|
|
|
|
|
 |
Why
Not Look for
A-Tlan-Tis in Mexico? |
<< Back
-- Page 2 of 2
Imagine these unending stretches of flower and vegetable gardens, palaces,
temples, canals and islands connected by drawbridges and levees, over such a
great area. It was truly a paradise much more beautiful than that which Plato
described. Except for my yet unproven statements that Atlantis extended to the
West Indies, we do have scientific proof that this paradise existed just as I
have stated. However, the man-made landscaping, the large buildings and temples,
the canals, bridges, statues, and whatever else that existed in this area could
not hide the fact that Atlantis was really no more than a thin, unsteady, rich
carpet covering a large swamp. Moreover, it was in an area where rain fell much
of the year -- and still does. Monstrous hurricanes did -- and still do -- blow in
from the Atlantic, often forcing the inhabitants to reclaim the land and build
all over again. The Atlanteans had also adopted some of the more barbarous
customs of their Phoenician fathers, such as human sacrifice and
self-mutilation. Although the Atlanteans had more than enough to eat, good
habitations, and abundant festivities, the constant threats of ravaging rains
and hurricanes, along with the uneasy awareness that at any moment any of them
could be chosen to have their hearts cut out on a sacrificial block -- or have
their heads cut off for just losing a ball game -- certainly did not help them
sleep more securely at night. There was no denying that the other side of the
Atlantean coin was Patala or Hell!
A Mexican political activist, Gary S. Trujillo, discussed the importance to
Mexico of Mr. Wilkerson�s discovery on his website:
The recent discovery of a pre-Hispanic port city on the shores of the Gulf of
Mexico, which was anterior to the Aztec civilization and also contemporary with
the first Mayan cultures, is the greatest archeological find registered until
now after the localization of the ruins of El Tajin in 1785. Archeological
experts and Mexican university investigators are now estimating that El Pital,
where a total of 150 pyramids have been discovered, are, in all probability,
going to change the existing concepts about the history and cultures of Meso-America.
The archeologists with the National Autonomous University of Mexico
(UNAM)
received with profound euphoria this announcement which�the American
professor, Jeffrey Wilkerson, made about the find in El Pital. But this cheerful
emotional state lasted for just a short time when, on the following day, as the
world media was lauding this find, neither the Mexican government, through the
Council of Culture and Arts, nor the Mexican press itself gave any sign of
knowing that something had just happened which could modify the pre-Hispanic
history of this country.
The pain caused by this lack of national interest did not keep Wilkerson and
his National Geographical Society archeologists from revealing new information
about this impressive find. El Pital would not only be regarded as the missing
link among the cultures of the anteplain and the Gulf Coast of Mexico, but also
as the most important discovery in the pre-Hispanic world, taking into
consideration that the remains of this city extended over a radius of 60 miles.
In spite of the fact that El Tajin lies at only 39 miles from the place where
this port city has been found, El Pital is an extremely important find in this
maritime region because it provides abundant information about the parallel
development of urban planning with the natural environment. Also, this city is
regarded as the predecessor of the classical cultures in this area of the Gulf
of Mexico.
Professor Wilkerson�s discovery prepares all humans everywhere to accept
the truth that ancient Amerindian civilizations were already in place at the
time of the Egyptian, Sumerian, and Indus Valley civilizations. This being the
case, we find ourselves in the position of being forced to admit the possibility
that at one time, both the Eastern and Western hemispheres enjoyed some kind of
relationship.
The reader should know that Sanskrit words always, and without exception,
describe the state or function of place names. They are not names per se, but ideographs. Each word is composed of extremely short syllables, compounded in
such a way as to convey accurate and vivid mental pictures. Before sinking under
the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean sea, Atlantis was probably known as
Ashtalantes. Ashtala = �ground; plain; mound; raised, dry ground; land (as the
opposite of water.)� The many thousands of low-lying islands forming the
nation of ancient Lanka were called Atholhu, derived from the Sanskrit Asthala.
Our English word for �low-lying coral island,� Atoll, was derived from
the Maldivian (Divehi) Atholhu. This �history book� word tells us that the
geography of most of Atlantis, as well as that of Lanka, was generally neither
mountainous nor on plains, as Plato believed; it consisted mainly of a long
series of atolls extending outward from both sides of Sri Lanka or Ceylon,
becoming a belt that stretched around nearly the whole globe. Even during the
heyday of Atlantis and Lanka, these two nations were probably being slowly
dissolved into the ocean, just as the Maldives are now.
The above �history book� word aids us in learning how the Americas were
probably settled. The ancient forefathers of the Amerindians and Atlanteans
followed those islands to the Western Hemisphere as well as crossing over to
Alaska from the northern Bering Strait. A number of authorities conjecture that
there had to be some kind of connection between the Maldives and Easter Island,
which lies about 2,000 miles off the Chilean coast. In those days, these atolls
could have extended up to the South American mainland.
Perhaps some of my readers are beginning to think that I believe most
Amerindian tribal and place names originated in India. I admit that such names
are more numerous and visible in Latin America. However, some tribes and places
have non-Hindu names. The true name of the Zapotecs of Oaxaca, Beni-Gulaza, not
only announces their Hebrew origins, but even their reason for being in Mexico:
Beni = �Sons of;� Gulaza derives from the Hebrew Gulata, which means �Exile;
Diaspora.�
Columbus knew what the name of the Antilles (islands of the West Indies)
would be before he arrived there.
Antillia, which is the same name, if not the same island that the
Cartaginians so zealously tried to keep secret, was regarded by the Hispanic
peoples as the ideal place of refuge during the conquest of Spain by the Arabs.
It is believed that the escaping refugees sailed toward the West, led by a
bishop, and that they arrived safe and sound in Antillia, where they built seven
cities. On ancient maps (Antillia) is generally located in the center of the
Atlantic Ocean.
The efforts of the Phoenicians and Cartaginians to close the Atlantic to
other maritime peoples had the result of perpetuating the idea that the Atlantic
was a sea of lost souls. Nevertheless, humanity never forgot the Fortunate
Islands and other lost territories. Prior to Columbus, they appear over and over
on maps, whether near Spain or in the Western Hemisphere.
Toscanelli�s map, which was, according to what is believed, the one
Columbus carried with him on his trip to the New World, shows Antillia. Years
before the discoverer embarked on his voyage, Toscanelli wrote to him,
recommending Antillia where he could anchor on his trip to the Indies. On his
map, China and the Indies appear on the western coast of the Atlantic, while
Antillia and other islands are located at intermediate points.
It seems reasonable to assume that Columbus studied, or took with him on his
voyage, the map of Becario, of 1435 and the later ones of Branco (1436), Pereto
(1455, Rosselli (1463) and Bennicasa (1482). Also, it is probable that he took
material or suggestions taken from the map of Benheim (1492). In all these
(maps), Antillia appeared, with its diverse denominations, and generally located
far out into the Atlantic, in a parallel line from Portugal. In this aspect, the
Portuguese name Antilha (ante ilha), seems logical, which signifies �the
island opposite,� �before� or �in front of,� because it refers to the
great island in the middle of the ocean, the one having �seven cities.� This
could be the real reason for its name, or just another form of writing Atlantis.
(La Atl�ntida Est� en M�xico, by Eduardo Robles y Guti�rrez; pp. 63-64).
Robles y Guti�rrez also discussed in detail the so-called Piri Reis map of
the world, reputed to be at least 4,000 years old. Robles y Guti�rrez said that
it would have been impossible for Columbus not to have had some acquaintance
with this ancient map which many authorities believe was saved when the Moslems
burned the world-famous library at Alexandria, Egypt to the ground.
For those who believe that the word Atl�n isn�t sufficient proof that
Mexico once belonged to the land of Atlantis, more evidence is available. The
Nahuatl word for �water� is Atl. Perhaps it evolved from the Atl�n meaning
�Not-Surface.� Therefore, Atl�n came to mean �Nation of Water,� also
�from, in, into, on, or through the water.� Atlanteca = �Citizen of Atl�n
or Atlantean.� The ancient Indians and the Nahuatl-speaking tribes in the
Americas shared the same word for �Hill; Mountain�: Skt. Tepe; Nahuatl,
Tepetl/Tepec. The early Mexicans also used it as an epithet of �Region.�
Although I have no proof of this, the real name of Atlantis could have been
Atl�ntepec.
American Chicano political activists and poorly-informed historians like to
mention a place called Aztl�n as the primordial founding city of the Toltecs
and Aztatecas. But there never was an Aztl�n in Nahuatl mythology. It was
called Aztatl�n. On Mexico�s West coast, there is an Aztatl�n, Nayarit. The
Sanskrit word Asta means �Place of the Setting Sun� or �Westernmost
Extreme or Boundary.� Could Aztatl�n be the westernmost boundary of what was
once Atlantis or �The Westernmost Land of God Shiva?� Additionally, the �Aztecs�
were never Aztecas, but Aztatecas. Again, Asta means �Westernmost Extreme or
Boundary.� Teca may be a mexicanization of the North Indian Attac from which
was probably derived the Greek AUTOCHthon, meaning �springing from the same
earth.� Aztateca = �Westerner.�
In his book, Hindu America, India-Indian author Chaman Lal states:
�At present we are studying the native tongues and find that at least as
far as Nahuatl, Zapoteca, and Maya languages are concerned, they are of
Indo-European (Sanskrit) origin.� The aforementioned studies are by Dr. Magana
Pe�n and Professor Humberto J. Cornyn, both members of the Geographical Society
of Mexico. (p. 14.)
The eastern entry to Mexico would also refute the theory that the primordial
Toll�n (Shiva Land?) was Tula, Hidago, Aztatl�n, Nayarit -- or California as
the Chicano political activists loudly declare. Tula (Shiva?) is slightly
northwest of Mexico City and many hundreds of miles north-northwest of Mayan
Yucatan. Aztatl�n lies a few hundred miles northwest of Mexico City, on the
Pacific Coast. Some 16th century Spanish priest-scholars speculated that the
Aztatecas first entered Mexico from what is now either Florida or the Texas Gulf
Coast. It seems probable that the ancestors of both the Aztatecas and the Mayans
crossed at least part of the Atlantic Ocean (The Gulf of Mexico and the
Caribbean?) to get to America.
In the 1970s, Mexican investigator, Eduardo Robles y Gutierrez, published his
book, La Atl�ntida Est� en M�xico (Editorial Diana; Mexico City). While he
was working in Vera Cruz, he discovered the foundations of an ancient city in
and near the region known as San Lorenzo Tenochtitl�n. Three small villages,
each sitt | |
