessed by Jacob. To use the plain meaning of terms would surely make it absurd, and to ignore the Bible, to imagine Solomon sitting on a self-proclaimed “divine” or else “imaginary” throne. Such an inter­pretation would betray an attempt at a gnostic or Christian interpretation, which, if applied to a biblical text, would be criticised by modern scientists as devoid of all foundation. Most notably, Solomon did not sit upon the non-material (but very real) throne of the Lord.


Apart from that, there is a multitude of Biblical references to the throne which attest to these facts. It was not just any unimportant throne, and God through Nathan emphasised it, addressing David (speaking of Solomon): “I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever” (2 Samuel 7:12–13), and later, “your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever.” (v.16) Evidently, the interest of Adonai assures us of the exceptional origin of the stone throne of Solomon; further, this demonstrates the possibility of its preservation among the lost and scattered Israelites, and its use as a throne by the heirs of David (and not as just any object). God, according to Psalm 89, stresses to David that “I will establish your descendants for ever, and build your throne for all generations.” (v.4) Later in the same Psalm he repeats: “I will establish his line for ever and his throne as the days of the heavens.” (v.30) Further on again, we read: “His line shall endure for ever, his throne as long as the sun before me. Like the moon it shall be established for ever; it shall stand firm while the skies endure.” (vv. 36–37) We probably don’t need to harp on the fact of the preservation of the throne, since biblical references abound; it would also be absurd to expect the Messiah to sit on a non-existent throne, one that had not been preserved until his return and which is identical to the one destined for him and about which Isaiah informs us in his prophecies, where we see that this throne is that of David (“Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom…” Isaiah 9:6).


• The Throne is preserved in Israel and not Judah •

It is certain that until the subjugation of the kingdom of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar, including Zedekiah, all the heirs of Solomon sat on his throne in Jerusalem. We know that the throne was not located in Samaria, capital of the northern kingdom of Israel. So is there some special reason for its transfer to the house of Israel, which had been lost by 586 b.c.? This topic is not at all a simple one. Besides, it is not just the throne which is to be preserved until the End of the Age, but also the very line of David! This requires a single throne and a single dynasty and, while both elements can today be considered as one, the Bible does not so consider them, employing a different way of thinking and a different mentality.


• Birthright and Right of the Sceptre •

This is one matter on which the Bible is always quite precise. Reuben was the eldest child (Genesis 49:3), but he lost his birthright, it being transferred to Joseph, eleventh of the twelve sons of Jacob and first son of Rachel, and from Joseph it passed to his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, the grandsons of Jacob, of whom Jacob had said, “And now your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, are mine; Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine, as Reuben and Simeon are.” (Gen 48:5) Being firstborn signifies preservation of name. Ephraim and Manasseh would follow their paths together and preserve for themselves the name of Israel, which would also be attributed to all those who would follow them. At their blessing, Jacob prophesied that “his descendants shall become a multitude of nations” (Genesis 48:19; that is Ephraim alone would rule over many nations, which reminds us of the quite exceptional case of the British Commonwealth), while Manasseh would become “a people, and he also shall be great” (v.19). This special blessing of these two tribes foreshadowed particular common interests between them. This was the case during Antiquity and evidently gave the impression that their separation would take place at very late era, only shortly before the End of the Age (for the “complete” scattering of the “Chosen People” see Daniel 12:7). Consequently, Manasseh reminds us of the formation of the United States and its separation from Great Britain.


Judah, on the contrary, would keep the sceptre, that is, the continuation of the dynasty, as well as the throne (Genesis 49:8–10) until the End of the Age: “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs; and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.” This is something which the historical books also emphasise: “though Judah became strong among his brothers and a prince was from him, yet the birthright belonged to Joseph” (1 Chronicles 5:1).


• Jeremiah’s Mission •

What was to take place according to the Bible, and in fact did take place, often vindicated today by the reconstruction of history, is what the Lord said to Jeremiah: “Call to me and I will answer you, and will tell you great and hidden things which you have not known … concerning the houses of the kings of Judah” (Jer. 33:3–4). All of this certainly was in keeping with Jeremiah’s mission which God himself had predetermined thus: “See, I have set you this day over nations and over kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down, to destroy and to overthrow, to [re]build and to plant.” (Jeremiah 1:10) What does this mean? It means precisely that “none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David, and ruling again in Judah” (Jeremiah 22:30). The throne and the dynasty would no longer be found among the Jews. This does not mean at all that they would disappear; they would be trans­planted in Israel and it is this mission that God metaphorically presents to Jeremiah; it would be his in the future. While taking the verb “[re]build” in its figurative sense, it is certain that its use in the Four Great Prophecies shows that it is not dealing with a physical building but rather something far more serious and crucial — something which, nevertheless, was not unknown: Isaiah had already emphasised: “the surviving remnant of the house of Judah shall again take root downward, and bear fruit upward” (37:31). In view of the departure of the Israelites, Isaiah surely did not understand by “surviving remnants” (in 701 b.c.) that these were the Jews. As a result, it being given that these survivors would have to carry out the tasks described in the above passage, God emphasised through his agent Isaiah that the siege of Jerusalem, carried out by Sennacherib, would fail — and fail it did. Thus Jeremiah was to accompany several descendants and the throne of a “lost” Israel.


We are in the years 585–580 b.c.. The Assyrians and the Ten Tribes of Israel would by now expanded into northern and eastern Europe, some sixty years ago. Some of them have already reached the western islands. Since 722 b.c., a century and a half ago, the Israelites have been without king or throne, a situation predicted by Hosea: “the children of Israel shall dwell many days without king or prince” (3:4). This could not have happened before 722 b.c.. It is because of this lack of a sovereign that Ezekiel had predicted that God would relocate several descendants and “on the mountain height of Israel will I plant [them]”. (Ezekiel 17:23) The entirety of Ezekiel 17 raises the question of transplanting the descendants, notably female, and the dynasty of David to a place where Israel would have already settled, there to remain far from their own land until the End of the Age. Reference is made in a dazzling context to the monotheistic priesthood: “a great eagle with great wings and long pinions, rich in plumage of many colours” (Ezekiel 17:3; compare with ch. IV, A: Etana). In verses 3 and 4 he describes the “eagle” carrying out the task (“took the top of the cedar; he broke off the topmost of its young twigs” : a metaphoric repre­sentation of the descendants of David) which God describes as His own desire in verse 22 (“I myself will take a sprig from the lofty top of the cedar, and will set it out; I will break off from the topmost of its young twigs a tender one” — note that a tender twig alludes to the female element), stating that “I myself will plant it upon a high and lofty mountain; on the mountain height of Israel will I plant it, that it may bring forth boughs and bear fruit”. Finally, He predicts the great power of Ephraim (Great Britain): “and become a noble cedar” (v23).


• The Descendants and the Throne •

If all of this was told in advance, what evidence do we have that it happened? In what terms can we discuss the descendants of the two last kings? We know that Joachim was imprisoned in Babylon until he was honoured by Awilu Marduk (known in Hebrew as “Evilmerodach,” or “Man-Marduk,” a man-god dying and being reborn after the manner of the chief god of Babylonian polytheism), in the 37th year of his captivity. We know that his son, Zerubbabel returned after 539 b.c., but we know also that he did not “reign” in Judah. We know that the last king, Zedekiah, was killed after witnessing the slaying of his sons. But we know also that the daughters of Zedekiah were saved!  This is of primary importance to a people whose tradition is that the continuation of the race depends on the mother rather than the father. Hence Jeremiah discovers amid the ruins and bodies “all the rest of the people who were in Mizpah, the king's daughters and all the people who were left at Mizpah, whom Nebuzaradan, the captain of the guard, had committed to Gedaliah the son of Ahikam.” (Jeremiah 41:10) We know that Jeremiah and Baruch were taken to Egypt, but at this point the narrative in Jeremiah ends abruptly because Jeremiah refuses to go into Egypt and afterwards disappears from the “official record.” The Bible offers us no solid historical account which could inform us of the destiny of a small group of people who, under Jeremiah’s guidance, would have to undertake a truly difficult journey across Canaan, northern Mesopotamia and the Caucuses and then westwards to Ireland. But who could be familiar enough with this to describe it? Ezra or Nehemiah? Even so, it is not difficult to retrace their steps and to reconstruct their route with the help of the biblical context mentioned above: the mission of Jeremiah, the “replanting” of the throne of Judah in Israel and its preservation.


But the historic approach does not end here: those who departed may disappear from the historic context of the Bible, but nevertheless we rediscover them in Irish traditions which describe their arrival in that country. in short, we discover the very throne! In Irish tradition the departure point is located somewhere towards the East, and further there is the legend of the arrival of a venerable elderly man often named the “Holy One.” People and holy objects arrived with him! His assistant was called Breck or Berech or Brach — a name which reminds us of Baruch. Tea Tephi (a name given to many women in the Bible), daughter of a Levantine king, accompa­nied them. One of the sons of a native king, descended from the Tuatha de Danaan, who would have settled in Ireland much earlier, married Tea and on ascending the throne, took the title “Herremon” — a word also of Hebrew origin. According to tradition,  his crown, which was placed on the head of all kings of ancient Ireland, bore twelve notable emblems. Indeed, the throne would have been carried by the old “Holy One,” along with other items, from the eastern kingdom. This throne is that on which have sat, successively, all the kings of ancient Ireland up to Earca, then, starting with the Scot Fergus Mor, all the kings of Scotland until Mary Stuart and, finally, from James VI of Scotland and James I of England, all the kings of Great Britain down to Elizabeth II.

This throne has a strange name: “liafail.” This is a palindrome, a word which reads the same from left to right or right to left. The throne, surnamed “Stone of Destiny,” consists of a stone enclosed and fixed in the throne in timber, which three lines of Irish, Scottish and English kings have occupied, one after the other. All one can see of this stone is one of its four vertical sides and neither of its horizontal ones. It cannot ne removed from its timber enclosure without threatening the very destiny of the Ephraimite kings of Great Britain. Today it is kept in Westminster Abbey, and any interested visitor may see it, even touch it, but not be able to make out the ancient inscription which the very grandson of Abraham, Jacob, carved in it as part of the famous ritual, well before David had sat upon it.

VI.              Jesus, the Gospels, Mohammed and the Koran regarding the destiny of the “Chosen People


The Jews, as well as other peoples, have maintained right up to this day a crucial distinction between Israel and Judah. This distinction is clear to the Muslims also, since the Koran speaks of the two groups. It is not only in the Christian context that we find these two names muddled, resulting in widespread confusion when a Roman Mithraist polytheistic priesthood declared itself to be the “Chosen People” (!), asserting that the true Chosen People had certainly “disappeared.” Today we well know that this pretence was a political and ideological “firework;” it was a total lie. Obviously, the scientific approach allows us today to detect new facts and to confirm other data already known from surviving books and texts.


At the time of Jesus, when it was common knowledge that the Samaritans with their Judaised religion were not “Israelites” but rather the descendants of Arameans and Babylonians, whom Sargon of Assyria and his successors had settled there, Jesus knew very well what he meant by addressing these words to the centurion: “Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.” (Matthew 8:10) This shows us, even if we accept the traditional interpretation — religious and not scientific — of the Gospel texts which describe the life of Jesus, that Jesus would have spent a period of his life in Great Britain before the age of 30. It is very important to note that Jesus spoke — on this occasion — of the return of Israel at the End of the Age. Such was the meaning of the command addressed to those considered his disciples: “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:5–6), but the apostles, as far as we know, did not obey.


Jesus particularly emphasises the return of the Assyrians themselves: “The men of Nineveh will arise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it” (Luke 11:32). This does not mean, of course, that certain Assyrians will literally climb out of their tombs, as monks of the Middle Age idiotically taught in order to alter the real meaning of the verb “to rise up” (and at their time they succeeded). We know full well that in the time before Jesus Christ “leaving the tomb” was not included in the various ideas expressed by this Greek verb. Consequently, this passage clearly predicts that the descendants of the Assyrians shall return to play a major role at the End of the Age.


Many texts in the Old Testament, as well as the Gospels, can be interpreted as implying the calling of Mohammed and his Prophecy. We shall not here mention his possible identification with “the Spirit of Truth” (John 14:16), which according to Islamic teaching characterises him (since “Truth,” in Arabic Al Haq, is a surname of God). Here we are concerned with the divine command: “Take once more the imple­ments of a worthless shepherd. For lo, I am raising up in the land a new shepherd” (Zechariah 11:15–16), which is of great importance. This “shepherd” could be identified as Mohammed. It is interesting that Zechariah later explains the cause of the failure of the mission initially foreseen for Mohammed: “[he] does not care for the perishing, or seek the wandering, or heals the maimed, or nourishes the sound, but devours the flesh of the fat ones, tearing off even their hoofs. Woe to my worth­less shepherd, who deserts the flock! May the sword smite his arm and his right eye! Let his arm be wholly withered, his right eye utterly blinded!” (vv. 16–17) If all the difficulties and problems of Islam after the death of Mohammed and the assassination of the first Imam, Ali (“his arm”), are due to the “mistakes” of the Prophet, these consist of the omission of two of his tasks: the Prophet did not take care of “those who risk being struck down” and did not seek the wandering, i.e. scattered Israel.


As for the Assyrians and the Ten Tribes of Israel (in Arabic Banu Israel), the Koran is witness to the respect, the esteem and the care towards them. In chapter 10, titled “Jonah,” we have a very clear mention of the lost Assyrians, quite naturally called the People of Jonah: “Otherwise, many cities would have embraced the Faith and tasted its advantages. Only the people of Jonah believed in their predestination. They delivered themselves from the terrible danger threatening them in the world. We have permitted them to exist to the End of the Age.” (10:98) There are similar mentions of the Banu Israel.


All of this is certainly a scientific interpretation of a Biblical and Koranic subject whose origin goes back to Ancient Mesopotamia. As to the substance of this matter, it must be emphasised that it has been only half developed here — although it does agree with other historical, philological and archaeological data. Science does not know how to predict the future, and the attempt would go beyond its scope and competence. But the Great Future of the Assyrians and the Israelites constitutes the second half of this subject and it consists in their remarkable return to their land, helped by the Messiah! Note that Prophecy and the Ancient Prophetic Myth place this event in the context of the End of the Age, or that of a short period of terrible events during which a regime will collapse, a regime based on lies, fraud and error, it having being the hope and purpose of the idolatrous polytheistic priesthood. Consequently, the task of science must be to present historic continuity, the devel­opment of history, as well as developments in numerous subjects, of their special and particular aspects. This interpretive essay could make a contribution to the annihilation of “Babylon.” If this is the case, it must be acknowledged that there has been no ulterior motive, no personal interest.

Bible Translations: RSV, KJV, Jerusalem Bible