For most folks the answer is "no" because they aren’t aware the ten tribes disappeared in the first place. If you fall into that category, all you need to know is the Hebrews of the Bible were broken down into twelve tribes. Ten were of the House of Israel, and two were of the House of Judah. As stated, all twelve tribes were Hebrew (descendants of Heber), but only those of the House of Judah were also known as Jews. This is important because by the time of Jesus only the Jews were still around. The ten tribes of Israel had long since vanished.

Before we go any further, you need to know this is not going to be a religious study. Therefore, it does not matter what you already believe or don’t believe. Your ideology is safe. Truth is, the theories and religious doctrines developed around what ultimately happened to the missing tribes are so many, and so mostly incompatible with each other, it would be impossible to put them together into one grand "true" explanation having a divine purpose behind it. This means you won’t find any definitive religious answers here, either. Nevertheless, you will find plenty of things to take into consideration, and it’s more than likely you might
figure out there must be an element of truth behind more than one of the theories.

I also want to point out all my research was done through libraries and talking
to people such as college professors and theologians. When I began looking into
things the internet did not yet exist, and thus I’m certain the facts I
gathered were more reliable than what is currently bouncing around in the
computer world. Look up any of this stuff on the net and you will lose your
mind. Not the least because so many racists and/or liberals are trying too hard
to prove everything newly discovered proves white people are evil changers of
history, and they tend to draw wild conclusions from little things they like
while completely ignoring big things they don’t like. This isn’t to say some of
their conclusions might not end up being correct, but as long as any crackpot
can put whatever unsubstantiated beliefs he or she has on the internet,
completely unchallenged, the odds are all you will gather is conflicting
versions of biased opinion. I am aware that last remark opens me up to also
being called a crackpot, but the difference is this blog-post will only examine
evidence put forward by other people, and it won’t favor anyone’s opinion over
anybody else’s. I’m just putting several ideas together in one place, and I’m
including things others wish to ignore. You are free to draw your own
conclusions or create new possibilities. With that said, let’s get on with it.

First, let’s dispense with any
notions of all ten tribes going to the same place. Maybe they did, but nothing
says the ten couldn’t have split into different directions, so it’s entirely possible
more than one idea for where these folks ended up could be correct, even if
subsequent theological doctrines built around these theories disagree with each
other. It also must be noted most theories have detractors listing reasons why
that particular theory can’t be true, but almost all these detractors favor a
different theory. You will find the phrase "Generally accepted" being thrown
around whenever somebody doesn’t like one particular idea, but all that means
is the critic found at least three of five people he/she talked to who also
didn’t like the idea. You almost never find any conclusive proof being offered to back up why the theory can’t be true, and just about every fault they can list against the theory they don’t
like also can be applied to the one they favor. Until solid historical,
physical, geographical and/or logical proof can be found to discount an idea,
no theory should be cast aside.

Here’s an example of what I mean.
The Romans invaded Britain about 55 BC. This is when the written history of
Britain is said to begin, but it can’t actually be called true British history.
It is really just Roman history as seen from this location. The Romans had a
hard time here. They were constantly fighting the Celts, and even though the
Romans can claim to have conquered large chunks of territory, they never
succeeded in totally conquering the British Isles. Eventually the Romans pulled
out, and sometime after their departure the country of England developed into a
kingdom with a pretty thorough written history. However, England always had a
missing story for its beginning, and thus the King Arthur tales came along.

The stories are often called myths, which they most likely are, but some folks are trying to suggest King Arthur’s story may have been based upon a real king whose family descended from a displaced
Roman citizen. If the King Arthur story is true in all but the name of this
forgotten king, this would certainly be a viable theory, but why look to the
Romans? Why not consider the people who were there long before the Romans came
along: the Celts? The same question can be posed for the predominant theory
about the birth of England as well. Most scholars prefer only the Anglo-Saxons when
looking at England’s origins, which actually makes sense because they were the
first newcomers to show up when the Romans departed, and there is no doubt the
name ‘England’ came from these folks, but this idea also overlooks the fact the
Celts never left. Why wouldn’t it be possible for the Celts to have produced
the first legendary king, and later on some of the Celts merged with the
Anglo-Saxons? In fact, it’s entirely possible the Celts and the Anglo-Saxons
had previously developed a relationship with each other. Without having actual historical
records it’s hard to know whether the Anglo-Saxons originally came in as
violent conquerors, or if they were brought in peacefully through other methods
such as royal marriage. Perhaps the two groups got along fine for a while
before the wars broke out. Whatever the case, this situation illustrates quite
well how people can get attached to certain theories.

I bet you’re wondering what any of
this has to do with the missing tribes, huh? Well, it’s just possible the Celts
could be related to a lost tribe, and, for that matter, so too could the Anglo-Saxons,
the Caucasians, and the Germanic peoples. There are also people who
theorize the Japanese and/or American Indians could have descended from some
lost tribes, and the recent discovery of La Brana Man strongly suggests a people from the Middle East moved into Europe long before the ten tribes even disappeared. Naturally, this means a later large migration of people from the Middle East was entirely possible.

One thing’s for sure, the ten tribes had to go somewhere. As unlikely as any
particular theory may seem at first glance, the idea of a nation as huge as the
House of Israel just quietly dying out is much more unlikely. Nope, it is far
more probable they moved to another location, and then, after a few generations,
they lost their roots. I’ll back up why this probability is the most logical as
we go along, but for now let’s look at what motivates some of these ideas.

Those who lean towards the Japanese
and Indians as possible explanations pretty much base their theories around
racial factors, and even though this leaves them with some massive geographical
complications to overcome, they really don’t have many other choices. If you are
solidly attached to the idea the ancient Hebrews had dark skin, and you further
believe skin color is the only physical attribute they had that couldn’t
possibly have changed over time, these are pretty much the theories you have to
go with.

This brings us to what got me looking into this in the first place. Back in the
1970’s when I was young man (Yeah, I know. I seem younger. All my writing is
wrinkle-free), it became popular to say Jesus and the Jews back in his time must
have been black, or at least dark brown. Since I had been raised mostly in
California, I never had a problem with the idea (and back then I was deathly
afraid of accidentally saying anything at all that might make me sound like a
racist), but I couldn’t help wondering, at least to myself, why just about
every Jew I’d ever seen had been white. The prevailing answer for that has
always been the Europeans simply put their own skin color over the Bible
stories.

Allowing for the very real
possibility this may be exactly what happened, let’s just think about the
problems created when you logically follow that idea. A dark race had to share its
religion with a much paler race, and then that darker race had to either fade
away, or at least fade to white. Not to say it isn’t feasible, but what are the
odds? The religion lived on, virtually untouched, but not the biological
composition of its originators? Sure, it might be possible over an extremely
long time, if the paler race massively outnumbered the darker one, but is there
anything in history suggesting such a culture shift could occur without a
colossal struggle? Remember, we’re talking about the Jews now, not the lost
tribes or the early Christians, and we’re dealing with a time frame when
written histories we can translate were prevalent. Where are the accounts of
any such struggles? More importantly, when has a loser’s religion ever been
entirely accepted, and by that I mean without change, by a winning culture? (Please don’t try suggesting Christianity. From their beginnings Christians were never developed solely around one ethnicity or
culture, and it can hardly be claimed this religion remained completely intact over
all that time. Unlike Judaism, whose books today are almost identical to all
the ancient copies ever discovered, Christianity has frequently adapted itself
to better fit with other traditions).

If history has taught us anything,
it has been the dominate culture always keeps its own religion, and,
furthermore, if a dominate culture ever does decide later to change its
religious beliefs, it never does so to completely become a previously existing
culture; it always ends up creating a new culture. This fact is extremely important not because it tells us anything about the racial make-up of the Jews from two thousand years ago, but because this
aspect of human behavior explains why the ten tribes disappeared. Not the where, just the why. The House of Israel didn’t just leave the region; it probably also
changed its culture as it moved along, and that means we can’t find them simply
because they stopped carrying their Hebrew identity around with them.

Another problem created in this
instance when trying to fit one race into the past of a religious ideology
predominantly being held by a different race is this is the one group of people where assimilation can’t be used.
Whether you are talking about the ancient Hebrews, or the later migration of
Jews after the destruction of the second Temple, you are dealing with a group
of people whose culture was always kept separate from any other culture they
lived around. It would be safe to say, except for the trade of goods and
services, nobody ever wanted anything to do with these people.

Even Joseph, who was loved by Pharaoh and granted huge tracts of Egyptian land to
bring his people, never assimilated into the Egyptian culture. His descendants
thrived for nobody knows how many generations, but eventually the Egyptians found
reasons to throw them into bondage.

This seems to be the pattern.
Suspicion, fear, hatred, and outright persecution are far more frequently directed
towards these people than curiosity about the God in which they believe. I’m
perfectly willing to accept white people usurped the faith of Abraham as easily
as all the other things Europeans are blamed for stealing, provided solid proof
is given, but without that proof please at least explain how or why anybody
would. Of all the Hebrew/Jewish possessions others have coveted, and there
were many, the one thing nobody else wanted was their religion.

In fact, if you read the Old
Testament you will learn the Hebrews themselves often wanted to turn away from
their religion. It is a recurring theme all throughout the books, and seems to
help explain why God had to use the first two Commandments to stress the
importance of only following Him. His Chosen People consistently displayed an
odd inclination to stray. This is
something any Biblical scholar will notice, and it definitely was something our
Founding Fathers noticed. They figured out the Hebrews did better under judges than
they did under kings, and the Founding Fathers also noticed the same thing
about the Romans. The Roman Republic was a noble concept where its citizens had
more freedom and control over their lives than people in other cultures of the
time were allowed, but it all was gradually lost after Rome came under the
control of emperors. This is another pattern. All societies governed by a small
ruling class holding absolute power fall into corruption and eventually get
replaced.

It’s likely this also happened to
the Ten Tribes of Israel. All we know is they were conquered and enslaved by
the Assyrians around 721 BC, and they were never seen again, but we don’t
really know why. Whether or not they were defeated because they had forsaken
God is debatable, but logic tells us they failed to adequately defend
themselves, most likely due to some form of internal corruption, and no matter
where these people ended up they certainly didn’t keep their religion. There’s
also no reason to believe they were all still there when the Assyrians arrived.
Perhaps some tribes were fed up with the corruption, or, conversely, had
drifted into other religions to the point where they were considered corrupt, but
whatever the case, the corruption might have caused a few tribes to leave the
area beforehand. Maybe their departure was even what made the take-over possible.
Who knows? The point is most people aren’t looking at the before; they are only
focused on what happened to the people after
the Assyrians conquered them.

Some theorists surmise the missing tribes
assimilated with other groups around them, and others say they moved completely
out of the region, possibly even to other continents, but, either way, somewhere
along the line they had to evolve from calling themselves Hebrews to calling
themselves something else. At this point it is safe to say the House of Israel as
a cultural identity truly did disappear forever, so all that’s left to figure
out is what happened to the people.

I hope you haven’t started expecting
me to tell you. I don’t know. I’m still wondering. The purpose of this blog was
to share many of the interesting things I discovered in my research, but I
never promised to give any answers. I will, however, share a few more
interesting facts with you, and I guarantee they will make you also wonder.

We’ll start with the Celts. What I
discovered here wasn’t found by looking for the lost tribes. It all came about
because I liked a series of comics called "Asterix and Obelix". These were
amusing stories of a band of Gauls who spent a great deal of time whupping the
tar outta Romans. When I found out Gaul used to be where France is now I
started wondering what happened to these people. Through my research I found
out the Romans defeated the Gauls (Asterix and Obelix notwithstanding), and a series of peoples took turns moving into
their territory until the Franks finally took control. I also learned at that
time the Gauls were a Celtic people, and so were the Scottish and Irish. This
caused me to look into the origins of the Celts.

What I found out was very
interesting. The Celts didn’t just move into Europe; they conquered almost all
of it, and, according to the books I found, the reason they were so successful in
this endeavor was because they showed up with chariots and strong metal weapons
– things the people they conquered did not have. What I didn’t find was any
explanation for where they were before they showed up with these items. It
always seemed an odd thing to ignore. Did they somehow remain hidden until they
figured out how to make these things, and then they surprised all of Europe as
soon as they had a significant advantage, or did they come from somewhere else where
we already know such things existed?

I have to say, historians have
always seemed unwilling to consider that last possibility, and people with
other agendas appear to be trying very hard to make sure the idea gets squashed
before it can reasonably be considered. It may not always be on purpose, but
the fact remains "experts" continuously change who they think really created
ruins once believed to have been built by a different group of people. Nowadays
there are people claiming the Celts first appeared in Spain, Austria, Africa,
Asia, and who knows where else, and they have time frames thousands of years
apart from each other, but when I first read about it, the earliest Celt
settlements had been found in the middle of France, dating back to somewhere
between 800 to 500 BC, but most commonly stated as being in the 600’s BC.

It must be noted those discoveries don’t
prove the Celts originally started in that region; they only prove these may
have been the first large, city-type settlements the Celts created. The existence
of these ruins certainly doesn’t rule out the possibility there may have been a wide series of
less-permanent tent and/or wooden hut type settlements used as the Celts moved
from one region to another. More importantly, even in the cases where
settlements attributed to the Celts are found dating back to long before the
ten tribes disappeared, it only helps to show these particular people being
called Celts might not have been directly
from one of the ten tribes. It still doesn’t rule out the possibility the Celts
themselves came from the Middle East. This is especially true since the
earliest ruins being called Celtic are also being attributed to a branch of
Celt-like people who aren’t called the "true" Celts.

The Bible tells us the sons of
Abraham were many, and they were spread over a wide area. Moses’ wife Zipporah
was the daughter of Jethro, a Midianite Priest. Being a Medianite Priest meant
Jethro was a descendent of Midian, who was a son of Abraham through his second
wife, Keturah. We also are told Esau had to leave his homeland when he lost his
birthright and his new land became Edom. These are just two stories showing
Abrahamic people could be found outside the regions commonly considered
Hebraic.

People are still arguing whether
Edom could have been in what is now modern day Turkey or Russia, and nobody
knows all the locations Abraham’s descendants could have ended up, but that’s
the thing. Just because such knowledge is lost to us now doesn’t mean the
Hebrews back then didn’t know where to go to find outside branches of the
family tree, or at least where to go to find people with whom they could form
new alliances. Here’s yet another pattern history shows us. The Midianites eventually
became enemies for the Hebrews, and so too did other groups claiming Abraham as
a forefather, but we’ve all learned, as times change, old enemies can become
new friends. This is especially true when the two groups share a common
heritage. If any of the Hebrews felt a compelling need to leave their
traditional homeland, it is highly conceivable they could have been drawn to areas
where they either had some family ties or had some reason to believe the threat
was less.

Perhaps some tribes headed specifically
to a society of which they were aware, such as the early Celt-like people, or
maybe they just headed in the general direction where they knew similar people
could be found. This possibility opens the door to some of the lost tribes
joining with other cultures comparable to theirs, while also opening the door
to the idea other tribes may have found unoccupied lands they liked so much
they stayed there. Ah, there it is. The proverbial missing link. As soon as we
take that idea into consideration we can start looking at the Saxons, the
Caucasians, and any number of various Germanic tribes.

I really hate to bring up the
subject of race, because white people will automatically cringe in the fear they
might be forced to see things considered politically incorrect, and those who
hate white people, including other whites, will start assuming they are now going
to see something straight from the Ku Klux Klan, but there’s simply no real way
to deal with the Caucasians without mentioning race. To keep everybody happy we
need to remove the notion Caucasian strictly means white. Maybe it does and
maybe it doesn’t. For our purposes it doesn’t matter, but for the people who
hate Western Civilization it matters a great deal.

The Caucasians got their name solely
because they were known to have come from the other side of the Caucuses. The Caucuses
are a range of mountains separating Eastern Europe from the Middle East, so if
you look at a map you can see the Hebrews, or any other people from the same
region, could have easily migrated north through this route. The people who
originally came over those mountains could have been any color, but the main
reason white people are called Caucasians now is because all the lands on the
European side of the mountains are held by white people. For those whose
happiness depends upon the idea of the Biblical people having been dark skinned,
all is not lost. There is a theory suggesting the original Caucasians evolved
from dark to white because their new climate and diet altered the vitamins they
took in, and thus they changed genetically.

I have no idea how long such an
evolution could take, but neither do I care. All that matters is this proves a
people moving from the lands held by the ten tribes could have taken this same
route. Whatever their original race was (and whether or not the ten tribes were
the first to go this way), is completely irrelevant. The idea of a dark people
evolving to white does, however, bring up an interesting question. Should leftists
now transfer their hatred for Western Civilization upon the dark people who
might be responsible for becoming the evil Europeans, or should they start calling
European whites the original traitors to their race?

Putting aside the obvious flaws in
narrow-minded, all too predictable, leftist dogma, the only relevant factor left
is the Europeans from at least 500 BC onward probably consisted in part of more
than one people who originated in the Middle East. What other people aside from
the ones already discussed might that still include, you ask? Well, the Saxons
are not only likely, but extremely likely, and the one European country with an
early history outright claiming they have ties to the people of the Bible is
Scotland.

Let’s deal with the Scottish angle
first. Centuries before there was an England there was a Scotland. In fact, in
the very early days it was Scotland and Norway. One people – two locations. All
kings of Scotland and Norway were crowned in Scotland, and all these same kings
were buried in Scotland. Also, and most significantly as far as this blog is
concerned, all coronations for these kings were performed while they sat over
the Stone of Scone (pronounced Skoon). The reason this is significant is
because there are surviving documents of coronation declaring the Stone of
Scone was in fact the same stone Jacob slept upon when he had his dream seeing
into heaven. The story is commonly referred to as Jacob’s Ladder or Jacob’s
Pillar, but why on earth did the Scots think their stone was also Jacob’s?
There is no ancient written reason to explain this, but there is a tradition
that Scotland was named after one of King Zedekiah’s daughters. (For those who
don’t know, Zedekiah was a king of Judah who defied God and caused the people
of Jerusalem to be taken into captivity by the Babylonians. You also need to
know this was after the ten tribes
disappeared). This daughter allegedly married an Irish prince who took her,
willingly, from Jerusalem.

Have doubts? It’s okay, so do a lot
of people. The truth of that particular story actually does not matter here.
What matters is the Scots believed this stone was Jacob’s Pillar and later on
the English also believed it enough to steal the stone. Until recently the
English kept possession of that stone. All English kings and queens have been
crowned sitting over the Stone of Scone. There was one instance, however, in 1950 when
the Scots stole the stone back. The folks who declare the Stone of Scone was
"Most likely of Scottish origin" always fail to mention the stone was broken
during the theft of 1950, and some of the fragments were later compared to the
area in the Middle East where the true Jacob’s Pillar may have been. The fragments
were a pretty good match, which doesn’t prove anything, but it does seem to
indicate the Scots had a good reason to believe what they did.

This story also shows the Celts had
knowledge of the people of Jerusalem and enough of a relation with this people
to enter into marriage with them. While no particular theory gets confirmed,
the possibility of people from a lost tribe finding their way north and
retaining enough knowledge of their origins to later return is kept open. At
this point that’s about all we can safely ascertain from the Scots and the
other Celts.

The Saxons are the last group I will
discuss in this blog. The difficulties to overcome in tracing the ten tribes to
the Japanese would require a book to be written, and the American Indians would
be worth exploring were it not for the fact they didn’t bring anything
important with them as they migrated. You would think they could have managed
to bring goats, sheep, cattle and horses anywhere people could go, and it’s a
real mystery why they wouldn’t at least bring knowledge of the wheel with them.
Not to say it couldn’t have happened, but logic suggests we should look for other
explanations.

The Saxons have often been
considered the best place to look for a lost tribe, and it has long been said
the word Saxon sprang from the people calling themselves "Isaac’s sons", which
would make sense if we were certain any Hebrew tribe would use both that title
and a similar pronunciation of the words. Since debating that idea is a
distraction, we can put it aside and just look at other evidence. The Persians
left writings talking about a people who moved from the region formerly
occupied by the ten tribes (the land was called Media) into Eastern Europe, and
this was done around 700 BC. Depending upon who’s writing about them (even the
Romans mentioned this people but only from where they were existing at the
time) these people were given such names as Sacea, Sacosons, Saka, and a
variety of other versions of Sac or Sax. They were also called Scythians.
Whatever name they went by, and no matter how long it took for the names to
evolve into just Saxon, we are talking about the same people.

The fact they moved from the exact
region as the ten tribes existed, at the same time the Assyrians conquered that
area, is too big to ignore. Why do the so-called experts hate to consider this
possibility? The only answer is it must conflict with a previous held belief (Oh, let’s just say it. The European countries involved have a long history of hating the Jews, and the thought of having any Hebrew blood themselves just makes them cringe. Ironic, huh?) They
certainly don’t bother trying to give any rational reasons why anybody should
ignore this information. The best they can do when trying to discount this
option is to say the time frame doesn’t fit as nicely as they would prefer.
Seriously? How much closer could it get? The only things we don’t know are exactly
how long the Hebrews were held in captivity, and whether the migration started before
or after the captivity. Seems to me the evidence supporting the possibility it
was some of the lost tribes who are mentioned in the Persian writings is a lot
stronger than any of the arguments the skeptics provide to discount it.

In closing, I told you I have no
definitive religious answers for why the ten tribes disappeared, and I’ve avoided taking sides on such issues as which tribes went to what specific location, and/or turned into what other people, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have some opinions. I can say it does seem more than likely people from the ten
tribes ended up in Europe somewhere along the line (In fact, I’m pretty sure they did), even if some of them ultimately may have moved on to a different continent, and I truly do believe
they forsook their religion. If the Bible tells us anything, it is these people
always needed a strong leader to keep them from drifting off to other
religions, and whenever the leaders drifted to new gods so did most of the
people. That more than anything leads me to believe the people just evolved
into different cultures. All I can say is I’m still open to any solid theories saying otherwise, and I’m always ready to change what to believe as soon as new facts come in. I also wish to stress there’s
no reason to get upset over what race these people either were or may have become.

Seems to me either accepting or debunking a theory simply because you are looking for a specific race to make it fit is a complete waste of brain power.

PS. Life to America!