Is the "Atlantean" Theory Appropriate When Researching Ancient Stone Sites? My Thoughts on the Matter

Is the "Atlantean" Theory Appropriate When Researching Ancient Stone Sites?  My Thoughts on the Matter

If you have read some of my recent posts, I have alluded to ancient megalithic sites in relation to some other people's research on lost lands and vanished, ancient civilizations, such as the land of "Mu" or "Atlantis", which sounds kind of new-age, airy-fairy at first if one is not familiar with the scholarly research on these subjects- however, I have come to the conclusion that although ancient stone sites are INDIGENOUS to their respective cultures, in their place and time, there seems to be "SOMETHING ELSE", some elusive etheric link between the practice of the ancient cultures across the face of the globe- something that us modern people can't quite put our fingers on- to me, this is what somebody might call "Atlantis."  The teachings and traditions of the ANCIENT ONES, as spoken of in native folklore.  So let us look at this question- is the Atlantean theory an appropriate approach when researching ancient stone sites?  In my opinion, based on the evidence I have amassed, after years of research, both from my own personal interactions at site locations, and from reading various people's literature on megalithic cultures, the "Atlantean" hypothesis, or theory, is both VALID and INVALID at once, it is an appropriate line of inquiry as well as inappropriate- the answer is both YES and NO.  Let me explain. 

Before I explain however, I recommend the following books: Mavor and Dix's Manitou: the Landscape of New England's Native Civilization, Stephen Mehler's "The Land of Osiris: An Introduction to Khemitology", Ignatious Donnely's Atlantis: the Antediluvian World, Charles Berlitze's Atlantis: the Eighth Continent", James Churchward's "The Lost Continent of Mu: the Motherland of Man", etc.- the more scholarly the books are, the better.  For instance, the works of literature just mentioned were authored by oceanographic engineers, Egyptologists immersed in the indigenous Khemitian tradition of Dynastic and Pre-Dynastic Egypt, 19th century U.S. Congressmen, Yale University graduate's fluent in over 20 languages, and world traveler's engaged in meticulous, cross-referenced scholarly research.

Okay.  Before we proceed.  Indigenous stone sites, whether in the land of the ancient Maya, Inca, Algonquin, Guanches, or Zulu, Mongolian or Aboriginal, Celtic or Greek or Minoan, do not have to be explained by a "lost" Atlantean or some such civilization- these works STAND ON THEIR OWN as the stone works of the respective cultures of their area.  These sites ARE indigenous to the Native Mayan culture, or the Native Algonquin, or in Africa, to the ancient ancestors of the Zulus, or the tribal Guanches of the Canary Islands murdered by the Spanish in colonial times (ancient megalithic sites of Gran Canaria, Tenerife, etc.).  I have always upheld that stone sites in New England are indigenous, Native American in origin, which I assure you, they are.  We do not need imported cultures to explain, for example, ancient Native American sites in New England.  No, Celtic people did not build these sites, Native people did- it is INSULTING to think that ancient Celts somehow built thousands of sites in New England and vanished without a trace (although I am sure small expeditions of say, 8th century Irish monks did sail out this way and make landfall, such as the voyage of St. Brendan, but they do not really account for the megaliths/ stone-sites or anything significant we know of- Mavor and Dix's approach here is the correct one, in realizing the Native origin of the structures).

However, YOUR "Atlantis" is not necessarily MY "Atlantis."  To understand this, just ask a Puerto Rican.  Most people I have met from Puerto Rico have Native Taino blood running through their veins.  Native and White.  Native and Black.  Native, White and Black.  However you slice it.  Etc.  Most people in PR are aware of how special their island is, and know that there is remains of a much older, ancient culture underneath the dense jungles and hillsides, and buried off of the coast in the waters of the Atlantic.  This knowledge is expressed in the visionary works of local artist's paintings, musicians, and people who dare to express themselves openly.  I hope people understand what I am getting at. 

I also maintain that there are SIMILARITIES and DIFFERENCES of sites on both sides of the Great Water (the Atlantic) as well as in the middle of the Atlantic (the Azores, the Canaries), to say, "we are looking at the works of different native cultures and indigenous groups, yet there is something else about these sites that seems to connect these places- something we can't quite put our finger on."  For instance, on the Eastern Seaboard of the United States, there are the remains of thousands of Standing Stones.  The two best preserved sites for standing stones are Burnt Hill in Massachusetts and a site on the Coffin Island in Labrador.  Some sites in my area have come to my attention (not as well preserved) which are just as significant and extensive Standing Stone sites.  Compare these Standing Stones to their European counterparts- in some cases the sites are very similar, but in other respects they differ.  For instance- the Standing Stones themselves are sometimes very similar.  If one were to place a single standing stone from the Callanish, Scotland site and place it amongst a New England Standing stone site, the stone may not seem out of place.  Both are granite and are shaped out in like manner, is what I am getting at.  A big difference though, is the lay-out of the site- in New England, the Standing Stones were often placed directly on top of bedrock on the crest or slope of a hill or high ledge.  The European counterparts were usually placed in a more circular formation on top of an man-made earthen bank or mound in a more distinctly circular formation- the New England Standing Stone sites are in circular formation too, actually, but were originally spread out in a much wider dispertion and range across the whole hillside (the New England sites were originally vastly BIGGER sites, but the sad part is, less of these sites remain.)  So here we see a difference.  There are no true "Druid's Circles" in New England like there are in Europe- clearly there is a difference between the identity, tribe, or nationality of the builders if you will.  However, the same WISDOM or knowledge of the construction/use of these Standing Stones IS incorporated into the sites on both sides of the Atlantic.  Some of the differences may account for the differences in landscape and the appropriate way of land use that these different people had worked out.  For instance, both ancient people's in this case, or comparative study, the Algonquians and ancient Celts, had traditions that the souls or spirits, or some form of the etheric essence of great chiefs, matriarchs, sages and medicine people were imbued or became trans-mutated into the stones themselves (becoming great guardian spirits), thus, on both sides of the water, when looking at standing stones from certain angles, one sees abstract profiles of either a facial or bodily profile imbued into the stone, and if one is really tuned in, or sensitive to these sites, will note something etheric about these stones, perhaps validating the traditions of the ancients- I would maintain that these stones retain an intelligent consciousness of their own, however that may be possible, and are capable of communicating or interacting with sensitive individuals who spend time at these sites.  So here we see a similarity in this comparative study.  Of course, in Europe, the interaction or worship at Standing Stone sites was outlawed in the Middle Ages, or the beginning of the Christian era, as basically was these sites in colonial times in America, thus the knowledge of these sites went "underground."

The land of Egypt is also a very interesting place.  Even during dynastic times, the kingdom was a Matriarchy.  Behind the seat of those great Pharaohs  that the mainstream Egyptologists have pushed to idolize, was the "Lady of the House", the retainer of land and ownership.  The male Pharaoh had to marry into the FEMALE line.  That is why the goddess Isis is depicted with a throne seat on the crown of her head-dress: she is the Lady of the House, the true retainer of wealth and power, not the male.  The word "Egypt" and thus "Egyptology" (the discipline), etc., is a bit of a misnomer which comes down to the Western world from the Greek tradition, and not the indigenous tradition of what we think of as the land of Egypt today.  For Egypt is really the Land of Khem, motherland of the Khmeitian civilization.  Khem meaning "the black land" or "black Earth."  We get the words "alCHEMy" and "CHEMistry" today from Khem, as in the Land of Khem.  The pre-dynastic civilization of this land can also closely compare to what we see in the above two comparative examples of the Eastern United States and Europe, with all the similarities and differences.  For example, the more ancient sites were earthen and stone mounds, which were generally built up over time, whereupon pyramid and temple sites were later built upon.  The Standing Stone was just like that of the America's (the Incas had Standing Stones too, etc.) and ancient Europe, still to be found to this day in what is NOW (but hasn't always been) the dessert, and at some point, and I do not know how this evolution process took place, but the Standing Stone was the pre-cursor of the Obelisk.  The Khemetians were said to have been made up of 42 different distinct tribes- no wonder they were so great!

The geology also speaks wonders.  For instance, the Azores Islands are in the middle of the Atlantic ocean, and there are remains of a great, ancient megalithic civilization to be found in those parts, nobody knowing of course quite who those people were.  Great stone walls reminiscent of the New England country, stone chambers, perched boulders, etc.  The Azores are the remaining mountaintops (now islands) of sunken landmasses that sit atop the Dolphin Ridge of the Atlantic.  That is straight up scholarly geological fact.  The Canary Islands are also an interesting place out in the Atlantic a bit closer to the North African coast- there is much debate about just who the Guanches, the Native people of the island were.  We do know that they were dark skinned and built like tall basketball players, who fought against the Spanish colonizers for hundreds of years.  Any survivors today are mixed descendants.  There are six Canary Islands.  On the island of Tenerife alone, there are six step pyramids made out of the local stone, aligned to the solstice, equinox points and horizons.  All throughout those islands are stone cairns, stone mounds and stone chambers as well.  Stone Chambers in the America's, Atlantic islands, Europe, Mediterranean and pre-dynastic Egypt.  Just like the Standing Stones, one can do a comparative study and analysis of these structures as well, finding both similarities and differences, indicating that different ethnic tribal groups of people built these structures, yet there seems to be SOME similarities in the wisdom behind the builders of these structures as well as cosmology.

Concerning Col. James Churchward's books on Mu: some of my recent posts show some possible independent validations of his research which I will not repeat here.  Just check out the earlier posts.  One thing that he said about the Maya really got my attention: he said that only a Mayan high priest of "Chief" ever wore yellow feathers in their head-dress.  He was talking strictly about the Maya in this case.  Sachem Massasoit, the Wampanoag Chief (Sachem) who greeted the Pilgrims in 1620 was Yellow Feather.  Massasoit means Yellow Feather.  An interesting name.  Even among the Algonquian only special people are traditionally denoted to wear a yellow-feathered head-dress- pay close attention to people's traditional regalia to this day and you might notice something.  So here is another independent validation of something this "rogue" scholar (Churchward) wrote about.  I do not agree with all of his views, but things like use of sacred symbolism throughout different dispersion of cultures and similarities in hieroglyphic languages is very interesting and valid research in my opinion. 

I could go on about conical shaped standing stones, conical shaped hand-held prayer stones, conical shaped head-dresses, dunce caps, witches hats, etc. but I won't for now.  I have covered before geological cataclysms of earthquakes, floods and volcanoes (5,000 years ago) which rose ocean levels, sunk continental shelves, split Martha's Vineyard off the mainland and destroyed the Minoan civilization on the island of Crete. 

I maintain that all of these respective stone sites and the traditions thereof are products of the indigenous native cultures of the land these sites are located, whether the Algonquian of the American Northeast or the Guanches of the Canary Islands.  However, I also maintain that there is "something else" about the tradition itself of these sites, and the wisdom and understanding of the builders, that may have a common heritage lost to us in the depths of pre-history, the most ancient of ancient times. 

[Note to edit in:  Some researchers would place stone structures such as the great stone fort of the Aran Islands off of the coast of Ireland, or the great stone fort of Zimbabwe, to be of "Atlantean" origin in their time and place.  This line of inquiry of research is in fact, valid.  On another note, as for comparing Standing Stone sites in the American Northeast compared to Europe: there are just too many stylistic differences in terms of building style, selection of stone, lay-out of the sites, and what-not, between the different cultures who built these sites.  The one exception I have noted, which I actually used above, is the very western-most coast and islands off of Scotland, such as Callinash.  The Standing Stones there are stylistically similar to American Northeast sites as well as the lay-out.  And actually, when I was a very young kid, researching lake monsters such as Loch Ness (I was a serious researcher back then on that subject), I remember reading how there are many geological anomalies in Scotland that tie it to the Northeast of the America's.  And it is true, for we have our own Lake monsters here: The Gloucester MA. Sea Serpent, "Champ" of Lake Champlain (Vermont/ new York), the lake monster of Lake Memphremagog in Quebec, and the "Ogopogo" lake serpent of Lake Okanagan in British Colombia.  And there may be more.  I remember reading that both Lake Champlain (Vermont) and Loch Ness in Scotland became land-locked under the same geological circumstances.  In fact, it went on to say that the geology and rocks of Scotland in that area, geologists having taken samples of very low levels, match that of the American Northeast, implying that Scotland was actually once a part of the American Northeast in deep antiquity, hundreds of thousands or maybe millions of years ago (according to the standard dating methods the scientists use, which may not be perfect).  So, some of the Standing Stone sites in western most Scotland and the most westerly islands of that area could in fact originally have belonged to the same culture of people belonging to the American Northeast, who would have represented the parent culture.  However, if this is the case, it would probably place the origins of the construction of some of these Standing Stone sites in the tens of thousands or the hundreds of thousands of years, which does not seem too unreasonable to me, given the fact that the pillars and standing stones were "built" or "placed" to last, but is something that a "stool eating hog" (meaning, a scientist or academic; materialistic rascals and fools misguiding the public) would have trouble accepting, even when the geology is in support of the evidence.]

Also, be on the look-out for a future posting of a Standing Stone site I will do a write-up on.  I know for a fact I am the first one to have knowledge about this site in our times, which includes huge collapsed pillars, etc.