In the foregoing discussion I have refrained from introducing yet another phenomenon. I mentioned in the opening of this letter that I might make peripheral reference to it. This phenomenon is a world-wide pervasive use of Semitic words to name geographical features on this planet. Those names are very old, predating even the Semitic influence I discussed in the Don phenomenon. I shall briefly mention one item, in order that this study might be placed into a larger context.

Consider the Hebrew word sar.

The following list shows how certain names correspond to Sarah, Abraham's wife.


Sara, East Pakistan
Sara River, Arabia
Sara, Washington
Sarra, Libya
Sarrah, Jordan
Sarrai, India
Sarai, Russia
Serra, Brazil
Sara and Sara Tribe, West Africa
Sarai, Afghanistan
Serrai, Greece
Sera, Iran
Sera and Sera Islands, Indonesia

These names were the cause for Cohane to speculate that later Hebrew tribes migrated to these regions and used the names out of respect for their ancestral mother. While we might be willing to admit that names in Jordan, Libya and perhaps Iran and Afghanistan had seen her influence, the names are spread over the entire globe. They were used from the Americas to Europe, to the depths of Africa, across Asia, and into the southwest Pacific. If named after Sarah it would imply the Hebrew name was used alike in those widespread regions. (Sarai was Sarah's original name, Gen 17:15.) While the names in Washington State and in Brazil might have been carried by white man, the names were obviously scattered far beyond any recognized historical migrations. Furthermore, why would Sarah receive such attention and not Abraham? If anything, their prominence should be reversed. Few Abrahamic names are known except as carried by white man in recent historical times. The curiosity increases when we list other "sara" names.


Saratok, Sarawak
Sarawa River, Burma
Sarasota, Florida
Saratoga, New York
Saranac, New York
Saregossa, Spain
Saraya Island, Singapore
Sarajevo, Bosnia
Seregove, Russia
Sarala, Russia

This list contains syllables appended to the "Sara" name. Numerous other examples could be cited.

The latter names are more uncertain. If one is not expert in all languages, in the traditions of the natives, and in their histories, one cannot be certain of the origins. We cannot verify because the meanings may have shifted and because there are no written records.

In attempt to understand, we should keep in mind that names are not arbitrary sounds, or mere grunts. People use names which carry meaning -- from outstanding personalities, memorable events, or other significance, if only Blue mountains and Red rivers.

Please note that this is only one Semitic example out of many. I mention it here merely to illustrate.

It is possible to draw out the meaning of many of the old names and to determine the origins of this exceptional phenomenon through means other than historic linguistics, although we may not be able to determine their true antiquity.

Consider significance of the Sara name in Hebrew. It comes from the root verb sarar, "to have dominion." The female form is sara while the male form is sar, denoting human mortals who have dominion through rulership -- kings, queens, princes, and princesses. Sarah received this name because of her prominent position in the parenthood of the Hebrew people. As a place name sarar would suggest dominion or prominence, a literal significance attached to a place, not necessarily associated with a human personality.

Examples of sar names are also found:

Sar Pass, Palua Island
Sar Dasht, Iran
Sar Planina, Yugoslavia
Sar Ney, Iran
Sarr River, Arabia
Sar, Bahrain
Sar-i-kia, Afghanistan
Sar-Kul, Russia

Application of the names for their literal Semitic meaning could be possible only if the original people who applied the names recognized such meaning. If the names were used in commemoration those people must have used a Semitic language with sounds and meaning similar to those now recognized in Northwest Semitic. Otherwise, the names were mere random sounds, a proposal hardly possible in light of practical name assignments used everywhere across our globe. Even more, by some mysterious process, those Semitic phonetics and meaning were preserved to now be evident in modern Hebrew. Otherwise we would not be able to recognize them.

As further illustration of why the origins were Semitic consider the name sar as it was used for titles of nobility in the past.

The Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar carried this title in his name. The terminal zar, pronounced tsar, meant king or ruler.

Other examples of the sar title may be found in Akkadian myths. Ansar and Kisar, (pronounced tsar) were children of Lahmu and Lahamu, the first gods to come into being.(The "An" is found in Sumerian and Egyptian myths as the Father god.)

I found it highly curious that Tsar was used by the supreme ruler of Russia, in his title of Czar, well remembered into the twentieth century. How did the Russian people come to use a title for their supreme ruler which was identical in phonetics and meaning to the Semitic Babylonian kings?

The traditional answer to this question is found in the German Kaiser, from the Roman title Caesar, pronounced Kaisar, used by Teutonic kings down into this century. Many scholars believe the Russian Czar is merely a contraction of the Teutonic Kaiser.

However, the Roman Kaisar might have had origin by one of two different routes. First, a borrowing from the Akkadian Kisar, but highly improbably. Note the similarity of the Akkadian "Kisar" to the Roman "Kaesar." Or, second, a combination of Kai with sar. Kai is found in Hebrew as a preposition or conjunction, meaning "as," "like," and so on. Kaesar was a title which, literally in Hebrew, could be understood to mean "As a King," or "Like a King." If so, the Roman Kaesar is a borrowing of the Semitic sar title to a specific application by the Romans.

If the Romans borrowed, or inherited, a tradition of the Semitic sar titles, why did the Russian Czar, identical to the Semitic Tsar, not come directly from the Semitic rather than the round about route through the Teutonic Kaiser?

Thus we see that Semitic noble designations were used by non-Semitic Indo-European people, and suggests an influence in the ancient past which is lost to memory.

Obviously, some cultural force, at work from remote times, left its imprint many places, but is not now recognized by man.

In my studies I attempted to determine some of the finer details of this vast Semitic influence. As I examined the origin of some of the Indo-European common words I discovered, for example, that the word "sister" comes from the Semitic sar or sara. Literally, and unknown to all of us, it means "Princess." I also discovered that the word "brother" comes from an older Semitic bar, used occasionally in the Bible, and by Jewish people, as the equivalent of ben = son.

What else exists under this vast influence? I can say -- enough to keep a whole spectrum of scholars busy for their entire careers.

I shall return now to some of the implications in the use of words to denote literal meaning. I showed how the Semitic khamar yielded kimri, and that this designation was used to denote the red skins of the migrating Iberi. I did not discuss the significance of the Iberi name. It meant "to impregnate." Some impulse -- religious, cultural, or social -- impelled the Iberi people to migrate, infiltrate, and impregnate the people to whom they wandered. They were leaving behind a genetic endowment which carried superior strains. The original application of the word Iberi, and by which they were remembered for more than four millennia, was to a people who felt under obligation to impregnate the evolutionary elements of mankind. That is how they acquired that name originally. That is the significance of the selection of Abraham, and the promises made to him that he would be the father of many nations. That Hebrew segment of the Iberi were chosen to become a devout religious group who would have more profound influence upon man. But the process failed, according to the biblical record, because they did not obey God. Nevertheless, when the northern tribes were carried off, they continued to believe in that mission, and hence migrated both west and east, to leave behind the Keltic/Gallic/Iberi traditions in the west, and their mummified remains you discovered in China in the east.

The choice of the Gaul name in Europe, yielding the Keltic memories, was not accidental. The Hebrew meaning of "to be redeemed" shows how people everywhere understood that this biological influence was redeeming mankind.

Hence, we have a powerful record of some pervasive religious influence in the past which is tied to the biological foundations of the human race.

The Semitic influence prior to that ancient Don was preparation for his appearance. When he arrived he began a program to uplift evolutionary man biologically, and religiously. But, according to the Sumerian, Babylonian, and Hebrew folk tales, he defaulted. A great error occurred which betrayed that program. Then, his children split into two segments. One group carried on the program as best they could through genetic endowment. They retained the original language and traditions. We know them as the Iberi. The other group separated themselves, probably out of vast disappointment in that failure, and began a new cultural enterprise. We know them as the Indo-Europeans. They continued to remember him in their social titles and noble strains, but attempted to divorce themselves from his direct influence.

Later, the Iberi infiltrated back into the Indo-Europeans to fulfill their obligations of genetic uplift.

Behind all this is an ancient Semitic language which was used around the world. It did not displace the native tongues, but was used as a method of common social intercourse. It was a lingua-franca. Thus we can understand the significance of the puzzling record in Genesis 11:1.

"And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech."

This Semitic language was used by that ancient Don. He received his title from it. And by some mysterious force, modern Hebrew retains deep memory of that ancient tongue.

One of the puzzles which has confronted me is the degradation of the original Indo-European mother tongue inflectional system in the historic languages. The original was "pure" in its structure. As time passed, and the different languages drifted from that source, they lost the refinements of that original system. I am not sufficiently versed in language to propose theories on such linguistic drifts. But it seems to me that we have something upside down in our linguistic studies. By the assumption of evolutionary drift from more primitive to more sophisticated levels, we violate a logical explanation for this phenomenon. We cannot have it both ways. That is, the original Indo-European mother tongue, coming out of the separation of the IE people from the Semitic source, was an intelligently structured language and not an evolutionary language. As part of the separation from the Don source, the IE people threw away the old Semitic tongue. They invented a new tongue as part of their divorcement. From that original design a constant degradation has continued. This devolution is seen most graphically in modern English, which carries a gross mixture of many different language origins.

Another puzzle which has confronted me is the strange interrelationship among the Semitic verb roots. Semitic scholars are fully aware of the fact that related meanings and sounds from verb to verb are far more than simple random sounds. How did they acquire that relationship, which shows intelligent design, if the Semitic mother tongue was merely a random pattern of sounds through blind evolution? Is it possible that the original world wide lingua-franc was not some evolutionary language, but was also intelligently designed?

Putting all of this together I reach the conclusion that some profound religious influence was present on our planet in the most remote antiquity, that it continued with Don, but that a great default occurred which interrupted some master plan. Since that time we have drifted, with mechanical advances taking the place of cultural achievements. In other words, we have replaced spiritual goals with materialistic desires. What we consider to be cultural advances are misplaced desires to conquer the material world, the cost of which is a continual moral and religious degradation.