 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
by G. Little, J. Van Auken, and L. Little, Eagle Wing Books, 2002.
|
Overview Ancient South America is a book of three parts. The first part deals with “the South American archaeology problem.” It appears to have been written with Lora Little as lead author. The middle part deals with “recent genetic contributions to South American archaeology,” and was most probably authored by Gregory Little. The last part deals with the legends and myths of South America, the fringe world of South American archaeology, and with “Edgar Cayce’s unknown history of South America,” the chronology of which is said to appear to be valid. My guess is that John Van Auken was probably the lead author of this portion of the book. The thesis of Ancient South America is that the continent was inhabited long before 50,000 B.C. Furthermore, relatively recent radiocarbon dating of archaeological sites, and genetic studies of Native Americans support a picture of ancient South American history that can be inferred to agree with Cayce’s readings. This history is said to rest upon three migrations of “vastly different peoples,” groups that were fleeing from the destruction of the lost continents of Atlantis and Mu, at intervals over the period 50,000 to 10,000 B.C. These migrations were responsible for the settling of portions of ancient South America, North America, and other continents as well. A digest of the thesis and conclusions of Ancient South America can be found in the September 2002 issue of Ancient Mysteries (A.R.E. Press). I found the material on South American archaeology to be well done, especially with regard to dated sites of habitation. The authors have shown convincingly how biased is the now-crumbling position of North American archaeologists with respect to their long-held idea that North America had to be settled before South America. At one point the author says, “It appears quite likely that some of the hundreds of other caves and rock shelters found throughout South America will eventually be dated from 20,000 to 50,000 years ago.” This fits with the authors’ Atlantis-and-Mu-destruction and related human-migration chronology that I will examine in the section just below.The section on recent contributions of genetic studies to South American archaeology is well presented and understandable. Without pretending to be an expert on the subject, I think that the author of this section of Ancient South America has probably made the case for haplogroup B’s and X’s origins in Mu and Atlantis, respectively. This stunning conjecture will be long remembered if it stands the test of time. The B and X mitochondrial-DNA genetic markers serve as tracers. They can, it seems, be used to connect the remains of ancient human beings in South America and other continents to the descendants of groups of people that migrated from Mu and Atlantis. And because the rate of mitochondrial mutation is known, and the dates of mutation can be predicted reliably, geneticists are thus able to go back in time with each mutational strain and know, within limits, when it developed. “[This] analysis is therefore a sort of time machine that enables us to look back through time to the first ancestors of a particular lineage.” |
|
Cayce’s Chronology Of Destruction and Migration We now come to the central thesis of the book. On page 59 one finds,
The above assertion about a perfect match to Cayce’s basic story of Mu is unsupported by readings citations. Later in the book we do find citations, but few of those readings referenced support the assertions in the text. The most egregious examples of this playing of one card for another are found in descriptions of the first two cataclysms given below. “The First Cataclysm. The first destructive earth changes which affected Atlantis occurred in 50,722 B.C. Powerful explosives used in the attempt to exterminate the large animals caused a volcanic chain reaction. The readings also state that this event constituted the first destruction of Mu. (Reading cited: 3188-1). Another reading asserts that “ice,…nature, God, changed the poles and the animals were destroyed, though man attempted it in that activity of the meetings.” (Reading cited: 5249-1). [Note that 262-39 gives the date of this meeting as occurring in 50,722 BC. There is no mention in this reading, however, of any "destructive earth changes"]. Page 91: “28,000 B. C. - Second Cataclysm. After the second cataclysm Atlantis had been broken up into several islands and soon thereafter began to experience philosophical and political divisions due in part to the introduction of human sacrifice.” (Reading cited: 364-4).Page 95: “10,400 - 10,000 B. C. - The Final Atlantean Destruction and The Rise of the Inca Civilization.Unfortunately, the first two events of this chronology run counter to what the readings actually say about destructions of Atlantis. The authors can be inferred to indicate (p. 86, footnote 10) that they obtained their ideas on the Atlantis destruction chronology from Edgar Evans Cayce’s book, Mysteries of Atlantis Revisited (1988, Harper and Row). Here’s what E.E. Cayce wrote.
Oddly, the key date of 17,500 B.C., for the first destruction of Atlantis, is missing from E. E. Cayce’s analysis above. On page 81 of his book, E.E. Cayce does mention reading 361-11, which gives this important date, but he passes over it. He simply says that 17,500 B.C. correlates reasonably well with a climate change that he found in a scientific paper. He writes that the first destruction was in 50,772 B.C., and cites reading 5249-1 (cited also above in the paragraph on The First Cataclysm). But this reading says nothing specific about destructions to the lands of Atlantis and Mu. The key lines (see above) mention only that ice, nature, or God “changed the poles.” It must have been pure inference on E.E. Cayce’s part that a pole shift destroyed “a portion of the continent [of Atlantis] about 50,000 B.C.”. As one who has considerable experience in Pleistocene geology, I came to an entirely different, science-based conclusion (see Coming Earth Changes, 1996, A.R.E. Press, pages 31-36), which takes account of the fact that the extinction of the hordes of great beasts that had been roaming parts of the Earth was not achieved until around 9,000 B.C. I linked a slow pole shift, lasting thousands of years and beginning about 50,000 B.C., to ice sheet buildup. Sudden, rapid melting (due perhaps to another pole shift in the opposite direction) of this ice then destroyed the enormous animals when they lost their habitat. At this point in my review of Ancient South America I will insert a modified version of Table A1 from my book, Coming Earth Changes. The table lists all of those dates from the readings that can be found on the CD-ROM relative to the geophysical history of Atlantis. These dates are “hard” dates and not dates inferred from life-readings. The modifications to Table A1 include a labeling (in bold font) of the three destructions of Atlantis that are actually designated as such in the readings. |
|
(Events from various related scientific studies are in italics)
|
|
Reviewing the “Destruction” Readings Cited In Ancient South America If we go back to the so-called first cataclysm mentioned by the authors we find absolutely no basis for the statement that “powerful explosives used in the attempt to exterminate the large animals caused a volcanic chain reaction.” Nor do we find any basis in reading 3188-1 for the assertion that, “The readings also state that this event constituted the first destruction of Mu.” If one reads 3188-1 carefully, he finds that it only says, “The entity was in the land of the present sojourn [America, probably] when there was the breaking up following the first destruction of Mu and Atlantis.” This has nothing to do with “a volcanic chain reaction.”A reading not cited (262-39), concerning how the great animals were destroyed, says that the Death Ray was used to kill animals. Later on, explosives were used. (364-4) The author also quotes reading 5249-1 as a basis for his first cataclysm speculation. This is not truthful, as there is nothing said about a destructive Earth change in the reading. There is simply no basis in the readings for saying that a “first cataclysm” occurred in 50,722 B.C. What about a “second cataclysm in 28,000 B.C.,” after which Atlantis had been broken up into several islands? Nothing like this happened at that time, although reading 470-22 speaks of a second period of disturbance to Atlantis. This involved small channels [faults?] appearing through many of the lands .The author of the paragraph following the heading, “28,000 B.C. - Second Cataclysm,” cites 364-4 as the basis for a conclusion that “Atlantis had been broken up into several islands” around 30,000 years ago. Such a conclusion is unacceptable, however, as the section (paragraph 5 of 364-4) upon which it is based covers a great period of time, from the meeting of 50,722 B.C. on down through times when men began to cope well with the animals via the use of explosives, through the first egress of Atlanteans to the Pyrenees, into the Egyptian period and into Og, Inca, and mound dweller times, and THEN finally, to a time when man “brought in the destructive forces….that combined with those natural resources of the gases, of the electrical forces, [and] made in nature and natural form the first of the eruptions that awoke the from the depths of the slow cooling earth, and [then] that portion now near what would be termed the Sargasso Sea first went into the depths.” This “first of the eruptions” correlates with the first destruction described in 364-11, as having taken place “7,500 years before the final destruction.” Yes, a catastrophe did take place in 17,500 B.C., as indicated in readings 364-4 and 364-11. This was the first destruction of Atlantis.
This line of thought is followed up in 364-11.
Reading 288-1 says that the final destruction happened “nearly ten thousand years before the Prince of Peace came.” Let’s say this occurred about 11,900 B.P. To this date I added 7,500 years because 364-11 says that the date of the first destruction was 7,500 years before the final destruction. Thus, the date for the “first destruction” is near 19,400 B.P., or 17,400 B.C. There are no specific dates given for the second destruction. There are lots of readings that mention it, however. It was the activities of the sons of Belial that brought about the second destruction. (2390-1) Apparently, the second destruction “brought so many of the islands” (more than the initial five [877-26] brought by the first destruction), and the people were still having trouble controlling destructive animals. (2157-1) Poseidia was the “main portion of the activities during the period of the second breaking up” of Atlantis. (958-3) Another entity was “in the Atlantean land before the periods of the second destruction.” Note that these last two readings indicate that the second destruction occurred over periods of time between the end of the first and the beginning of the last (third) destruction. Thus, we might assume that the most extensive migrations out of Atlantis occurred over the 19,400 to 11,900 B.P. period of time.
Summary Comments on a Chronology of Destructions The authors of Ancient South America have failed to differentiate between readings descriptions of “disturbances” and “destructions” in developing their chronology of destructions of Atlantis and, by inference, Mu. They seem not to have consulted the readings in their search for the dates of destructions, relying instead on the works of others, or their own interpretations of readings that contain no specific dates. As a result, they missed completely the key first-destruction date of 17,400 B.C. (19,400 B. P.). Readers have a right to question whether or not a revised version of Ancient South America - including as it would have to a revised chronology of destructions - would reach anywhere near the same conclusions as those presently offered. That is, would the true chronology of destructions of Atlantis given in Table A1 support the genetics-based migration chronology required by the current book’s central thesis?
Additional Assertions That Detract From This Book, As One Supposedly Representative Of The Truthfulness of the Readings There is often a difference between the readings and one’s interpretations of the readings. When an author says, “The readings say…,” or “Cayce said…,” a reader either has to believe that the author is telling the truth or assume that he may not be. If a reader’s suspicion is aroused relative to an author’s honesty, there is not much a reader can do but ask for a refund or toss the book in the trash. Why does one bring up such considerations? It is because past behavior is usually the best predictor of future behavior. And the authors of Ancient South America have a history of making up readings and of making misleading interpretations. I have written to J. Van Auken twice about this propensity of his in the past, but to no avail. And this behavior of the two authors has been detailed in THC’s reviews of the newsletter, Ancient Mysteries, an A.R.E. publication is edited by the Littles. Here are links to Hutton Commentaries review articles that illustrate this concern.
The authors of Ancient South America might consider remedying or eliminating the following statements or assertions, starting on page 49 of their book. (This list is but a sampler of the totality of assertions that might have been addressed). “According to Cayce, Atlantis was located close to the Caribbean Ocean…”There is no known reading that says this. Other readings, such as 364-3, 364-4 and 364-13, tell a different story. “ [The Cayce readings indicate that] in 28,000 B.C. the technology of Atlantis was completely destroyed, when a violent series of events broke it up into islands.”According to reading 470-22, 28,000 B.C. marked “the second period of disturbance,” not a destruction. (See the more detailed critique above). “ [Genetic] studies fall in perfect line with Cayce’s ideas.”No, not in line with his ideas, but with his readings. “ [Atlanteans in 10,000 B.C. went to Yucatan] to establish a Hall of Records identical to the one in Egypt.”Verify with a reading number the use of the words “Hall of Records” [in Yucatan] and “identical.” “ Cayce’s basic story of Mu [said that] when the lands of Mu began to ‘sink,’ starting in 50,000 B.C., the people were forced to higher ground.”No readings say this. Verify with specific reading quotations, or delete. “ According to Cayce, there have been four different creations of life, which he occasionally refers to as ‘root races.’”“ In Cayce’s chronology the fourth root race began about 12,000 B.C., with the simultaneous appearance of modern man in five separate locations.”These assertions are not true. Only one reading (5748-6) is found on the CD-ROM that says anything about a root race. “ In 200,000 B.C. a civilization rose in Atlantis that was impacted by a major geologic catastrophe in 50,722 B.C.”There is no evidence in the reading cited (364-4) that this occurred. Also, the date 50,722 B.C. occurs only in one reading (262-39) and it doesn't mention a catastrophe of any kind. “ Finally, Cayce related that in 28,000 B.C. Mu experienced a severe physical disruption, causing many people to seek safer lands.”No readings can be found to verify this assertion. What is its origin? “ Our brief comparison of Cayce’s claims with the findings from current archaeological and genetic research heavily weighs in Cayce’s favor.”Cayce, the man, did not claim anything in the sense implied. It seems to this reviewer to be rather disingenuous to say that he did.
Thomas Jefferson On Lying “He who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world’s believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good dispositions.” Letter to Peter Carr [August 19, 1785]
|
| Home | Pole Shift Research | Earth Change News | Archives | Join | Products | About Us |
Page Created: October 26, 2002
Last Updated:
April 25, 2006
Contact: William Hutton
Webmaster: Jonathan Eagle
Copyright 2000, E.R.A. Inc. All Rights Reserved