Chaldeans Related to Sinites (Chinese)?

 Asthma History: 2000 B.C.: Chaldeans introduce physicians to Babylon


Damien F. Mackey


As there appears to be a very close connection between the Chinese language and that of the Sumerians – whom I previously identified, following professor Gunnar Heinsohn, with the ancient Chaldeans – then what may have been the origins of the Chinese?  




According to conclusions reached in Part One of this series:


  1. the Sumerians may have been the famed Chaldeans (professor Heinsohn’s view); and
  2. the ‘Ubaid civilisation may archaeologically represent this culture (Dr. Osgood’s view).


These interesting conclusions, when combined with two further ones, that:


  1. the Sumerian language has close affinities with Chinese; and that
  2. the Chinese, the biblical Sinites (Genesis 10:17), were similar to the Chaldeans,


may lead us to the very origins of the Chinese people and how far back is to be dated their actual beginnings.

The key biblical text for this will be Genesis 10:15, 17, 19:


“Canaan was the father of …the Hittites … Sinites ….

Later the Canaanite clans scattered …”.



Biblical Chinese and Chaldeans


The following article is, I think, most useful on this, though I may not agree with all details:



There is increasing evidence of the connection between Biblical Genesis (Ch. 1-11) and the origin of Chinese Civilization. In Genesis 10 we have the Table of Nations, that is, the descendants of Noah’s three sons Shem, Ham and Japhet. Ham is regarded as the father of the Mongoloid and Negroid races because he generated Canaan whose two sons Heth (Hittites/Cathey) and Sin (Sinite/China) who are presumed to be the progenitors of the Mongoloid stock.


“The name Sin appears frequently in the Chinese language, and the city of Xian, a provincial capital in western China, was known as Sianfu in the nineteenth century, meaning “Father Sin.” Some scholars have suggested that the Sin referred to here may have been Fu Xi, the legendary first king of China, who began his reign in 2852 B.C. Later, when the first Chinese kingdom broke up in the first millennium B.C., a state named Qin (also spelled Tsin or Ch’in), arose near Xian; the Qin rulers reunited the land in the third century B.C., and the whole land became known as China, named after Qin. Thus the name “Sin” came to us in a roundabout fashion, altered over the ages to become “China.” The ancient name also appeared in its original form in the 1960s and 70s when news reports told about the “Sino-Soviet” border dispute.”

(see Biblical Interpretation of World History)

Most likely the Chinese Civilization began in the area of the former Chinese capital Shensi or Siang-fu (Father Sin) also called Hang’an and today called Xi’an meaning city of “Everlasting Peace”. This is the place where the Silk Road began and served as the first capital of the unified empire. “One ancient Chinese classic called the “Hihking” tells the story of Fuhi, whom the Chinese consider to be the father of their civilization. This history records that Fuhi, his wife, three sons, and three daughters escaped the great flood. He and his family were the only people left alive on earth. After the great flood they repopulated the world. An ancient temple in China has a wall painting that shows Fuhi’s boat in the raging waters. Dolphins are swimming around the boat and a dove with an olive branch in its beak is flying toward it.” (Webpage: Evidence-the Great Flood)


There are also cultural similarities between the Chinese and Chaldeans which suggest their origin. Like the Chaldeans, the Chinese had astronomical knowledge and belief in astrology, used same of methods of measurement, the cycle of sixty and decimal system. They believed in interrelation and correspondence of five elements, the five colors, the harmony of numbers and a multitude of other customs that the Chaldeans had. All of this cannot be mere coincidence.” (Webpage: Archeology, The Bible and the Post-Flood Origins of Chinese History/ article by Roy L. Hales)

[End of quotes]


Along similar lines we read in the article, “The Table of Nations”, at:


The vast aggregate of peoples who are generally classified as Mongoloid, who settled the Far East, have been a question as to where they fall into the Table of Nations. The evidence shows they are Hamitic, even though some have incorrectly reasoned that the Chinese were of Japhetic stock, and the Japanese were either Japhetic or Semitic. There are two names which provide clues. Two of Canaan’s sons, Heth (Hittites) and Sin (Sinites), are presumed to be the progenitors of Chinese and Mongoloid stock. The Hittites were known as the Hatti or Chatti. In Egyptian monuments the Hittite peoples were depicted with prominent noses, full lips, high check-bones, hairless faces, varying skin color from brown to yellowish and reddish, straight black hair and dark brown eyes.


The term Hittite in Cuneiform (the earliest form of writing invented by the Sumerians) appears as Khittae* representing a once powerful nation from the Far East known as the Khitai, and has been preserved through the centuries in the more familiar term, Cathay. The Cathay were Mongoloids, considered a part of early Chinese stock. There are links between the known Hittites and Cathay, for example, their modes of dress, their shoes with turned-up toes, their manner of doing their hair in a pigtail, and so forth. Representations show them to have possessed high cheekbones, and craniologists have observed that they had common characteristics of Mongoloids.

…. Sin (or Seni), a brother of Heth, has many occurrences in variant forms in the Far East. There is one significant feature concerning the likely mode of origin of Chinese civilization. The place most closely associated by the Chinese themselves with the origin of their civilization is the capital of Shensi, namely, Siang-fu (Father Sin). Siang-fu appears in Assyrian records as Sianu. Today, Siang-fu can be loosely translated, “Peace to the Western Capital of China”. The Chinese have a tradition that their first king, Fu-hi or Fohi (Chinese Noah), made his appearance on the Mountains of Chin, was surrounded by a rainbow after the world had been covered with water, and [sacrificed] animals to God (corresponding to the Genesis record). Sin himself was the third generation from Noah, a circumstance which would provide the right time interval for the formation of early Chinese culture.


Furthermore, those who came from the Far East to trade were called Sinæ (Sin) by the Scythians. Ptolemy, a Greek astronomer, referred to China as the land of Sinim or Sinæ. Reference to the Sinim in Isaiah 49:12 notes they came “from afar,” specifically not from the north and not from the west. Arabs called China Sin, Chin, Mahachin, Machin. The Sinæ were spoken of as a people in the remotest parts of Asia.


With respect to the Cathay people of historical reference, it would make sense to suppose that the remnants of the Hittites, after the destruction of their empire, traveled towards the east and settled among the Sinites who were relatives, contributing to their civilization, and thus becoming the ancestors of the Asian people groups. Still others migrated throughout the region and beyond, making up present-day Mongoloid races in Asia and the Americas. The evidence strongly suggests that Ham’s grandsons, Heth (Hittites/Cathay) and Sin (Sinites/China), are the ancestors of the Mongoloid peoples.


[End of quote]


All this is fine, but the task really here is to demonstrate a connection between the Chinese and the Chaldeans, rather than the Hittites.

Dr. I. Velikovsky may have managed to have done that for us. In the process of his mis-guided effort in Ramses II and His Time (1978) to reduce history by attempting to identify the Hittite empire of Hattusilis with the Chaldean empire of Nebuchednezzar II, he made the following interesting observations about the Hittites and Chaldeans:


In the region of Ararat, east of Ur of the Chaldees, on the upper Euphrates and around Lake Van, there lived a people who worshiped the god Chaldi. Modern scholars, beginning with Lehmann-Haupt, called them “Chaldians” on the assumption that their tribal name reflected the name of their chief deity (similarly the Assyrian nation took its name from its chief god Assur), choosing this form of the name to distinguish them from the Chaldeans of Babylonia. The dynasties of these “Chaldians” were engaged in defensive wars against the Assyrians. …. They were also called Urartu, a name that survives in the scriptural Ararat. Scholars have noted “striking” similarities between Urartian (Chaldean) and “Hittite” culture. …. In the light of the persistent pressure the Assyrians under Esarhaddon and his son Assurbanipal exerted on the population around Lakes Urmia and Van, which resulted in the involuntary resettlement of these populations farther and farther to the west, there is some ground to suppose that the worshipers of Chaldi earned the name “Chaldeans” (“Casdim” in Hebrew) because they were one of the branches of the ancient Chaldean people.


Mackey’s comment: On the “Casdim”, see my article:


Those Poor Neglected Kassites


Now, continuing with Velikovsky:


The Chaldeans under Nabopolassar occupied Babylonia, but Babylonia was not their native land. They came from Chaldea and transferred their capital to Babylon. Ezekiel called them “Babylonians of Chaldea, the land of their nativity” (Ezekiel 23:15). Where was “the land of their nativity”? From where did Nabopolassar come? Judged by the remnants of the strange culture ascribed to the “Hittites,” which I identify as Chaldean, the land of the Chaldean nativity in the eighth and seventh centuries was in Cappadocia and Cilicia, between the Black Sea on the north, the region of Ararat and the upper Euphrates on the east, the big bend of the Mediterranean on the south, and the river Halys on the west. Boghazkoi, Alisar, Senjirli, and Carchemish are situated in this area. Xenophon … the Athenian soldier (ca. -435 to -335) who fought in the army of Cyrus the Younger of Persia and traversed with the famous “ten thousand” mercenaries the length of Asia Minor, wrote about the Chaldeans as a tribe living in Armenia that stretched from Ararat to south of the Black Sea. One hundred forty years earlier Cyrus the Great, at war with Croesus, referred to Chaldeans as “neighbors” of Armenians. He also said of the land which modern scholars assign to the Hittites: “These mountains which we see belong to Chaldaea.” …. Strabo, a native of Amasia in Pontus, who knew Asia Minor at first hand, located the Chaldeans next to Trapezus (Trebizond) on the Black Sea coast: “Above the region of Pharnacia and Trapezus are the Tibareni and the Chaldaei, whose country extends to lesser Armenia” …. It is asserted that these “Black Sea Chaldeans” of Xenophon and Strabo are not the real Chaldeans but “Chaldians,” or that Xenophon used the wrong name for the bellicose tribe of that region. But Xenophon and Strabo were not wrong. Though under Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar the Chaldeans entered the melting pot of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, many of them survived in Cappadocia: Xenophon met them

there at the close of the fifth century and Strabo records their presence in the area as late as the first. Soon we shall also bring archaeological evidence to bear on the question and will show that Chaldean (“Hittite”) pictographs were in use in this very region in the time of Strabo, and even beyond. The Secret Script of the Chaldeans Attaining supreme power in the extensive region from the shores of the Persian Gulf to the Black Sea and to the Mediterranean and the Red Seas, the Chaldean Empire embraced many nations, religions, and tongues. In the subjugated provinces the local languages were respected. “O people, nations, and languages,” called Nebuchadnezzar in the Book of Daniel. The language in daily use in Babylon was Akkadian-Babylonian; in the provinces this was the language of official and diplomatic documents; these documents were often translated into the local tongues. The system was not bilingual but trilingual. Besides Babylonian, the official international language, and the native speech of the various localities, Chaldean was used in sacred services for liturgies and prayers and also in the solemn festivities of the palace. In the Book of Daniel it is written that King Nebuchadnezzar ordered training for certain Judean youths of aristocratic origin who were “skillful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king’s palace, and whom they teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans” …. For many centuries and down to modern times scholars thought that Chaldean was the language in which a part of the Book of Daniel, as well as the Talmud, was written. For this reason there exist “Chaldean” dictionaries. However, it has subsequently been shown that the language of these books was not Chaldean but Aramaean or Syriac. In the same Book of Daniel (2:4) it is said that, besides the tongue of the Chaldean and Babylonian, Syriac was used in the palace. “Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in Syriac.” The absence of inscriptions in the Chaldean tongue conflicted with the reference in the Book of Daniel to a language the Chaldeans used in their secret teachings and for sacred purposes. It was finally stated that the “language of these Chaldaeans differed in no way from the ordinary Semitic Babylonian idiom” … and was practically identical with the Akkadian language of Babylonia and Assyria. The Akkadian population of Babylon was merged with the Chaldean stock, but the land of origin of the Chaldeans was not Babylon. The Chaldeans retained for themselves the position of a caste of priests and astrologers … and it would have been only natural that, in their sacerdotal invocations and mysteries, they should have used the tongue of their ancient traditions, not known to the common people. They recorded their secret knowledge, not to be divulged, in a script not understandable to the profane abecedarians. It is often asserted that no secret writing has been discovered in the countries along the Euphrates. Even modern books on ancient history maintain this in the chapters dealing with Chaldea; and in the chapters on the discovery of a strange pictographic script in Carchemish on the Euphrates, in Babylon, in Assur on the Tigris, in Hamath, in Boghazkoi, and in other places, the new statement is made that this writing must have been left by a people of “a forgotten empire” and, centuries later, by the so-called Syrian Hittites. But since at least some of the monuments with this pictographic script are unanimously assigned to the sixth century … the “Hittites” who supposedly wrote these hieroglyphics (pictographs) when under the later kings of the Chaldean dynasty in Babylon must have escaped not only the memory of subsequent generations but also the notice of their contemporaries. ….

[End of quote]


Emmet Sweeney adds a little more to this:


…. Velikovsky associated the Hittites with the Chaldaeans (see Ramses II and His Time {1978}). Briefly, it should be mentioned that Sumerian royal titles, such as Gal-Lugal, were always used by the Hittite monarchs, and that the Hittite pantheon and mythology was entirely Sumerian. Indeed, the close links between the Hittites and Sumerians were not lost on scholars, and have been frequently commented upon. Khattili, the original “Hittite” language, is agglutinative, like Sumerian; but whether it is closely related is another question. Sumerian kings had strong links with Anatolia, and we find the term khatti (as in Tukim-khatti-migrisha) used as an element in Sumerian royal names. Finally, it must be remembered that the Chaldaeans were equally associated with Anatolia and southern Mesopotamia. We have, for example, classical references to the Chaldaei of Anatolia, and the fact is that the people of “Urartu”, who waged war against the Assyrians in the 8th century, called themselves Chaldi (children of Khaldis): Urartu, or Ararat, is an Assyrian term. ….

[End of quote]


Finally, Charles J. Ball proved with detailed comparisons the very close relationship that existed between the Sumerian language and Chinese.


Here is just a small sample:


INITIAL AND FINAL SOUNDS— THEIR CORRESPONDENCE AND PARALLEL CHANGES That Chinese is related to the old Sumerian language of Babylonia is a con- clusion which appears inevitable, when we notice the great similarity of the two vocabularies. This may perhaps be best exhibited in tabular form. The following list does not, of course, pretend to be exhaustive. Its purpose is merely to weaken any presumption of antecedent improbability; and so to bespeak an unprejudiced consideration for the arguments and comparisons to follow.


INITIAL AND FINAL SOUNDS— THEIR CORRESPONDENCE AND PARALLEL CHANGES It is evident that the preceding list presents at a glance sufficient similarity between the material of the two languages to suggest at once the hypothesis of relationship. But if we look below the surface, as Philology justifies us in doing, we shall discover in Chinese a large number of vocables which, although they have become dissimilar in the natural course of phonetic change, were originally either identical with the corresponding sounds of the primitive Sumerian speech, or at all events manifestly akin to them. In fact, much as Philology justifies us in connecting the Latin aqua with the French eau, so it may justify us in connecting the Chinese ho, river, with the Sumerian ID, I, river, and CjAL, to flow ; although the three terms possess not a letter in common. When it is pointed out that the character ^ ho is still read ka or ga in the traditional Japanese pronunciation, which is more faithful to the ancient sounds of the Chinese, and that the kindred Mongol word for river is gol, Manchau hoi ; we see at once that the Chinese initial h represents, as indeed is usual, an older k (from a yet earlier g), and that the lost final of the root is 1 or a related sound. It thus appears likely that the Chinese ho, river, is akin to the Sumerian GAL, to flow. But, further, the Sumerian ID, I, river, which occurs in the name I.DIGNA, Assyrian Idiglat, the Tigris, is really a worn form of GID, as is shown by the Hebrew transcription Vpin Khiddeqel ; and this earlier GID suggests a primary GAD, cognate with GAL, to flow, and identical with the old Chinese kat, gat, river (cf P. 145).

There can be little doubt, one would think, that the Sumerian (G)USH and MUD, on the one hand, and their Chinese equivalents hiieh-hut and mieh-myt, on the other, although given in the dictionaries as mutually independent words, are really related to each other in much the same way as GISH and MESH, GU and MU, tree, wood, are related in Sumerian, or as ho and fo, fire, or ngo and wo, I, in Chinese. One is simply a labialized form of the other. The Chinese Phonetics have preserved many vestiges of such philological counterparts. Thus in Sumerian, ^^, the character denoting black and night, had the sounds GA, GE, GIG, and MI (from MIG, MUG). Accordingly, we find that the Chinese M (P. 862) has the Phonetic values kek and mek. By itself, the character is read hei or h^ or ho, C. hak, H. het, W. he, hah, hek, K. hik, J. koku, black {see G. 3899) ; and with the Radical or Determinative j^ earth, it is ^ mo, mek, met, meik, mai, me, muk, me, K. mik, J. boku and moku, A. mak, ink ; black ; obscure (G. 8022). It will be noticed that the vowel-variation resembles that of the values of the Sumerian prototype, GA, GE, GIG, MI, KUKKU. Of course, the sound 6 INITIAL AND FINAL SOUNDS, ETC. belongs to the Phonetic ^. The Radical, added later for distinction’s sake, has nothing to do with sound, but only with sense.


[End of quote]



If, as this article suggests, the Chinese people originated from Sin, a son of Canaan, a Hamite, then this people cannot pre-date c. 2000 BC.





Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s