Atlantis Arisen
September 16, 2019, 09:41:53 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: 'Modern' Behavior Began 40,000 Years Ago In Africa, Evidence Suggests
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/07/980707073901.htm
 
  Home Help Search Arcade Links Staff List Login Register  

EDGAR CAYCE - MIGRATIONS FROM ATLANTIS

Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: EDGAR CAYCE - MIGRATIONS FROM ATLANTIS  (Read 1041 times)
Bianca
Atlantean Hero
*****
Posts: 197


View Profile
« on: September 10, 2007, 11:22:48 am »








FROM
 
 

MYSTERIES OF ATLANTIS


Edgar Evans Cayce

Virginia Beach,
Virginia - 1988



The major focus of most life readings mentioning Atlantis was not human origins,
but rather the lives of individuals during the destructions of Atlantis and the migrations to safer lands.  We have read about the lives of some of these people, with details of the story from the Cayce readings.  As we have seen , in addition to Plato, Donnelly and Cayce, an extensive occult literature has grown up concerning Atlantean migrations, which differ in important respects from the Cayce readings.

It is worth emphasizing here what the readings did not say, since popular conceptions of the Atlantis story are often mistaken for the Cayce version.

The Cayce readings had a lot to say about migrations of Atlanteans to Egypt, Yucatan in Central America and Peru in South America.  The readings discuss Atlantean involvement in building pyramids in Egypt, but do not say that Atlanteans carried pyramids to Yucatan, or that they built pyramids themselves.  The readings also do not say that the Atlanteans were the first people to settle in Egypt, Peru or Yucatan.  There were already thriving civilizations in place, although the arrival of
the Atlanteans had a major impact.  The idea of Donnelly and others that these cultures sprang full-blown without antecedents gets no support from either science or the Cayce readings.

The readings also do not say that the Atlanteans were responsible for the classic
Maya or Inca civilizations, or directly for the Mound Builders of North America.  Their descendants became these civilizations, a far different point of view.  In fact, despite considerable scientific knowledge of the classical civilizations, even in Cayce's time, the readings are usually worded to indicate that he was not talking about the historically known civilizations.  With rare exceptions, his Yucatan is pre-Maya, as his Peru is pre-Inca.

Now let's look at what Cayce specifically said.  We will compare this with scientific opinion in his own time, and with recent scientific discoveries.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.

Bianca
Atlantean Hero
*****
Posts: 197


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: September 10, 2007, 11:24:41 am »








At the time of each distruction and particularly for the last distruction, Cayce referred to migrations from Atlantis.  These migrations were to the lands bordering Atlantis, including the Americas, Europe and Egypt:

"....Evidences of this lost civilization are to be found in the Pyrenees and Morocco on the one hand, British Honduras, Yucatan and America on the other.  (no.364-3,
February 16, 1932.)
"....Hence....establishments in the Yucatan, in the Luzon, in what became the Inca, in the North American land and in what later became known as the land of the Mound Builders in Ohio. (no.1215-4, June 4, 1937)
"....The entity was among those who set sail for the Egyptian land but entered into the Pyrenees and what is now the Portuguese, French and Spanish lands.  And there still may be seen in the chalk cliff there in Calais the marks made by the entity's followers....(no 315-4, June 18, 1934)

We will first look at the migrations to the New World, then at Europe and defer Egypt to the next chapter.  The Cayce readings gave specific dates for migrations from Atlantis:

- 50,772 BC (no 262-39, February 21, 1933)
- 28,000 BC (no 470-22, July 5, 1938)
- A range of dates between 10,000 BC and 11,000 in a large number of readings for the final distruction.  We have seen that there is some geological support for major earth  changes near these dates. 

Is there any evidence that people existed this long ago in the Americas, and that
there were major migrations at the times given by Cayce? 
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Atlantean Hero
*****
Posts: 197


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: September 10, 2007, 11:26:18 am »








FROM                                                                                              continued


MYSTERIES OF ATLANTIS


Edgar Evans Cayce (E.C.'s Son)

Virginia Bach,
Virginia - 1988



ARCHAEOLOGY IN CAYCE'S TIME

The American archaeological mainstream in the 1920s was led by Dr. Ale Hrdlicka, curator at the U.S. National Museum at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington,
D.C.  Hrdlicka's position was that human beings were relatively recent arrivals in
North America, , not more than 2,000 to 3,000 years ago.  People were thought to have arrived by boat from Asia across the Bering Strait, long after the glaciers had melted.  Native Americans were thought to be entirely Mongolian in origin, despite
wide variations in physical types noted by many early explorers.  Hrdlicka's views held sway for three decades, according to archaeologist Jesse Jennings in PRE-
HISTORY OF NORTH AMERICA and American scholars gave no serious consideration to the possibility that the occupancy of the Americas was anything but recent.  Indeed, no real evidence existed to contradict this view.

Meanwhile, the Cayce readings in 1923 said the following: "...we find [the entity]
in that fair country of Alta or Poseicia proper...This we find nearly ten thousnad years before the Prince of Peace came" (no.288-1, November 20, 1923); and in 1925: "....we find [the entity] in the plains country of now northern and western Arizona, when the peoples were ruling in that land by the rule of settling from the Atlantean country".  (no. 4211-1, June 16, 1925).

The first serious challenge to the Hrdlicka viewpoint came in 1926, three years AFTER Cayce's first mention of 10,000 BC, very close to the location specified for Atlantean settlement.  Near the town of Folsom, New Mexico, a cowboy named George McJunkin found stone spear points together with the bones of large bison that had become extinct in roughly 8000BC.  Other archaeologists made similar
finds and soon these Folsom points were proof that people had lived in North America prior to 1000BC.  Yet, even in 1928, Hrdlicka was still maintaining his
position.  [Archaeologists haven't changed much since then - Bianca-]

In 1932, near Clovis, New Mexico, yet another find confirmed human antiquity in North America.  These Clovis spear points, older than the Folsom points, suggested
that people had been here as far back as 10,000 BC.  The most likely route was across the Bering Strait, this time over the land bridge from Siberia to Alaska, caused by the lowered sea level from the glaciers.  Acceptance of these dates came nearly ten years and hundreds of readings after Cayce had originally said that people had migrated from Atlantis in 10,000 BC.  Cayce was not credited with inspiring the change in opinion, however, despite the fact that in at least six readings before 1934 he gave the same 10,000 BC date for migrations from Atlantis to America.  Few archaeologists had probably even heard of the Cayce readings.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Atlantean Hero
*****
Posts: 197


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: September 10, 2007, 11:34:44 am »








Prior to Cayce's time, the theories of the origin of New World racial types were speculative.  Popular views included sources ranging from Atlanteans to Jews to Vikings.  In the scientific community, Hrdlicka's view of exclusively Asian origin dominated.  By 1933, however, opinion was shifting.  Earnest Hooton of Harvard University pointed out that, although the Indians are homogeneous in a number of characteristics, they differ widely in others.  Hooton remarked in 1040, in a chapter
of the book THE MAYA AND THEIR NEIGHBORS,  that Mayan skeletons from a well at the site of Chichen Itza in the Yucatan were not very different from Middle Eastern skeletons of the Old World and were not very Mongoloid.  The diversity could be explained either as differentiation out of a single type that entered the New World (that is, the Mongoloid type) or as the perpetuation of existing varieties among several original groups of immigrants (this would be consistent with the Cayce Atlantis story, as well as with other explanations), W.W. Howells of the Univerity of Wisconsin reviewed the status of this idea in another chapter of the same book, and felt that the bulk of the evidence pointed to a primarily Asian racial type.  He noted, however, that especially in Native Americans of the Eastern United States, evidence also points to affinities with the white racial type.  Thus, even during Cayce's lifetime, opinion had begun to change.

In the following years, to Cayce's death in 1945 and beyond, numerous findings clustered between 10,000 and 9,000 BC convinced most archaeologists that people had entered the New World in this time frame and spread rapidly.  Although these dates closely matched Cayce's, no older sites to confirm Cayce's tales of earlier migrations had been found; and Atlantis as a possible site of human origin was not seriouly considered.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Atlantean Hero
*****
Posts: 197


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: September 10, 2007, 11:48:25 am »








THE CURRENT EVIDENCE (1988)


Modern dating methods,combined with continued excavation of sites, have led to a completely new picture of early human occupation of the New World.  We can summarize only a small part of the key evidence here.

Before the 1970s, and indeed in some opinions into the 1980s, the Clovis spear points were thought to be the oldest evidence of human beings in the New World.  They are now reliabley dated to about 12,000 years ago (10,000BC).  Where did the people who made the Clovis points come from?  The prevailing wisdom holds that they had come over the Bering Strait from Siberia to Alaska on a land bridge that existed at a time when the sea level had been lowered by the glaciers.  The climate in that area was inhospitable, but no other means of access to the New World was apparent, and the land bridge was known to be open 12,000 years ago.

The most popular theory was that of Paul Martin, who proposed that human beings entered the New World in a migration from Asia across the Bering Strait in about 10,000BC and expanded rapidly in population, causing the extinction of the large animals roaming America at that time.  This has been called the "overkill hypothesis."  It comes from the observation that in the same time frame, we find both a sharp increase in the number of ancient human sites and a sharp drop in the population of large animals.  The Cayce readings give some support to the idea that people had planned the extinction of large animals, but they also say that climatic change was largely responsible for the earlier extinction near 50,000BC
(no.5249-1, June 12, 1944).  This climate-change theory also receives some scientific support and the debate continues between Martin and others in a book called QUATERNARY EXTINCTIONS: A PREHISTORIC REVOLUTION, as to whether climate or people hastened the extinctions.  Still, as recently as the early 1970s, few questioned the 10,000BC date for peoples's first entry into North America.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Atlantean Hero
*****
Posts: 197


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: September 10, 2007, 11:50:11 am »








By the 1976, this 10,000BC barrier was beginning to crumble.  Richard S. MacNeish, director of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology in Massachusetts, wrote an article in  AMERICAN SCIENTIST  summarizing the numerous recently discovered more ancient sites, which ranged all the way to the tip of South America.  This suggested that people had entered the New World prior to 12,000 years ago.  The hitch was that, for much of this time, there was no Bering Strait land bridge.  Jesse Jennings points out in PREHISTORY OF NORTH AMERICA that the only other time the Bering
Strait could have been land was before the last Ice Age (about 28,000BC), or be-
fore the last Ice Age even began (about 70,000BC).  If not over the Bering Strait, how did people FIRST  enter the New World?  The answer from the Cayce readings, of course, is that they migrated there from Atlantis - from the east, rather than the
west.

Is there any scientific evidence that people could have arrived across the Atlantic, perhaps even from Atlantis?  The majority of opinion hold this possibility unlikely,
since ample evidence indicates that some people, such as the Eskimos, have recently come across the Bering Strait.  But with the large number of ancient dates, it has become increasingly difficult to find previous land bridges in the ancient time frames required.  In 1963 anthropologist E.F. Greenman proposed and idea far more consistent with the Atlantis explanation. 

Greenman, an anthropology professor from the University of Michigan, argued in an article published in CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY that people had reached the New
World from Europe by boat!  He found many cultural similarities between Stone
Age peoples in Europe and North America.  His imposing catalog of similaritis included both artwork and stone artifacts, such as spear points.  Here we have evidence for transatlantic diffusion of technology, in exactly the time frame given
by Cayce.  This is not Mayan or Egyptian high technology, but simple stone tools.  Still, for Paleolithic peoples, it was a cultural revolution.  This technology could have been all that survived from the migrations of a collapsing civilization.  Cayce specified the Pyrenees as another location to which Atlanteans fled and this and other European areas are the sources for Greenman's parallels.  This evidence is much more consistent with Cayce than with Donnelly's parallels between the Maya and the Egyptians.  Of course, Greeman does not mention Atlantis; travel across the Atlantic by boat, perhaps along the edge of the icecap, was his best guess;
but evidence is certainly consistent with the Atlantis hypothesis.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Atlantean Hero
*****
Posts: 197


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: September 10, 2007, 11:52:13 am »








FROM


MYSTERIES OF ATLANTIS


Edgar Evans Cayce (E.C.'s son)

Virginia Beach,
Virgina - 1988


The best evidence that people were present in the New World back at the time of the EARLIER Atlantis destruction is the large number of key sites and the fact that more are being found and dated every year.  The oldest dates are still quite con-
troversial, but there are several well-accepted dates older than 12,000 years.
The macNeish article summarizes the sites found before 1976 and a book edited by anthropologist Richard Shutler in 1983 provides an update with even more sites.  Jeffrey Goodman, in his 1981 book AMERICAN GENESIS, gives a popularized account that tries to establish that modern people appeared in America BEFORE  other areas of the world.  Though he may not have completely succeeded in that aim, he does provide a detailed guide to the evidence for early human residence in America.  As with all attempts to fit psychic evidence with  archaeology, Goodman's work has been criticized by skeptics.  Anthropologists Marshall McKusick, in ARCHAEOLOGY and Ken Feder in SKEPTICAL INQUIRER have attacked the entire concept of psychic archaeology and the Goodman books and Cayce
readings in particular.  The reader will have to judge personally which sources present the most reasonable point of view.

One major site archaeologists feel has been validly dated is Pikimachay Cave at Ayacucho, Peru.  Peru was mentioned in numerous Cayce readings as the destination of Atlanteans in the earlier destructions.  Richard MacNeish has dated layers with artifacts to 14,500 years ago; the artifacts were found in association with many bones of extinct mammals.  MacNeish feels that people probably occupied the area at least as far back as twenty thousand years ago.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Atlantean Hero
*****
Posts: 197


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: September 10, 2007, 11:53:45 am »








One of the best sites in North America is the Meadowcroft Rock Shelter in southwest Pennsylvania.  As the depths of the shelter were excavated, archaeologists led by James Adovasio of the University of Pittsburgh recovered over 400 stone artifacts from a level dated at 15,000 years ago from charcoal in
a fireplace.  These included slender "bladelike" items similar to those found at European Cro-Magnon sites.  From an even deeper level came a radiocarbon date from a possible basketry fragment of over 17,000 years ago.  Adovasio's work
was published in American Antiquity in 1977.

In an even more recent discovery, reported by Bruce Bower in SCIENCE NEWS in
1986, a rock shelter in Brazil known as the Pedra Furada has been radiocarbon dated to 32,000 years ago.  A hearth in the shelter dated at 17,000 years ago contains a rock with two red painted lines, suggesting that cave art began in Americas about the same time it appeared in Europe and  Africa.  The walls and ceilings of Pedra Furada are still covered with prehistoric paintings.

Other, more controversial sites, argue for even earlier dates.  The Hueyatlaco site in Mexico may be as old as 250,000 years.  Virginia SteenMcIntyre of the U.S. Geological Survey showed in 1981 that layers containing artifacts were 250,000
years old.  A date this old was hard for archaeologists to accept, since it was ten times older than any other date in the Americas.  The debate in the journal QUATERNARY RESEARCH is ongoing.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Atlantean Hero
*****
Posts: 197


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: September 10, 2007, 11:55:16 am »








Even more ancient, and more controversial, is the Calico Hills site in California, excavated by Louis Leakey (SCIENCE, 1970).  Leaky's estimate for the age of the stone tools from the Calico Hills site is as much as 500,000 years!  Such a concept was unthinkable to other archaeologists, who quickly came up with the alternative explanation that the stone tools were simply naturally weathered rocks.  Vance Haynes of the University of Arizona has been amajor proponent of the natural geological artifact theory, and this is now the most commonly held belief (SCIENCE
1973).  Leaky died soon after excavating the site and was unable to carry on the debate.  The site remains controversial; but, as with the Hueyatlaco site, the controversy is between mainstream archaeologists, not between science and the
occult.

For the Cayce story, the evidence is quite consistent.  A major population explosion, in conjuction with a pole shift, climatic change and extinction of large animals, occurred around 12,000 years ago, at the time of the final migration from Atlantis.  Evidence of early human occupation prior to this date exists not only in the Southwest, where it had been found in Cayce's time; some of the oldest re-
mains have been found in Mexico, South America and the eastern United States
(western Pennsylvania), other locations given by Cayce for migrations from Atlantis.
Richard Shutler's conclusion in 1983 was that the most significant recent advancement in early human archaeology is that we can now place the minimum time for the first occupation of North America at least 20,000 years ago, with the possibility that it occurred as long ago as 50,000 years.  Archaeologists in Cayce's time would not have even thought of looking for ancient people in these locations or in this time frame.  Whether or not the first Americans came over the Bering Strait or from Atlantis is a question still to be answered; but the Cayce statements, and especially his dates, are certainly no longer outside the realm of science as they were in his time.

What happened to the Atlanteans after their flight from Atlantis?  Cayce's answers,
when taken literally, provide little support for the Donnelly and occultist views, but are consistent with some recent scientific evidence.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Atlantean Hero
*****
Posts: 197


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: September 10, 2007, 11:56:41 am »








MIGRATIONS TO THE YUCATAN


Forty one Cayce readings mention the Yucatan area of Central America, most in connection with migrations from Atlantis.  When asked to give a historical treatise on the origin and development of the Maya civilization, Cayce responded, "Yes.  In giving a record of the civilization in this particular portion of the world, is should be remembered that more than one has been and will be found as research progressess....we would turn back to 10,600 years before the Prince of Peace came into the land of promise."  (no.5751-1, November 12, 1933.)  The reading continues with a description of the beginnings of a civilization in Yucatan, which was event-
tually to become the Maya civilization. 

Still other readings mention the Yucatan.  "....the entity was in the land now known as or called the Poseidian land, or Atlantean land, during those periods in which it was braking up and then the children of the Law of One (to which the entity was enjoined) journeyed from the land into portions of what is the Yucatan land". 
(no.1599-1, May 29, 1938).

Thus the Cayce readings discuss, not the Maya as they eventually developed, but their pre-Maya origins in 10,600BC.  Did the readings make sense according to Maya archaeology in Cayce's time?  By the 1930s, Maya archaeology had made major progress since the mid-1800s, despite the continuing popularity of books like Donnelly's.  Explorers had ncovered much of Maya civilization, including the three "books" that survived the Spanish, lofty pyramids, huge monuments and courts used for ball games similar to basketball.

LePlongeon's translation of the Mayan book called the TROANO CODEX, alleging Mu-
the "evidence" for Donnelly and Churchward stories - was throughly discredited,
and about one-third of the symbols of Mayan writing would be read.  Sylvanus Morley, a noted Mayan language expert, wrote in 1940 that two archaeologists,
Ernst Forstemann and G.T. Goodman, had independently proved conclusively by
1900 that the DRESDEN CODEX was an astrological treatise based on the sun, moon and Venus.  There was clearly no resemblance of the Mayan language to Greek, as Donnelly had stated.

In Cayce's time, the foundations from which the Maya sprang were still obscure.
Archaeologist A.L. Krober summarized the state of Maya archaeology in 1940, based
upon evidence collected at the time Cayce was giving his readings:

"It is now generally accepted that wherever we have been able to work out continuous archaeological sequences, as in parts of Mexico and our own Southwest, these carry us back about 2000 years but no more.  The older views which placed the first discovered stages in the second millennium BC, or even earlier, seem no longer able to withstand criticism.  In Peru also, though an absolute chronology is still altogether lacking, conservative estimates incline to see the whole course of known development as having taken place since the beginning of the Christian era."  (THE MAYA AND THEIR NEIGHBORS).
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Atlantean Hero
*****
Posts: 197


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: September 10, 2007, 11:58:05 am »








Alfred Kidder, another prominent archaeologist, said that earlier, fundamental aspects of the origin of the Maya are still lost in antiquity.  He noted that the belief in a bearded white culture hero - Quetzalcoatl of the Aztecs, Kukulkan of the Maya,
Bochica of the Chibcha of Columbia and probably also Viracocha of the Peruvian Indians - is a widespread conception, but its origin is impossible to assign to any area.  Donnelly had used this white hero/god as evidence for Atlantis, but that was not the accepted explanation either in Cayce's time or now.

If Cayce had intended to support Donnelly's theories, he wasn't even close to the
accepted time frame in his day. 

How has our knowledge of the Maya changed since Cayce's time?  Have scientific discoveries made the readings' story more or less likely?  Once again, modern methods of dating, combined with extensive excavation, have revealed much about the history of the Maya.  In this case, there is little to confirm Cayce directly, since only a few potentially very ancient sites like Hueyatlaco have been found.  The readings refer to a period of time long before the major Maya monuments that excite the fantasies of the public.  Yet, what the readings do say is at least not inconsistent with the findings of archaeology.

Gordon Willey, in a chapter in SOCIAL PROGRESS IN MAYA HISTORY in 1977 discussed the progress in Maya archaeology since 1940.  By 1977, the earliest date for early pre-classic Maya had been pushed back to about 2000 BC.  The first construction of large ceremonial centers began after 300BC.  The classic civilization
flowered between AD 300 and 900.  By the time the Spaniards arrived with Cortes in 1541, the Maya had been long in decline.  A more recent article by Willey, published in SCIENCE in 1982, cites evidence gathered by Richard MacNeish for even earlier pre-Mayan inhabitants going back to 9000BC.  It is no longer thought that the Maya appeared full-blown.  Furthermore, this evidence was found in Belize, formerly Bristish Honduras, a location on the south side of the Yucatan Peninsula, specifically given in reading no.364-3, in 1932.  Although there was substantial migration in and out of the area, the pre-Maya can now be traced back almost to the time given by Cayce.

We can find further evidence of consistency in the Cayce time frame in his description of the climate:  "Rather than being a tropical area it was more of the temperate...." (no.5750-1, November 12, 1933.)  Our knowledge of the climates in the area in 10,000BC confirms this statement.  The glaciers were still melting and all of North America was substantially colder than it is now.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Atlantean Hero
*****
Posts: 197


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: September 10, 2007, 11:59:35 am »








This has been indirect evidence of the consistency and plausibility of the Cayce story.  But the reading containsa clue and plausibility of the story of Atlantis it-
self, as well as the Maya.  He referred to a buried temple of records, in which information on the construction of the "firestone or "great crystal" would be found:  "In Yucatan
there is emblem of same [the firestone].  Let's clarify this, for it may be the more easily found  - for they will be brought to this America, these United States.  A portion is to be carried, as we find, to the Washington preservation of such findings, or to Chicago" (no 440-5, December 19, 1933).  When asked, "Who is conducting this work in Yucatan?", the reading continued,"Would it be sent to any place than to those who were carrying on same?"

Has anything been found?  Many people have wished that Cayce had been clearer in some of his readings.  There were indeed expeditions to the area when Cayce gave the reading in 1933, but identifying a single artifact of unknown description is quite a challenge.

Unfortunately, the readings were not specific about the nature of the artifact, or about exactly where it would be taken.  "To Chicago" could mean the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, or anywhere else in that very large city.  "The Washington preservations of such findings" probably meant the Smithsonian, but there are other archaeological collections in Washington.

The "Pennsylvania State Museum" is also a problem, since there is more than one possibility.  Many people assumed Cayce was referring to the University of Pennsylvania museum.  Jeffrey Goodman, in his book PSYCHIC ARCHAEOLOGY, tried to trackdown the Cayce reference. He found that in 1933 the university museum WAS  excavating atthe site of Piedras Negras in Guatemala.  The site report had much in common with Cayce's description; there were superimpositions of several different periods and the site investigator, Dr. Linton Satterhwaite said that he was "tempted to see a mixture of Mayan and non-Mayan styles."  Was this the site Cayce described?  Perhaps, but the library at the Association for Research and Enlightenment has photographs and a catalog from the William Penn Memorial Museum in Harrisburg, showing other archaeological digs in Yucatan, with unidentified people, dating from the 1930s.  This museum was FORMERLY called the Pennsylvania State Museum.  Nothing has been found yet, that looks like the emblem of the firestone, however.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Atlantean Hero
*****
Posts: 197


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: September 10, 2007, 12:01:21 pm »








M I G R A T I O N S   T O   P E R U


Cayce gave seventy-three readings mentioning incarnations in Peru, ranging from
before the destruction of Atlantis up until the Spaniards conquered the Incas.  The
historical periods seem to be consistent in the readings - he doesn't mix Spaniards
and Atlanteans!  His Incas, like his Maya, come much after the destruction of Atlantis.  Prior to the Atlanteans, Peru was inhabited by a people called the Ohlms or Ohums:  "In the one before this, we find in that land known as the Peruvian, during the period of the Ohlms, before the Incas and the peoples of the Poseidian land entered." (no.1916-5, 1931).  "In the experience the entity was a priestess, in those interpretations of what later became known as the Incas, the Lost Tribes, the people from the Atlantean land, the peoples who came west from the activities in the Lemurian land."  (no.1159-1. May 5, 19360.

What do we know about the Incas and their origin?  Anthropologist Loren McIntyre described their civilization in a book for NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC in 1975.  The Incas
themselves are not at all ancient.  The first Inca emperor, Pachacuti, began his quest for empire in about AD1438.  At its greatest extent, the Inca empire spanned 2,500 miles, similar in size to the Roman Empire.  In 1532, the Spaniard Francisco Pizarro captured the Inca Atahualpa; this act shattered the empire at the height of its power.

It is the predecessors of the Incas who are of interest here.  Richard MacNeish, discussed earlier in connection with ancient dates, has made a study of early peoples in Peru published in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN.  The Ayacucho valley high in the Andes of Peru has evidence of human occupation going back in unbroken sequence
that spans the millennium from 20,000BC to AD1500.  There is a progression from early hunter, to farmer, to subject of imperial rule.  Deep in a cave, MacNeish found an assemblage of rather crude stone tools he called the Pacaicasa complex, after a nearby village.  The people who fashioned these distinctive tools occupied the Ayacucho valley from as much as 22,000 years ago to about 13,000 years ago.  Were these the Ohlms?  Stone tools cannot provide the richness of detail we need to completely evaluate the Cayce readings, but once again we see that Cayce's statements about the predecessors of the Incas are not without some scientific
support.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Atlantean Hero
*****
Posts: 197


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: September 11, 2007, 10:11:00 am »








The readings speak of a later time in Peruvian history as well, but still before the arrival of the Spaniards: "....in the land that now may be called the Peruvian, during those periods when there were the persecusions,not those known in the much later date as from the Spaniards, but rather from the breaking up from the meeting with those from the Mayan or Yucatan land."  (no.1637-1, July 12, 1938).

Even in Cayce's time, it was recognized that the Maya had penetrated into South America, and that substantial cultural interchange had taken place.  Samuel Lothrop, in 1940, discussed the diversity of opinion on exactly which cultural traits were exchanged.  Some authors (Max Uhle is cited by Lothrop as an example) felt that ALL manifestations of Andean culture were derived from Middle America, for the most part as a result of actual migration.  It is certainly reasonable that one result of cultural contact was persecution by invaders from Yucatan, as Cayce said.

The readings also speak of a destruction of Peru before the destruction of Atlantis, in a time when the Ohlms were the civilization: "In the one [life] before this, we find in the now Peruvian country, when the people were destroyed in the submerging of the land.  The entity then in that of the next to the ruler in Ohlm rule". (no2903-2, June 26, 1925).

As we have seen, geologists in general do not favor theories of catastrophic submergences.  Surprisingly, however, there is actually some evidence of deep submercence off the coasto of Peru, and even some possible sunken ruins.  Dr. Robert Menzies, director of Duke University's Oceanographic Program, was reported in the NEW YORK TIMES, April 17, 1966 and in the SCIENCE WORLD, April 15, 1966, to have discovered carved rock columns resting on a muddy plain 6,000 fet underwater, off the coast of Peru.  Menzies and his colleagues were looking for neoplinia, a type of sea mollusk, one of the earth's "oldest living fossils".  Their dredges brought up some of the desired specimens, but their deep-sea diving cameras showed photographic evidence of the columns, covered with what appeared to be some sort of writing.  Menzies is quoted as saying that although "the idea of a sunken city in the Pacific seems incredible, the evidence so far suggests one of the most exciting discoveries of the century."  We haven't been able to find any later reports confirming or refuting this discovery, and it is hard to tell whether it was ever taken seriously by scientists.  It was certainly made by a respectable researcher.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Atlantean Hero
*****
Posts: 197


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: September 11, 2007, 10:12:33 am »









MIGRATIONS TO NORTH AMERICA

The Cayce readings mention people in North America as far back as 10 million years ago.  The most ancient scientific evidence found thus far, that of Leakey at Calico Hills, possibly goes back 500,000 years, but has not been generally accepted.  Most of the readings speak of much later migrations during the time of the Atlantean des-
tructions.
Perhaps the thorniest problem with the idea of Atlantean migrations from the point of view of anthropologists is that most of the evidence points to the descent of the Native American population from immigrants over the Bering Strait.  Despite cultural parallels with Europe, such as those of Greenman, Native Americans appear to be most closely related genetically to Asians.  What does this do to the Cayce story?

The readings acknowledge a complex mixture of immigrants to America: "....the en-
tity was in the land of the present nativity [Nebraska] during those periods when there were activities in separating the peoples in the southland from those coming in from the western lands or from the isles of the sea."  (no. 3179-1, August 26, 1943.)

Robert Wauchope, in LOST TRIBES AND SUNKEN CONTINENTS, has discussed extensively all the "crackpot" theories of the origin of the Native Americans.  Long before Cayce, dating back to the 1700s, many wild theories were popular.  It is difficult not to place oneself in their company by even bringing up the topic.  Clearly, Cayce's audience would have been familiar with some of these ideas.  Is there any support AT ALL for the idea that the Native Americans may have had multiple ori-
gins; that they did not simply arrive over the Bering Strait, but from Africa, Europe, or even Atlantis?  The Cayce readings seem to reflect these speculations, and mention both the Lost Tribes and an Atlantean origin for the Mound Builders: "The
entity was among the first of those of the second generation of Atlanteans who struggled northward from Yucatan, settling in what is now a portion of Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio; being among those of the earlier period known as the Mound Builders".  (no.3528-1, December 20, 1943)
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy