Deluge of Atlantis

Deluge of Atlantis
Deluge of Atlantis

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Lifting the Veil on the Lost Continent of Mu

I was very graciously sent a complementary copy of the book Lifting the Veil on the Lost Continent of Mu written by Jack Churchward, owner of the My-Mu internet site advertised on this blog's pages at the bottom. It is a very good book in that it contientiously documents what James Churchward was drawing from when he originally created the Lost Continent of Mu books, starting in the 1920s.

Some of the key elements are missing, in that incidents pertaining to James Churchward personally are to be handled in a separate biographical work, and hence there will be no involved explanations about the so-called Naacal Tablets James Churchward was supposed to have  examined in India. We do however see two pertinent facts:listed under "Naacal Tablets" in Appendix 2: the first being that the term "Naacal" derives from the works of August Le Plongeon and the second being "Other than the 'Rishi', no person has seen any copy of the tablets"
I do not doubt personally that there COULD have been tablets and such a person as this 'Rishi'-my comment would then be that we have absolutely no guarantee thatr Churchward's translations of them were anywhere near accurate. Other sources are considerably harsher than my statement on the matter, and they aver that Churchward could not have been in India at that time, that there actually was no Rishi and that there were no tablets. But the gist of the general opinion is that the translations from the tablets (if any) do not actually go to PROVE anything in particular.

 Churchward is very fond of two sources in particular and quotes from them regularly: the works of Le Plongeon and the newspaper hoax about "How I Found Atlantis, the Source of all Civilization" by "Paul Schleimann"-Le Plongeon may have been sincere but he was decidedly wrong about just about everything he wrote, and the newspaper article was a complete fraud. Churchward frequently quotes "Translations" of sections out of the Codex Cortesianus which are now known to have been completely false. Many of these passages come directly from Le Plongeon. Churchward even quotes Le Plongeon in the matters pertaining to Valmiki and the Ramayana. And there was not even a real "Paul Schleimann" according to the Schleimann family, who issued statements to that effect at the time.

In just about every instance where Churchward refers to ruins of or the native peoples of the Pacific islands or North, Central, and South America, his statements are not accepted by later authorities and would be deemed false by all modern sources-mostly on the grounds that NONE of these peoples or their cultural remains would be anywhere near that old. Most of the structures which he cites as being 16000 years old or more are less than 2000 years old (in the AD years and not even BC at all). This eliminates his constructions of a Naacal Empire in Southern Asia, an Uighir Empire of Central Asia (run by European "Aryan" whites as based on actual remains of the historical Tocharians-which were essentially far-Eastern settlements of European CELTS, oddlty enough, and the same peoples as left the "Redheaded mummies" in that area.) or even his "Mayax" empire based on Le Plongeon's Queen Moo and the Egyptian Sphynx.

All of which is freely pointed out in this new book as well and for people that did not know these things at the time they read the Lost Continent of Mu books, they are valuable things to know. I am not entirely against the notion of there being Lost Continents or even large Lost Islands in the Pacific [in particular I suspect that a large landmass around the area of Fiji might have gone down a few thousand years BC and might have given rise to the Flood and Lost Continent myths of the later Pacific Islanders-especially since it seems to have been connected with the makers of the Lapita Ware (impresso pottery)] However, I feel I must say that James Churchward did not choose the best sources and for that reason the greater portion
of the material written in the Lost Continent of Mu books is misleading and untrustworthy at the very least, and completely fraudulent at the worst.

There are several saving graces to Churchward and I was surprised to see in the "People of Note" section that Jame's brother Albert espoused the theory that Mu was not the Mother of Mankind, but that East Africa was. According to Appendix I, Albert Churchward published The Origin and Evolution of the Human Race in 1921. In this book, he theorised that humanity arose in the region of the Great Lakes and migrated outward into the rest of the world at different times with different levels of early civilisations. He felt the symbols used by various peoples all over the world related to these migrations. His contemporaries largely disagreed with his views and he wrote contemptuously of his critics. And yet I would have to agree with him, the general outline of his thesis sounds right to me, and it is basically a version of the "Out of Africa" Hypothesis which incorporates also some of James Churchward's ideas.

Haekel's History of Creation: Original Idea of Humanity Arising in Lemuria: the Theosophic theory of evolving Root-races came out of this idea. It also resembles Churchward's Children of Mu. The theory is connected to WHY there was even a need for a "Lemuria" in the first place. In this case, if there is a route by way of Southern Arabia and India to SouthEast Asia and thence out to the Pacific, then the need for a mid-Indian Ocean "Lemuria" vanishes. Genetic studies support a version of the movements of early humanity that much resembles this map.


Early-version, Simplified, Mitochondrial-DNA map
 


"Out-of-Africa" simplified genetics and archaeology map.
 

Mitochondrial DNA map 3. This one came off the internet this way, I did not add the red arrows.

All of which tends to reinforce the same basic idea that Albert Churchward had while completely sidestepping the need for Churchward's Mu. There is still very good evidence for a major landmass in the area of Indonesia during the Pleistocene Ice Age, an area of higher culture and agricultural development (a separate Neolithic from the Mideastern version relying on different products) and which extended its influence and colonies over the widths of both the Indian and Pacific Oceans while the Ice Age still prevailed upon the Earth. It is permissable to call this area "Lemuria" if you still prefer the term, but there is no reason to call it "Mu". That name does not occur in Myth or Folklore as identifying and sunken area of the Pacific. Better to call the Lost Land "Po" although that is still an ambiguous term an not specifically linked to any one geographic location. As to the mid-Pacific area Churchward identifies as "Mu"- the islands of the pacific are supposed to have been disconnected from one another and building up coral reefs around themselves for millions of years. It takes a long time to build a coral reef. That was what the theory about the Pacific islands had been in the first place. There is the separate issue of cultural connections between the Old and New Worlds across the Indian and Pacific Oceans in the Lost Continent of Mu seres and the cultural connections would still be there. However the culktural connections must have arisen much more recently, during what was already the historical period in the Old World. They would have been in the same geographic region but coming along much later, such as the Malayo-Polynesian language family is supposed to have done.The crucial difference is in the chronology, and James Churchward is particularly bad at that.
For readers that would like to examine the book in question, here is a link to the My-Mu orders page:

http://www.my-mu.com/bstore.html

Best Wishes, Dale D.

No comments:

Post a Comment

This blog does NOT allow anonymous comments. All comments are moderated to filter out abusive and vulgar language and any posts indulging in abusive and insulting language shall be deleted without any further discussion.