TUPI-GUARANI, A Dravidian Tongue?

 

[ARYSIO – may 1995 -Revised and updated with Internet links: FEB. 2004 ]

 

 

Whenever you have eliminated the impossible,

whatever remains, however im-probable, must be the truth.

Arthur Conan Doyle

Introduction

The connection between the Tupi-Guarani family and the Dravidian family of tongues might seem farfetched and even impossible at first sight, given the usual linguistic grounds. The present paradigm that “all languages and families must be considered linguistic isolates until their connection is proved” is simply wrong, as we argue in detail in the present chapter.

The Amerindian-Dravidian linguistic connection it is one which we have verified to be widespread in the Americas, as we have discovered that several tongues here are closely related to the Dravidian ones. An obvious instance is Nheengatu (or Nheen Gatu), the refined Amerindian lingua franca widely used in pre-Columbian South and Central America. Nheengatu – or Tupian, as it is also called – is a member and paradigm of the Tupi family of Amerindian languages.

In this connection, we have discovered that the Dravidian tongues are some sort of “Proto-World”, the primeval tongue which linguists have long been seeking all over the world. Moreover, we also discovered that the pristine language of the ancient Atlanteans was also a member or perhaps the very prototype of the Dravidian family, a fact that explains how come Proto-Dravida came to be diffused to the whole world.

In other words, Proto-Dravida was the mother tongue not only of the Dravidian family itself, but also of the Austronesian tongues in general, Polynesian included. From Polynesia, this pristine tongue passed into the Americas, where it became some sort of refined lingua franca or sacred tongue spoken in very wide regions of all three Americas, often as a second, sacred tongue.

We note an important fact that is most often ignored or improperly realized by linguists and anthropologists doing field research among the primitives everywhere. Among the primitives of all sorts, religious issues such as sacred traditions, – particularly the ones having to do with myths of origin – are usually the object of initiatic secrets just about everywhere in the world. ^[1]

In fact, these secret traditions closely correspond to the ones of the Mysteries of the ancients in essentially every respect, their origin being indeed literally one and the same. So, these secrets are never really disclosed to the inquisitive strangers, regardless of their academic or religious status

Actually, these secrets are so closely kept that they often die with their possessors, becoming lost to the whole community, which only retains the exterior explanations of a more exoteric character. Such was also apparently the case with the so-called “superior religions” such as Judaism and Christianism, where only the exoteric, pseudo-historical explanations were retained, with the esoteric meanings becoming utterly forgotten and very often mistaken for actual historical events.

No matter what, these exoterisms are invariably the explanations given to outsiders such as missionaries and anthropologists. So, the sacred etymologies, even when disclosed to them, are merely the popular ones which should not be trusted at all. Quite often, even when real, these sacred onomastics and their sacred etymologies consist of adaptations or retranslations of the original names whose true meaning is retained and told only to the most trusted innermost initiates.

Since these sacred etymologies – Amerindian or not – are so exactly connected to Hindu myths and to the Dravidian ones such as the ones I explain below, it is hard to suppose that they originated independently and are hence merely the result of chance, rather than of diffusion.

One specific case that comes to mind is that of the skeptic and professional linguist who affirmed – based on standard linguistic wisdom and on specialized computer programs – that phonetic identities between two independent tongues are “quite likely”. This is false. Such random coincidences are in fact “quite unlikely”, as I argue here and, in more detail, elsewhere.

The a priori probabilities of such coincidences are of the order of 1/1,000 for a single word; 1/1,000,000 for two words, and so on. This fact I argue in detail in my paper on the decipherment of the Etruscan tongue (Etruscan, a Dravidian Tongue?) in an approximate way and, in a mathematically rigorous form, in other, more specialized works of mine.

In the articles just mentioned I provide both the rigorous statistical calculations and an actual instance (English and Tamazight, the tongue of the North African Berbers) which shows no phonetic coincidences at all, after the exclusion of the three or four visible borrowings (month names, from Latin, in both tongues, etc.). ^[2]

 

The Time Scale of Linguistic Change

When comparing languages, one must also at all times keep in mind the essential fact that – in contrast with what mainstream linguists frequently affirm – languages change only very slowly under normal conditions. This fact I rigorously argue and demonstrate both mathematically and empirically further below in the present chapter.

As we show next, languages only branch off into different languages in intervals of about ten thousand years or so. This period of time roughly corresponds to the one of Atlantis’ demise, some 11,600 years ago. Hence, we should expect to still find considerable evidence of the primordial Atlantean language in those tongues which it strongly influenced in one way or another.

Said otherwise, the usual mainstream assumption that all languages are “linguistic isolates” until their connection is proved is wrong. Language is such a remarkable development that its invention should have occurred only once. To suppose differently is to defy the laws of the Calculus of Probability, which rules that improbable events compound according to Bayes’ Law, hence as products of the individual probabilities.

So, if the a priori probability of the autonomous invention of language is, say, one in a million, the probability that it was invented twice in a row is one in a million millions, that is, one in a trillion, and so forth. This inescapable fact of life is usually ignored not only by the mainstream linguists and even the best philologists, but by the anthropologists and other human scientists in general.

The mainstream specialists erroneously believe that remarkable inventions such as Language, Agriculture, Stone Dressing, Metallurgy, Religion, the Alphabet, and so forth could have occurred several times over, independently. As we just stated, this assumption is erroneous, and has to be thrashed before human prehistory indeed starts to make sense.

All great human advancements occurred no more than once, and their worldwide dispersion is the result not of chance, but of diffusion, by direct contact. This fact can be observed in practice for many great inventions. For instance, the invention of the first dressed stone tools remained fixed and unchanged for millions of years, even after being universally diffused. Then another technological advance is achieved somewhere and diffused everywhere, again staying fixed for uncountable eons.

Consequently, we should instead conclude that the idea of “linguistic isolates” is foolish, and should be discarded once and for all, along with the other Victorian doctrines such as Darwinian Evolution and Uniformitarian Geology, which only led us all into all sorts of delusions about the human past. It is hence far more logical to believe, instead, that all languages are to be considered “linguistic cognates” until proven to be isolates.

Since Language was only invented some 120,000 years ago, soon after the modern humans first arose, and since languages only evolve into different tongues in about 10,000 years or so, we should not expect that they changed so considerably as to be totally different from each other. ^[3]

In summary, the above mathematics just proved that that the standard hypothesis of mainstream linguists that all languages are to be deemed “linguistic isolates” until proven otherwise is wrong. The very opposite is true and they are all expected to be connected except when the nations which spoke them in antiquity were deeply affect by major (or even global) cataclysms such as the Flood, which set them on the move and into war, migrations, etc..

Given this inescapable reality, we are forced into concluding that the links between, say, Nheengatu and Dravida are there, and may probably be detected if we are savvy enough. All we have to do is discover them, and observe how the languages tend to change as the result of individual peculiarities which lead to specific “Grimm Laws” in phonetics and to semantic changes due to major environmental changes or in alterations in customs and manners.

It is clear that all sorts of anthropological and archaeological knowledge also help in establishing these linguistic relationships. It is in this sense that, more than mere linguists we have to learn to be philologists and above all, etymologists.

Only thus will we be able to discover the pristine roots and their original meaning and purpose, and to decipher the links and connections among them. These links are often so subtle as to have escaped detection by the several generations of mainstream linguists who have tackled the problem ever since the discipline was created by Sir William Jones in Calcutta, in 1786, when he realized the great affinities of Indian languages such as Sanskrit with the European ones such as English and Latin.

 

The Nature of Sacred Tongues

Comparative Religion and Comparative Mythology are extremely tricky sciences, as the reader scan see by themselves in the many articles where I treat this subject. Accordingly, sacred etymologies are extremely complex. Myths invariably consist of double entendres, where the obvious message is intended for profane consumption, and the inner, esoteric one is addressed to the initiates alone.

Such is particularly the case with the sacred tongues of India, Sanskrit and Dravida in particular. These are polysemic tongues, where words assume many, many different semantic values, depending on the actual context. This fact is often used in practice to hide away or disguise the true sense intended in the particular myth or pseudo-historical event.

In reality, this secret is part of a widespread ancient complot intend to keep the public misinformed on this type of thing: the secret of the Mysteries. This secret has to do with the reality of Atlantis as the true site of Paradise Lost whence we all came, in the dawn of times.

Curiously enough, the keeping of this omnipresent, universal secret is done both by the priests and by the academias, even in modernity. For that purpose, they do not shy from appealing to false doctrines of all sorts, creating illusions which often pass for the truth itself, just as is the case of the linguistic “splitist” doctrine just mentioned.

It is true that some languages such as Indo-European change considerably in the course of a few millennia. But this is merely the result of their endless migrations and expansion and the imposition of their tongue over the other many peoples they conquered throughout prehistory. The resulting languages are hybrids of sorts and, even though related, widely differ from each other.

Such is not the case with the tongues of more stable agrarian societies such as the Dravidian ones. Here the rule is the fixation to the soil and to the traditional customs; language, race rites and religion included. Even certain primitive nomadic societies which do not prevail on endless conquest and expansion are rather conservative in this regards.

As the result, their languages remain essentially unchanged throughout uncountable millennia, as several experts have recently concluded. So, it is at best risky, and at worst stupid, to generalize the Indo-European reality to the extremely conservative Dravidian nations. The former endlessly expand and endlessly migrate, absorbing the cultures and the languages they meet in their way. ^[4]

In another Internet page of mine, I also argue that Nheen Gatu, the polished lingua franca of the South American Indians is also strikingly similar to Dravida, being hence derived from the family, certainly over ten thousand years ago, when the two families became effectively separated according to standard views of the specialists.

My decipherment of Etruscan – novel, down to the present date, insofar as I know – is also based on the Dravidian family of tongues of South India.

Both these linguistic families are presently held to be “linguistic isolates” by essentially all professionals. So, this seminal discovery is of an enormous importance for the deciphering of human prehistory. Likewise important is the find we also made that Nheen Gatu, an Amerindian lingua franca of enormous diffusion in pre-Columbian South and Central America is likewise directly connected with the Dravidian family of tongues.

Though nowadays essentially confined to South India, Dravida – the name we give this whole linguistic family – was formerly spoken throughout the whole of Australasia, and deeply influenced related linguistic families such as Polynesian and Austronesian, not to mention the Indo-European languages such as Sanskrit and the Pelasgian and Etruscan tongues of the Mediterranean region.

All in all, we might veritably affirm that Proto-Dravida is in fact the true Proto-World for which all linguists and philologists have been ardently seeking for over two centuries now. As I show elsewhere, all known roots of Nheen Gatu have their exact or nearly exact counterparts in the Dravida family both in phonetics and in etymology. Why has no linguist ever refuted me or proved my contentions wrong, as is so easy to do in practice, since they are purely mathematical in nature?

Is it not their duty to correctly inform the public, and point out the obvious mistakes of “heretics” like myself, who dropped out of the academias and their cozy tenures, disenchanted with their rigid scholasticism which leads nowhere but to obscurities? I touched the subject of Nheen Gatu, because it is directly related to the tongues of the Pampas Indians and the ones of Chile from whom the myths in question are owed.

 

A Note on the Pronunciation of Nheengatu

Nhengatu – often improperly called Tupi-Guarani – is pronounced in the following way. Its graphic recording is based on Portuguese values, and often varies from author to author. We do not attempt to unify the orthography or even to make it conform to acceptable English standards. We eliminated the spellings with x, ç, q, w, ch, in order to avoid confusion. When more than one form of spelling is used, we show the variants, for reasons of clarity. ^[5]

● Tupian has no f, l, lh, rr (guttural), v or z. So, their sounds were of necessity adapted when words contained them were adopted into Tupian.

● S is always sibilant, as in “sib”; never hard as in “case”.

● R is always soft, as in Italian caro. It is never guttural as in Port. rr.

● H is aspired, as in “house” or “hand”. It is an innovation which is not native in Tupian.

● G is always guttural, even before e or i, as in “get”, “gibberish”, “good”, etc.. The group gu- represents the guttural, followed by a u as in “guano”; for instance:

● B is pronounced as in English when between vowels. At the start of words it is pronounced (and often graphed) mb-; e. g.: mboi (“snake”). But this initial m- is often omitted.

● K is not used in either Portuguese or Tupian, and is often replaced by c- or qu- The value of c- is variable, being equivalent to k- (guttural) before a and o and u and to c proper before e and i, just as in English. When not guttural, the c is written ç or ss-: açu or assu, etc..

● The group nh- (or ñ-) corresponds to the Port. senhor and the Spanish señor or the Italian agno (“lamb”). For instance, nheen (“tongue, language”).

● The group ch- corresponds to the Port. chave and the English sh-, as in “shine” or “machine”. It is never pronounced tch- as in English, or as č or čh in Drav. and Skt.

● The other consonants: m, n, p, s, t, etc. are regular, and approximately correspond to English.

● U is normally graphed y, and is pronounced as in French or as in German ü. In the beginning of words, the y is often substituted by j-: jaci for yaci, etc.. But it is also spelled u, or even i, for instance in tyba, tuba, tiba, all the same word (collective).

● The other vowels are regular, as in Italian or French or Spanish. And they can also be nasals, a fact indicated by a tilde: ã, ĩ, õ, etc..

For completeness’ sake, we mention that Dravida c, which we record as č, is pronounced more or less like the English ch-, as in “church” or “chief”. We also mention that we have discovered some “Grimm’s Laws” ruling the passage from Dravida to Tupi-Guarani. Like their Indo-European counterparts, these rules are prone to exceptions of all sorts, depending from the specific dialect, and so on. In the main, they are generally obeyed.

We also note that Tupian grammar and linguistics is quite similar to their Dravidian counterparts. Both families are agglutinative. What this means in practice is that specific words are formed more or less on the spur of the moment, by adding several different roots as suffixes, according to specific rules of composition.

This is unlike, say, the Indo-European languages, where words are generally fixed as a whole, except for some flexions, which are quite rare in the tongues in question here. In both families verbs do not flex, and the tenses are indicated by means of suffixes: xe acaru (“I eat”); xe acaru-ne (“I will eat”); xe acaru-mirã (“I will eat in the future”); xe acaru-mo (“I would eat”). The same suffixes apply for all persons.

Like Dravida, Tupian tongues have the reiterative or superlative mode, formed by reduplication: piri-piri (“an extension covered with rushes”), muru-muru (“a murmur or persistent noise”); nhenhenhen (“endless talk”). The Tupian tongues also lack essentially the same phonemes as in Dravida: d, f, j, z, rr (guttural).

Both families have no flexions such as plural or feminine, which is indicated, when essential, by adding roots such as tyba, eyia, reyma, meaning “many” or mena (“male”) and cuñan (“female”). Both families widely use euphonic rules (shandi) and both avoid unnecessary, accidental reduplications: nheen gatu for nhenga gatu, etc..

With the above devices, both families are superbly elegant, euphonious, precise, clear and expressive, and seldom lead to obscurity of expression. Rather than primitive, both families are in fact highly sophisticate, and visibly originated within a highly developed civilization where clarity and elegance of expression were highly prized.

In other words, both the Amerindians and the Dravidas – their Old World counterparts – are the visible relicts of a former superior civilization rather than mere primitives who never rose to a civilized status. Their former close contacts cannot be doubted anymore, now that we showed the cogent parallels of these two families so widely distant in both time and space.

We note that even if some coincidences are dismissed as farfetched or purely accidental, they all stand together. Said otherwise, if even a single coincidence is accepted as real, the former connection between the two languages must be accepted as real, unless a very cogent explanation for the linguistic parallel is provided by whoever dismisses our find.

If the many rather exact parallels (74) which I provide in Table I are all rejected as purely accidental – despite the fact that I rigorously proved that such exact parallels in both phonetics and semantics are so “highly unlikely” in practice – how can one account for such an unlikely result, whose a priori probability is only one in a trillion trillion trillions (10^-36)? Any trained statistician would reject this result as utterly impossible in practice.

 

Table I – Word List Comparing Dravida and Tupian (Nheengatu) [Note 1: See List of Abbreviations at the end of this List. The entries are grouped by relationships such as color, size, etc.]
Meaning	Tupian	Dravidian	Observations
1) blue, green	toby, oby	#3343 tubbu	This Dravidian word corresponds to either vitriol (blue) or verdigris (green). Also indigo blue. The loss of initial t- is frequent in Tupian, as instanced here.
2) black, night	una, pixuna	#730*u-na, uxna	See note 2 at the end of this list for explanations.
3) white, bright, shiny	tinga, tin, ti, chinga	#2545 čin-, čint-, *čink-; #3200 tika; teg-	With nasalization, frequent in Tupian for euphonic purposes. The reduplicated form exists both in Dravida (teg-teg) and in Tupian (titi, titinga). Cf. also #3213 tingal (“moon”) = tinga-ol (“bright star”). This base is related to Skt. či, čit, čik, čin, čint (“to shine”). Cf. Lat. scintilla, Port. cintilar, Engl. shine, sheen, scintillate, etc.
4) red, tawny, tan	pitanga, mitanga	#5517 vēt-, pis-	Cf. Skt. piśanga, (“red, tawny, tan, yellowish, golden”) and pīta (idem). Cf. also #4156 pitt- (“yellow”). Since Tupi has no v-, this Drav. sound becomes either p- or b-. The suffix -anga expresses the idea of “soul, essence”, like ux- above. Cf. note 2.
5) red, fiery, ember	rocu	#1016 ulukku	Since Tupian has no l, rhotacism was mandatory. The loss of initial vowels is also common: uluku > *uruku > *ruku > rocu. Several related bases further exist in Dravida. Cf. also Skt. roka, roča, ulka; Spa. rojo; Port. roxo; Ital. rosso; Lat. russus, etc.. This base is the source of the word “volcano” (Lat. uulcanus), as we have argued.
6) shiny, bright	mim(bi)	#4876 min	Perhaps the Tupian prefix is due to a reduplication as in Drav. minimini > *minimi > mimbi. The Drav. also means “star” and “twinkle”. Hence the reiterative. The b- is either euphonic or intrusive.
7) fire, shiny, light	endi, hendi	#869 *endi, eddi, nendi	In Drav. this base also designates the sun. Cf. also the Skt. êndh, indh, edhas; OGerm. eit; Engl. aether, etc.. We believe this name is also related to the one of India (as indh-ya = “born of fire”), and of Eden (“Land of Fire”), a common epithet of Paradise.
8) to burn	cai(t)	#458 kay(tt)	Distantly related to Port. queimar, quente.
9) true	etê	#333 ayite	The Drav. base is the verb “to be, exist, be real or true”. It also expresses the affirmative. Cf. Eng. aye.
10) similar, replica, false	rana	#474 iran-, ran-	The idea is “twin, double, two of a kind”. This later evolve into the notion of “false” in Tupian.
11) to see, eye	ça, eça	#1159 /1443 xā-	This base relates to the word shaman (“seer” = “seeing man”), which exists both in Siberian and in Tupian. Webster affirms it came from North India. But the word does not exist in Sanskrit or in IE.
12) shiny	bera, vera	#5496 vela	With rhotacism. Tupian has no l-, which regularly changes into r-. The Drav. has forms in ven-, which formed the name of Venus, as the Morning Star.
13) star, shiny	atá, tatá, ratá	#3125/3115 tar-, tala, talatala	Cf. Skt. tara; Engl. “star” (superexcrescent s-), etc.. the reduplication implies a steady blinking. Tupian has a tendency to suppress final l- and r-, as instanced here. Perhaps with metathesis in Tupian.
14) day, dawn	ara	#276 ara	This base is distantly related to Lat. aurora (“dawn”). This base also names araras (macaws) as the colorful heralds of dawn in Brasil.
15) many	moro	#4992 muru
16) war	mara	#4763 mara	This word is distantly related to Engl. “war”. It also means “death, destruction”.
17) roar, rumble	murumuru	#5013 murumuru	Note the reduplication indicating reiteration. This word also corresponds to Engl. murmur, etc..
18) strike, blow	tup-	#3075 tap-	A related base is #3068 tap- (“to kill”), having forms in o-. This base is related to Port. tapa (“blow”).
19) tie, bind	mana	#4667 mana	This base changes into mara-, related to “marriage”.
20) soiled, polluted dirty	mara	#4750 mara-	Cf. Engl. “to mar”, etc.. Its early Teut. form is *marz, according to Skeat. This corresponds to Drav. marg-.
21) old, ruinous, decrepit	era, coera	#350 eţa;	The Drav. ţ is pronounced quite like Tupian r, and regularly passes into it. The prefix co- from #2132 kol- (“death”) added to emphasize the idea of destruction. Drav. also has #1579 kera meaning the same. This is perhaps the right base.
22) horn, tip, sharp	aca	#341 ača-	Cf. Lat. acus; Grk. akros; IE *ak; Engl. acute, acumen; etc..
23) pain, pungent	cyr, acyr	#2680 /2713 čur	This base is akin to “sharp”, next. The a- corresponds to the one of Lat. acer, etc., as explained next. It also
24) sharp, tip, edge	cir	#1564 cir	This word exists in IE, for instance Skt. śīra; Engl. “acrid”, “acrimony”; Lat. acer, etc.. The prefix a- probably expresses the idea of “likeness” which occurs both in Tupian and in Dravida (#1 a-), etc..
25) sharp, tip, top	min	#5020 min
26) circle, wheel	caram	#1387 kar-; #1483 kāl-	Cf. Skt. čakra (wheel, whirl). Cf. #2698 čur (“to whirl, gyrate”). This word is related to Engl. “car, chariot”, ultimately related to “wheel”, in turn related to “whirl”. Cf. also Lat. currus, carrus (“car, cart”).
27) head, kernel, seed, stone	canga, acanga	#1298 kan-kk-	Cf. Skt. kan-dola, ka-pala (“head”). The -kk- is the usual Drav. connective. This base is related to the next entry in the sense of “supreme chief, captain” = “head, god, supreme being”. Cf. #1989 kekk, *kank-.
28) tongue, language	nheen, nheenga	#33/3633 nang-	Cf. Lat. lingua, with lambdacism.
29) refined beautiful,	gatu, catu	#1443 kattu	Cf. Skt. katu; Grk. agathos, etc., meaning the same.
30) hand, paw, claw, prong	cara	#2023 kai; *kara	Drav. also has #1265 kara (“prong, barb”) and #1268 kara (“to paw”), where the idea probably originated. Cf. Skt. kara; Grk. kheiros; Port. garra, this one of unknown origin, perhaps Celtic.
31) penis	conha	#1697 kuņņa	Cf. Fr. con, Lat. cuna, Port. cona, etc.. In Dravida as in other tongues, such words refer to both the male and the female sex organ.
32) skin	pir, pira	#4417 pir, pere	This base is distantly related to Lat. pellis, Port. pele, etc.
33) nose	tin	#3311 tun-	The evolution was Drav. i > Tupian ü > y > i.
34) ghost, spirit, god	anhanga	#110 annan, annakk-	Cf. Skt. ananga (“bodiless, ghost, soul”) = Kama, the (spiritual) Hindu love god. See Appendix I for more details on this important concept and deity.
35) breast, nipple	cama	#1234 kamu; #181 ama	Cf. Mar. amā, attesting the passage to IE, with loos of initial k-. This word is connected with Port. ama (“milk nurse”), whose origin is obscure. It is related to Ital. mamma, and other such similar bases.
36) mother	acy, cy	#364 acci	This base passed into several IE tongues of India, as shown by B&E. Skt. also has akkā and attā, both borrowed from the Deccan. Cf. Lat. Acca Laurentia.
37) man, person	abá, avá	#156/273 ava, appa	This word applies to the Indians, as “humans” contrasted to other people. The Drav. base refers to the clan as parents or relatives, as a term of respect.
38) elder brother, ally, relative	mun	#5020 mun-	The idea is the one of a predecessor or elder. or a member of the household, who is considered an ally, a relative through marriage.
39) girl, virgin	cunhã	#1646 kuññan	This base is distantly related to Grk, gyne (“woman”) and Skt. kanyan (“virgin”). This is a name of Durga (Kali), the Great Virgin Mother of the Hindus.
40) twin children	coen, incoen	ko-en	From #2030 ko- (“child”) + #457 en, in (“two, pair”) = “paired children, twins”. And this base is related to #990 okan (“one of a pair, twin”), just commented.
41) child	curu-	#1851 kuru-	The idea is “short, cut short”
42) tender, child, love	muru	#4978 muru-	This is the name of the Hindu child god Murukan. We believe that the suffix derives from #990 okan (“one of a pair, twin”), Murukan being the twin of Ganesha. His figure evokes Mitã, commented above.
43) small	quiry	#1594 kiru	Note that in Tupian, y (or ü) is often confused with u. The qu- is the Port. for k-, and its u- is mute: kiry.
44) small, little	mini, miri	#4938/4851 miţi, muţi	Cf. Tupian Mitã (a child god resembling Murugan). Cf. Engl. mini-, Latin minimus, Port. mindinho, etc.. See next entry, which is related to this one.
45) pebble, gravel	curu	#1819 kur-	Distantly related to Engl. gravel; Bret. grouan, etc..
46) rough, hard	cara, ara	#1265 kara	Cf. next entry. Loss of initial c- is frequent in both linguistic families.
47) flat, plain	peb, peba	#3949 pabb-, pamp-	Other Tupian forms include pema, attesting forms with m-. Cf. the Port. pampa = Quechua pampa. This base is also related to parana. Cf. next entry.
48) beetle	arabé	kara-pi (“hard-shelled bug”)	Cf. Lat. scarabeus, Engl. scarab, etc.. IE tongues often introduce a superexcrescent s- before initial k- or t-, as demonstrated by AZ. The loss of initial c- is frequent in the Tupian languages.
49) bug, bee (biting)	pi	#533 ipi	Cf. Lat. apis, Engl. “bee” etc. The ultimate etymon is “bite, sting”.
50) sow, animal	soó	#2830 čo-	Cf. Skt. su, sū; Lat. suis; Grk. zoos; Engl. “sow”, etc.. Sows are the emblem of fertility and abundance. Hence their connection with Skt. su (“abundance, prolific”). Cf. #2376 čūl (“to breed”), with l muted, since it did not exist in Tupian.
51) dog	cura	#1901 kura-	The domestic dog existed in pre-Columbian America. It is no coincidence that dogs originated in Indonesia.
52) chicken fowl	ura, cura, guará	#2125/2160 kuru, koru, cura	Domestic chickens existed in pre-Columbian South America, and were somehow brought from Indonesia, where they originated. Cf. sara-cura (“water fowl”).
53) worm, leech	ura	#660 uru	Cf. #822 era (“worm”). The word was probably formed from u-era, where the prefix u- expresses the idea of “edible, food” (see above). Certain worms are edible. Drav. has #4312 puru, vuru (“worm”) > *wuru > uru. Cf. Engl. “worm”; Lat. vermis; etc..
54) butterfly, moth	pana, panam, panapana	#4083 /4020 pan-, para, parapara, pape	The first Drav. base means “butterfly” proper, and the second “to flutter, wing”. Experts agree that the two bases are related both in Tupian and in Dravida. Cf. Skt. parna; Italian farfaglia, Port. farfalhar; French papillon, etc.. Cf. next entry.
55) bull-roarer	parapara	#3930 pamparam	Cf. 54 above. The Drav. base actually means “humming top”, a kind of bull-roarer. The bull-roarer derives its sound from its fluttering, like a frightened butterfly or bird. Cf. Skt bhramaraka (“bumblebee, bull-roarer, humming top”) < bhram (“to fly, flutter”)
56) wax, bee, fat, oil	caba	#2105 koppa-	Cf. Lat. apis, Engl. “bee”, respectively with loss of initial c- and ca-. this type of loss is quite common. The Drav. base is related to “copra” (from Malay koppara) = “coconut fat (or flesh)”.
57) house, home	oca, toca	#399 okkal	Cf. Skt. oka (“house, home”). The esuffix -al, missing in Tupian, means “household servants, family”.
58) to eat, food	u	#600 un	Cf. #728 ū (“food, flesh”), a related base.
59) water	yg	#5119 yehk-	Cf. Grk. hyg-ros; AS ig-land (“watery land”), etc.. There are many other related bases both in Dravida and in other tongues as well.
60) to boil, bubble	pur	#4315 pur-	The Drav. base has forms such as purukka or purukukka, which closely evoke the Tupian pururuca.
61) gruel, corn meal	canjic	#1107 kanči-kk	Cf. Skt kanjika and Port canjica, both meaning the same. The -kk- is the usual connective. The Drav. roots are: #1106 kanj- (“barley”)+#430 ik- (“water, soaked”).
62) to eat, voracious	cura	#1923 kūra-	Cf. #2233 kōru, kollu meaning the same. This base is related to Lat. gula; Engl. “gullet, gully”, and so on. The ultimate meaning is “gorge”, also related to it.
63) pepper, spice	cui	#1760 cuy	This concordance is too exact to require commenting.
64) to pop, pierce	pok, bok	#4452 pok-	Cf. Ital. bucco; Engl. “pock, pop”, etc..
65) jade, emerald, green stone	muirakitan, muirakitan	mara-katan	See Note 3 and Appendix I for the myth and meaning of muirakitans. Cf. the Skt. marakata and the Grk. smaragdos (“emerald, green stone, jade, nephrite”) where the initial s- is superexcrescent, as usual in passing to IE.
66) wood, forest	mata, mira, muira, myra	#4711 maŗa	The cerebral ŗ- regularly changes into Tupian t. The Drav. base is related to #4712 maral (“bow-string hemp, bast”), just as in Tupian (mbyra = muyra) = Port. embira (adopted from Tupian).
67) forest, bush	cá, caá	#1418 kā	Cf. caatinga (“thorny bush”); not “white bush” as some people think.
68) plains, field, marsh, expanse	paraná	#3949 paranna	This base is also related to the above, and to words such as Eng. flat; Lat. platus, Greek plato, Port. prato, etc.. It also relates to “Paradise” (a flat expanse). as I explain elsewhere.
69) itch, scratch, scabies	curu	#2257 kuru	This base is distantly related to IE words such as Skt. kharju, Lat. crusta; Engl. crust; etc.
70) filth, to defecate	caca, caaba	#1356 *kakkari	We believe that this word formed by metathesis: karikka > *kakkari. But there are other related bases as well: 1079 kakka- (“vomit”); #1088 kača- (“filth”), etc.. It may also be that it was formed by reduplication: kari-kari > kar-kari > kak-kari. The decision is difficult. Cf. Skt. kalka; Lat. cacca, caccare; etc..
71) to bend, bow; crooked	cunda	#1927 kun, kund-	This base corresponds to the Port. corcunda (“hunchback”), of obscure derivation. It also correspond to Skt. kona, Grk. gonos, etc. (“angle”).
72) people, dwelling, abode	poro	#4555 pora	Cf. Skt. pura, pur, Purusha; Greek polis; Port. morar. The idea is that: city > dweller > citizen > human being > man.
73) white men, Aryan	caray, cari	#1782 kuru	Cf. Skt. kharu. The Indians gave that name, which is more or less equivalent to “ghost” to the whites who invaded America. Even today, the people in Rio are called Cariocas (“abiding whites”). This base is related to # 1351 kari (“dead, ghost, devil, cruel”).
74) to wet, bathe	muru	#4993 muru	Distantly related to Port. molhar < LLat. *molliare.
Note 1: All entry numbers of the Dravidian roots are from Burrow and Emeneau, op. cit.. Abbreviations: B&E: Burrow and Emeneau / AZ: Adolfo Zavaroni, the illustrious Etruscologist / Lat.: Latin / LLat.: Low Latin / Grk.: Greek / Fr. : French / Ital.: Italian / Drav.: Dravidian / Mar. : Marathi (an Indo-European tongue from India) / AS: Anglo-Saxon / OGerm. = Old German / Teut.: Teutonic / Note 2: Uxna (or Uxa) is the Dravidian name of Ushas, the Goddess of Dawn. Usha (Uxa) is also the same as Lady Night. Coincidentally, the Tupis also personify the Night as an entity. The variants pixuna and una both converge in Dravida. The main root is #3621 nā- (“darkness, night”). The first root is either #657 us-, ux – (“apparition, shape, color, goddess”). Hence, ux-na (“the color of night” or “the goddess of night”). The second form, pixuna, derives from #4438 pēyč-, meaning the same as ux-. In fact, Dawn is dual, according to Hindu traditions. The elder (Jyeshtha) is Night proper, in its culmination (ux-). The second (Lakshmi, Ushas) is dawn already lucent, being associated with the day itself. The same dualism also pervades Amerindian traditions. Note 3: Muirakitans – or myrakitans, etc. – are curious ornaments made of jade and worn by the Indians hung from their necks. They are made of green jade (jadeite, nephrite) and have the form of a linga shaped like a toad. In fact, the muirakitans are associated with the kururu toads, another Tupian decoration. Experts are intrigued by the ornament, which many believe to have been imported from the Far East, since jade is very hard to carve and was not available in the Americas. The ornament closely evokes a cross or crucifix, and is used similarly. Some experts affirm that the word kururu is related to “cross”, which the Indians call curuçá. Berta Ribeiro (Suma Etnológica Brasileira, III:267, Petrópolis, 1986) affirms that the kururu toad represents the figure of an ancestor (Anhangá, qv above). This crucified figure also quaintly evokes the one of Purusha, the Cosmic Man of Hindu traditions. Note 4: x Note 5: x Note 6: x Note 7: x Note 8: x Note 9: x Note 10: x Note 11: x

Appendix I-
THE religion OF THE TUPI-GUARANIS

 

Introduction ^[6]

What follows is more or less speculative. We here attempt to determine the true meaning and nature of Amerindian religion, a difficult task at best. No anthropologist so far has ever been able to determine the true meaning and purpose of Amerindian religion, let alone its origins in the Old World, where they visibly came from, according to the standard doctrines on the matter.

Nowhere in the world do the natives ever disclose to profanes the real meaning of their religious symbolism and beliefs. Theirs is a Mystery Religion like the many other Old World religions of deep antiquity: Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Crete, and so forth. These initiatic secrets are passed directly from the mouth of the initiant to the avid ear of the trusted disciple, generation after generation. These teachings are never committed to writing, lest they would fall in profane ears.

This handing over of the secret traditions has happened for uncountable millennia now. We believe that these initiatic secrets have to do with Atlantis and its doom in the dawn of times. And we also believe that they date from this time, the times of Atlantis. As we just admitted, ours is merely a guess. But it is an educated guess which results from many years of research into the matter, whose secret we boast of having cracked: the secret of Atlantis itself.

 

The Religion of the Tapirapés

The Tapirapés are a small Tupian tribe residing in the Mouth of the Tapirapé and Araguaia rivers, northeastern Mato Grosso region of Brazil. The Tapirapé Indians belong to the Tenetehara group, which also includes the Asuriní, the Avá-Canoeiro, the Guajajara, the Parakanã, the Suruí do Pará, the Tembé, and the Turiwára.

All these groups are relatively small, and are composed of only a few hundred individuals, except for the Guajajara, who amount to about 10,000 people. But the great interest attached to them – and the Tapirapé in particular – is the fact that they became isolated from white interference and missionary action, so that their pristine religious beliefs were preserved in its original form.

Brazil has managed to preserve several Amerindian cultures quite well, all of which present a considerable linguistic and anthropological interest. There are reports of up to 34 “virgin” groups yet without any peaceful contacts so far, particularly in the Brazilian Amazon. The total number of Amerindian languages listed for Brazil is 234. Of those, 192 are living languages and 42 are already extinct. More details on these languages is given in the Ethonologe site.

The religion of the Tapirapés is briefly discussed by Baldus (op. cit.). They call the soul of the living by the name of i-yunga and the one of the defunct invuera (“who was soul”), corresponding to the Tupinamba angüera (or anhanga, anhangüera, etc.).

Their supreme god is Tupan, the god of tempests and lightning. It may be that Tupan is identical with the Kururu toad, an image of the muirakitan, and hence of the linga. But this is just a suggestion for further research, as the subject is highly obscure. No matter what, the Kururu toad figures centrally in Tapirapé religion. The souls of the dead (invuera) become Kururu toads. And those of the pajés (shamans) become lightning.

Invueras are white like ghosts. But while alive (ynga), the soul is dark or black. Pajés are possessed by yngas, who impart them their magical power. The dead souls survive for some time, and then incarnate as other humans or animals: kururu toads (Pipa pipa), birds, pacas, etc.. In Amerindian mythology, the kururu toad is the hero who brought fire to mankind, which it stole from the gods, more or less as in the myth of Prometheus.

But the Tapirarapés affirm that the toad stole the fire from them, because it needed its warmth and light. The fact is that toads are attracted to fire, and often swallow live embers, perhaps mistaking them for fireflies, as Baldus comments. According to the Tapirapés, fire was brought to them by Petura, an ancestor and a sort of trickster, who stole it from the buzzards (Wagley, pg. 78).

Toads and frogs are, as in Old world mythologies, the giver not only of fire, but also of rains and lightning, another connection with Tupan, the lightning god. This connection dates from the Rig Veda, which has hymns dedicated to frogs in this context. And, as we just said, it seems to me that the toad is really an euphemism of the phallus (linga), much as is the figure of muirakitans.

 

The Symbolism of Muirakitans

Muirakitans – or muirakitans, etc. – are curious ornaments made of jade and worn by the Indians, usually hanging from their necks. They are made of green jade (jadeite, nephrite) and have the form of a linga disguised by the figure of a toad, which it closely evokes. In fact, the muirakitans are associated with the kururu toads, another frequent Tupian decoration which we discuss further below.

Experts are intrigued by this ornament, which many believe to have been imported from the Far East, since jade is very hard to carve and was not available in the Americas. The ornament closely evokes a cross or crucifix, and is used similarly. Some experts affirm that the word kururu is related to “cross”, which the Indians call curuçá.

Berta Ribeiro (Suma Etnológica Brasileira, III:267, Petrópolis, 1986) affirms that the kururu toad represents the figure of an ancestor (anhanga, qv above). This crucified figure also quaintly evokes the one of Purusha, the Cosmic Man of Hindu traditions.

The Tupian word muirakitan is usually derived from muira (or mira, myra, mbira, etc.) = “tree” + kitan (“knot, wart”) > muira-kitan (“the knot of wood”). But this etymology is arbitrary and is founded on no independent evidence but the phonetical one. Both roots in fact have a series of different meanings, so that it is impossible to be true of the one just given.

Muirakitans served as amulets to the Indians. Their origin is often attributed to the Amazons, the legendary female warriors of Greek traditions. The Amazons were fabled to have been found in the Amazon region, a tradition preserved in the name of the place. Curiously enough, the Amazons were intimately connected with the legend of Atlantis. For instance, Diodorus refers their conquest of Atlantis in his Library, as we comment in detail elsewhere.

The etymologies of the name include: mira-ki-itã (“button (or knot) of people”), “knot of wood”, etc.. But, as we already argued, the true meaning derives from Sanskrit and Dravida and is related to “emerald”. This word derives from the Greek smaragdos, in turn derived from the Skt. marakata, meaning “green stone, emerald”. ^[7]

The agreement is too in both phonetics and semantics is too good to be doubted, particularly when we keep in mind that the symbolism of muirakitans – if not the jade stones themselves – came from the far east, much as did the emeralds in antiquity. This fact is confirmed by Luís da Câmara Cascudo (Dicionário do Folclore Brasileiro, rio, 1969) who explains the tradition of muirakitans thus:

Muirakitans. Artefact of jade found in the Lower Amazonian region, specially near Obidos and the riverbanks or mouth of the Nahmundá and Tapajós rivers. Amuletic properties are attributed to it. According to a still surviving tradition, the muirakitans were presented by the Amazons to the men who visited them every year [to engender children]… Barbosa Rodrigues saw in these ornaments the evidence of ancient Asiatic migrations. It is certain that, up to now, in Amazonia, as in the rest of the American continent, jade mines have not been found, or even jade which has not been worked.

The artefacts found in both South America and in North America all seem to belong to a single industry and a single civilization… The stone is finely worked, taking the shape of a toad or some other aquatic animal, and incised with grooves intended for the thread by means of which it is suspended from the neck.

Muirakitans are invariably green and are made of jade, nephrite, jadeite, being afterwards polished and exquisitely finished… The purported Asiatic origin of their nephrite inflamed the imagination of the Brazilian researchers. Their origin has been widely discussed due to the fact that only fully worked muirakitans are known, and no deposits of the precious gemstone having been found up to now in the region.

Curiously enough, the traditions of huge mines of green stones such as emerald and jade in Brazil were frequent. Only recently have deposits of emerald been found in Minas Gerais state. But no jadeite or nephrite were ever found in Brazil. However, there were deposits of jadeite in Guatemala (Motagua river valley). The Mayas of Central and North America carved fine jade ornaments, and it is possible, though unlikely, that the Amazonian jade stones were in fact imported from there.

But the connection with the High God and the phallus (linga) is telltale of a connection with India and the Far East. curiously enough, the same symbolism was also current in ancient China. The ancient Chinese associated jade – which they highly prized – with the supreme god and the Pole Star. This connection is associated with the so-called jade pi discs, which are in fact astronomical instruments intended for the location of the Pole Star and the determination of the hour at night (longitude).

It is certainly more than a coincidence that the muirakitan – as some sort of linga – was also connected with the Pole Star (the High God). The linga, as the phallus of Shiva, is connected with the symbolism of the Pole Star (or Morning Star) and its fall from the supreme position, the one of the High God everywhere, the Americas included.

Ultimately, this symbolism has to do with the Primordial Castration and the fall of Lucifer, Adam, Varuna, etc.. And these fallen, castrated gods are all aliases of Atlantis, itself fallen from the supreme position, and sunken underseas. Varuna is the Vedic archetype of Shiva, and is in fact an alias of Poseidon, the very founder of Atlantis.

From his supreme position in the skies, Varuna became – like Poseidon – a marine god, much as the toad and other such marine creatures instanced by muirakitans and such. The myth of the Primordial Castration is extremely ancient in India and elsewhere in the Far East. In the Rig Veda it is encountered under the allegory of the “decapitation” and fall of Angiras-Dadhyanch, the very archetype of Lucifer.

Curiously enough, the tradition of green stones such as muirakitans has to do with the one of the Holy Grail. The Holy Grail of Celtic traditions is said to have been carved from the emerald (a green stone) which fell from Lucifer’s crown during his fall from the supreme position in heaven (as the Pole Star, rather than the Morning Star proper).

As we just said, the muirakitan “toad” is in fact an allegory of the phallus (linga). as such, it is also represented by dragons or serpents, another well-known disguise of the phallus. It is hence quite likely that the dragons so often represented in jade pi discs in fact represent the same thing: the linga. The Chinese jades often represent marine creatures such as dragons (sea serpents), fish, turtle, etc.. Sometimes they assume the shape of cylinders, also common in muirakitans. And they are often worn as pendants, as some sort of amulet, exactly like muirakitans.

An instance of this ancient symbolism in China is shown and explained here, in connection with the so-called “Perpetual Happiness” Disc. Note, above all, the dragon and the apparent connection with a giant phallus, perhaps castrated, as indicated by the disjointed nature of the figure. The “high crown” is also suggestive of the polar (supreme) position. And the severed head is also reminiscent of decapitation.

In this connection it should be noted that Shiva was /is called An in Dravida, a word meaning “supreme, celestial”, and often applied to the Pole Star itself. The Pendant with Two Dragons is also quaintly associated with two dragons, which apparently represent the two Pole Stars (north and south) and the two Morning Stars (Evening and Morning). and these two in turn represent the twin Atlantises Mother and Son). We note that this pendant was also hung from the neck, as some sort of an amulet.

The Double Dragon Pendant from Ch’in also represent the same symbolism. It is worth noting that the very same two-headed dragon or serpent is also central in Tupian celestial symbolism, for instance as shown in Fig. XXXX below. This figure is extremely curious, as it closely resembles the Chinese one just linked. Both “dragons” are two-headed, and both have arms and legs.

What is more, both are associated with heaven, and are placed at its topmost position, the one of the Pole Star. In this context, note the topmost position of the Telurepe Serpent in the maloca (habitation) of the Wayâna Indians of Brazil. This symbolism is also shared with several other Amerindian tribes of Brazil as well.

Fig. XXXX – The Primordial Celestial Serpent of the Wayâna Indians of Brazil
(Suma Etnol. Bras. III:62, top)

In Chinese symbolism, jade is also often associated with thunderbolts. It is said to originate from their fall, being hence thunderstones. This is curious, as the thunderbolt (vajra) is also identified with the linga in Hindu traditions. In fact, the vajra is said to be the head (phallus? glans penis?) of Angiras-Dadhyanch, whose myth and meaning we just commented. All in all, the symbolism of the fall of the vajra has all to do with the Primordial castration and the fall of the Pole Star, itself a symbol of Atlantis as the supreme abode (Paradise) which fell down and became Hades itself.

We do not know of any Amerindian myth telling the fall of the toad from heaven. But the one of his exclusion from celestial parties is recurrent, much as are the ones concerning the exclusion of Shiva from similar events in India.

This quaint Chinese Pendant with Human and Dragon motifs is also very curious. Formed like a pi disc, its shape closely evokes the one of Atlantis itself, three concentric rings and all. The hole at the center – the place of the pole star – represents the Pole Star in absentia.

The intricate designs represent animals, as indicated in the legends in the figure just linked: phoenix, turtle, tiger, dragon, etc.. More than animals proper, these glyphs symbolize the celestial constellations whirling around the Pole Star, along with the sun, moon, clouds, etc.. This celestial archetype was paralleled on earth by Atlantis (Paradise) around which all things whirled, more or less as in the symbolism of the Whirling Mountain which we discuss in our Atlantis site.

As the site just linked affirms, the use of jade pi discs and its quaint symbolism dates for 7,000 BC or earlier in China. This date corresponds to 9,000 BP [Before Present], which takes us back to Neolithic times and almost to the ones of Atlantis itself. This antiquity is again telltale of a connection with Atlantis itself, as it s hard to see how else the curious symbolism might have arisen.

Besides, since this symbolism also passed to the Americas, it is clear that it must predate the end of the Ice Age, when connection between the Old and the New worlds was still possible, according to the standard textbook doctrines on the matter. The text of the site is worth quoting here:

Recent archeological data has shown that as early as the middle Neolithic period (ca. 7,000-5,000 BC) three major jade-producing cultures existed in China, each distantly separated from the other in a tripartite arrangement. They were the Ch’a-hai/Hsing-lung-wa Culture in the Liao River basin; the Ho-mu-tu Culture of the Ning-shao Plains in the lower Yangtze River area; and the Lao-kuan-t’ai Culture in the middle Yellow River area. By the late Neolithic period (ca. 5,000-2,000 BC), these three regions had developed into several different archeological cultures…

The preponderance of animal figures, especially insect larvae, pupae, and mammals in what appear to be embryonic form, may be explained by the belief then in the transformative and regenerative life forces of the animals represented. On many pieces, two or more types of animals are found joined together. On others, the mystical power of the animals is expressed in abstract form… The jades of the Liang-chu Culture are the most important ones of the Miao-Man tribal group. The round pi discs and square ts’ung ritual tubes left by the Liang-chu Culture reflected China’s earliest known concept of the cosmos, in which heaven was believed to be round and the earth square.

Both were important ritual objects placed at altars to channel the spirits of the gods and ancestors during worship. Some were etched with ciphers used by the shamans to communicate with the other world. A jade pi disc on display in this exhibit is faintly etched on its obverse side with one such symbol, depicting a bird atop a sacrificial altar. On ts’ung ritual tubes, huang pendants, awl-shaped jades, and three-pronged jades, we find a variety of small- and large-eyed mask motifs representing the trinity of the gods, ancestors, and divine animals, as well as the faith of the Liang-chu people that each could transform into the other. In addition to the pi, ts’ung, and other worship jades, the Liang-chu produced a variety of emblematic jades, like the yueh axe…

The symbolism of larvae (worms, pupae, etc.) is also used in the Americas in exactly the same connection: the rebirth of the cosmos. This is symbolized by the effect that the Telurepe serpent or dragon, which is in fact a worm of sorts, as dragons frequently were both in the Old and the New Worlds. This embodies a connection with the soul, said to be a butterfly evolved from a larva, much as we will evolve into angels when we die, as many people believe.

This symbolism is also connected with Atlantis. Atlantis died and was converted into some sort of evil serpent (or dragon or larva). But it is fated to resurrect (so they say) and to again resume its angelic nature. Hence also the connection of jade pi rings with the Phoenix, itself a symbol of resurrection and, even more exactly, the rebirth of Atlantis.

This type of rebirth symbolism in connection with toads is quaintly represented in this Mayan iconography linked here. It portrays the winged Sun God being reborn from the mouth of a giant toad or frog. This symbolism is identical to the one of the Hero being born out of the dragon mouth which we also had in ancient Greece and, above all, in the Australian symbolism concerning the Rainbow Serpent which we comment in detail elsewhere.

This symbolism is illustrated, for instance, in this figure here. It shows Jason – the leader of the Argonauts – issuing from the mouth of a bearded dragon. The event is being presided by Pallas Athena, and takes place in Paradise, as attested both by the presence of the dragon and of the Tree of Life, in the background. The toad is the frequent alias of the dragon in American symbolism.

And it is at least a remarkable coincidence that we find exactly the same symbolism in Australia, in Greece, and in the Americas. Pallas Athena is an alias of the Great Mother, herself a representation of Atlantis itself. So is the Dragon and the Toad, by the way, which represent its decayed form, fated to be reborn as an angel, here represented by the hero or, as in the Mayan iconography, by the winged Sun God.

The presence of the sign of the Cross in the Mayan iconography is also no coincidence. And the posture of the reborn god also closely evokes the one of the crucified Christ, as shown in the figure. As described in this excellent Internet article here – the source of the figure just linked – the toad is here representing the giant cleft or chasm whence all things sprung in the dawn of time: corn, humans, gods, domestic plants and animals, civilization, etc..

This chasm is often placed in the Milky Way. But this is sheer exoterism. In fact, this chasm is the Khasma Mega of Hesiod and the Nun of Egyptian traditions. It is also the “dragon’s mouth” which is the Vadavamukha (“Fiery Mouth”) of Hindu traditions. In Homer, this chasm figures as Charybdis, the terrible maelstrom where Ulysses’ ship was engulfed.

We comment this important symbolism elsewhere, and will not return to this task here, as the interested readers may read on it in my Atlantis site. Suffice it to say that the Vadavamukha is the giant caldera of the Krakatoa volcano, which the Hindus equate with the Mouth of Hell itself.

This mouth of a monster (dog, dragon, etc.) was also widely used in Christian symbolism, particularly during the Middle Ages. In Mayan and Aztec religious symbolism this primordial cave or hole was called Chicomoztoc (Aztec) or Tollán Zuivá (Maya), names which means something like “seven caves’ or “seven tombs”. The tombs or holes in question here are of course the seven island-remains of Atlantis turned into the Seven Islands of the Blest, the fearful Land of the Dead.

The Amerindians of the three Americas often speak of this chasm or hole connecting the netherworld with this one. And they frequently tell that the netherworld was their site of origin, and that they ascended into this upper one through such a hole. The North American Indians (Zuñi, Navajo, etc.) also tell the same story, for instance in connection with the sipapu (hole) which is an invariably feature of their kivas (subterranean temples). We will return to this subject when we comment the myths of origin of the Tapirapé Indians of Brazil.

 

The Salamander Human of the Chinese Jades

The Salamander-Human is also extremely curious. Its nature and posture with arms upright closely evokes the one of the Kururu Toad. The salamander is an alias of the toad in sacred symbolism everywhere. In America the salamander is often substituted by the lizard, whose figure often replaces the kururu toad. The connection of salamanders with fire in alchemical symbolism has to do with Atlantis and its purification by fire and water, as I explain elsewhere.

But salamanders are also said to quench fire. Francis I had as his emblem a salamander in the fire with the device: J’y vis e je le éteins (“I live in it, and I extinguish it”). The idea is again akin to the one of the Primordial Castration of the dragon known as Anavatapta in Hindu-Buddhic traditions. Anavatapta means “the one who does not heat up”.

The idea is that having been castrated, Anavatapta is immune to the firing produced by love. I explain this symbolism elsewhere, and will not return to it here except to say that it is connected with the myth of Shiva destroying Kama (the Hindu love god) with fire. And this myth is in turn the one of the self-castration of Shiva, with Kama figuring the linga, the phallus of the god.

The salamander is said to become the Phoenix after it is purged to the red in the fire. Once again, we have the symbolism of the rebirth of Atlantis disguised by this quaint symbolism as old and as universal as it is sacred and important to us all.

The Myth of Anhanga, Jurupari and Muirakitan

The myth of Jurupari is one of the most widespread among the Indians of South America. Jurupari – whose name means “shut up your mouth” (yuru–pari) – is perhaps the important god or hero in South American religion. Jurupari is in fact an alias of Hercules, the great hero of Greco-Roman traditions. As such, he is also the American counterpart of heroes such as Baal (Phoenician), Bala or Balarama (Hindu), Gilgamesh (Sumerian) and a host of other such Old World heroes.

The main attribute of Jurupari is his enormous flute. This instrument, tabooed for women, closely corresponds to the didjeridoos of the Australians aboriginals. As such it is used both there and here in a ritual context. Above all, this instrument symbolizes the phallus. Even better, it symbolizes the huge phallus of Shiva, the ithyphallic god of Dravidian Hinduism.

The cult of Shiva is enormously old. The ithyphallic figure of the so-called proto-Shiva of Harappa already appears in some quaint iconographies in the steatite seals of Indus Valley Culture, the first great civilization anywhere in the world. In this famous seal, the great god of the Hindus figures as an ithyphallic ascetic seated in a yoga pose (padmasana or “lotus posture”).

Shiva is there shown surrounded by a circle of animals, of whom he is both the lord and the protector, just as are Jurupari and Anhanga among the Brazilian Indians. Shiva is famous for the enormous size of his penis, which is often represented by a giant serpent.

 

The Nature of Ophiolatric Cults

The serpent is a frequent euphemism for the phallus. It is certainly more than a coincidence that both the Australian didjeridoos and the Jurupari flutes of the Brazilian Indians are often associated with serpents, as can be seen in this image here and here. Curiously enough, this figure also shows what we have identified as an image of Atlantis, the one typified in Plato’s description of its capital city and, above all, the symbolism of the Hindu dvipas, their sunken Paradises.

We argue this interesting Australian motif elsewhere, and will not redo this discussion here. Suffice it to say that both the didjeridoos and the Jurupari flutes correspond to the castrated phallus of the god, an essential part of their myth. This mythology is visibly derived from the Hindu one, where Shiva, the well-endowed god is also castrated, his phallus becoming the Shivalinga.

It is clear that all these strange connections which we find both in Australia and America are not accidental at all: the enormously endowed god; his permanently erect phallus; the primordial castration; the conversion of the phallus into a serpent or dragon; into a flute or trumpet; into an object of great veneration (linga); the ritual use in Mystery cults; the tabooing from women, etc..

There is a further dozen of items we could quote. But the above will have to do for now. Suffice it to say that the giant flute or trumpet, often serpentine, is also used in the same context in Tibet, being derived from Hindu traditions. Tibetan trumpets and flutes often attain enormous sizes, just as in America and Australia, as portrayed here.

Anhanga is only rarely connected with Jurupari, their identity being a closely kept secret. The main reason is that Anhanga was turned into a devil by the Jesuit missionaries, and the Indians would thus hide his secret identity from the public, lest they would be severely punished. But this identity is attested by all sorts of facts. Above all, we have the phallic character of the two gods. As an Indian once told a famous Brazilian anthropologist:

Añang (Anhanga) is very tall and strong. His beard is very long. His prick and his balls are very, very large. [Berta G. Ribeiro, Grupos Tupis Atuais, USP, São Paulo,1984:352].

It is strange that an Amerindian god would have a long beard, like the one of Hindu gurus. The American Indians have no beard. And this long beard is also the attribute of Amerindian gods such as Sumé, Bochica, Quetzalcoatl, Kukulkan, etc.. As we argue in detail elsewhere, these gods (or Civilizing Heroes, rather) are said to have come from beyond the Pacific Ocean.

Some traditions even speak of their East Indian origin, a fact that leaves little room for doubting a direct connection with India and Hinduism. But it seems that the traditions on Anhanga are even older than that. The great size, the huge penis, the long beards, the divine nature are attributes which apparently pertain to the pristine Atlanteans.

More than Aryo-Semitic attributes, they apparently pertain to the Cro Magnons, as we comment in our Atlantis site and, in more detail, elsewhere.

The Cro Magnons apparently were the ancestors of the proto-Dravidas, who later split into two branches after the infamous War of Atlantis: the Dravidas proper and the Aryans. With the passage of time, they mingled with the natives of the respective regions, with the Dravidas getting darker, and the Aryans whiter, after mingling with the Semites, the Alpines and so forth.

The Australians too speak of these pristine white giants, whom they call wondjinas. So do innumerous other Amerinds, the Peruvians in particular (Atumurunas), as we argue in detail elsewhere. It is curious to observe that the Wondjinas are usually portrayed without the lower maxilla. This curious fact can be observed in the figure just linked. Mircea Eliade also pointed it out in his book on Australian Religions referenced further below, in Appendix II.

Above all, however, we note the fact that the Wondjinas are invariably depicted as whites. And this is quite curious, as the Australian natives are all black. It is hence quite clear that the Aboriginals are speaking of the white giants who were their Civilizing Heroes, much as is the case of the Amerindian and other such traditions the world over.

 

Appendix II –
The australian aboriginals, Tlaloc, Shiva, volcanoes and the Origins of Humankind

 

Introduction

M. Eliade (Religions Australiennes, Paris, 1972, pg. 86) points out the fact that the name of the wondjinas (or wondjinas, etc.) is connected with the idea of “water”. The name derives, he says, from the radix wan- or wun- (“water, watery”), and literally means “near the water” or “connected with water”. The wondjinas are also closely connected with the Rainbow Serpent.

Lévy Bruhl refines the idea even more, and affirms that the name means “rain” or “the power to produce rain”. In other words, the Wondjinas are tempest gods.

Eliade also notes that the name of Ungud, the Rainbow Serpent, is also connected with “water”. Cf. also the extensive literature referenced by Eliade in his book just mentioned. In turn, A. P. Elkin (Rock Paintings of NW Australia, London, 1938, pg. 263-9), shows that the Rainbow Serpent is connected with Dreamtime, the mythical epoch before the Flood, when Paradise still existed.

Its name (Ungud) is used interchangeably with Wondjina, meaning a mythical identity, since the two names are derived from the same root given above. In the same passage, Eliade also notes the fact that Wondjinas have no chins. This curious feature is extremely important for determining their secret identity, as we argue in detail further below.

As we argue elsewhere, the Rainbow Serpent (Ungud) – apparently the supreme deity in Australian religion – is the Serpent Shesha itself. Shesha is portrayed as a rainbow serpent in the temples of Angkor and elsewhere. Shesha is connected with Shiva and Vishnu, and is himself a visible allegory of the giant phallus of Shiva (Shivalinga).

Shiva’s castration corresponds to the giant volcanism which transformed Mt. Atlas from a proud volcanic peak into a lowly caldera (or yoni). The connection with the rainbow also brings to mind the Flood, where it is declared to be the emblem of the pact of Jahveh with the survivors of the cataclysm.

We believe that the wondjinas are the same as the nagas, the “serpent-people” of Hindu traditions. This conclusion is supported by the fact that Wondjinas are often portrayed as serpents or together with serpents in Australian rock art.

The Nagas are in fact the same as the Titans of Greek mythology. And the Titans or Giants are in turn the same as the Atlanteans, who were defeated by the “Greeks”, much as the Titans were mythically defeated by the Gods. Plato explains this parallel in his Critias, so that the identity can hardly be doubted.

The Nagas are also connected with water, and are said to live under the sea, in a submarine abode made of gold and gemstones. It is also interesting to note that marine serpents are a peculiarity of the South Seas, particularly in the region of Australia and Indonesia. This suggests that the origin of the myth of the submarine nagas originated in that region of the world.

In our opinion, Nagadvipa – their paradisial abode under the seas– is an alias of Atlantis, as we have argued in detail elsewhere. If it is already hard to believe the reality of one sunken continent, what should we say of believing in two or more?

As we said above, Eliade moots out the fact that the wondjinas are invariably portrayed without the lower maxilla. The details of the face of a Wondjina can be observed in this figure reproduced from the book of Lévy-Bruhl on the Australian natives and the Papuas of nearby New Guinea (La mythologie primitive. Le monde mythique des Australiens et des Papous, Paris, 1935).

This seminal book is a classic on the subject. The chinless face and the aduncous nose are clearly shown in this remarkable figure. The curious hairdo has been interpreted as some sort of helmet by some. I believe it may be a feather headdress or, perhaps an attempt to portray a halo or nimbus, a feature even today current in the whole Far East.

The inscriptions (?) on the Wondjina’s shirt are perhaps embroidered. The receding eyes – sunken deep in their sockets and the beetle-brow – are another impressive feature of these enigmatic creatures, whose true nature no one has ever succeeded in deciphering in a convincing manner.

Some maverick researchers have even claimed that the Wondjinas are extra-terrestrials. This kind of farfetched proposal is preposterous, and should be simply thrashed.

These curious features all closely evokes the so-called kritimukha (“face of glory”) of Hindu traditions, which also lack the chin. Similar chinless creatures, are also to be found in the Americas. They are fanged and often visibly cannibalistic and vampirian, very much like their Far Eastern counterparts. This Aztec god is known as Tlaloc a name which quaintly evokes the one of Atlas (Atla-loc?). His Mayan counterpart is Chac.

Tlaloc is a water deity (like the wondjinas and the nagas). He is often figure as a serpent and is said to reside in the Terrestrial Paradise (Tlalocan). Tlaloc is also a fertility god, and responsible for earth’s fertility. He also brought the seeds of the domestic plants from Paradise to the Indians, and relished in barbarous humans sacrifices, a feature of the chthonian gods everywhere. In fact, the resemblance of Tlaloc’s name with the one of Atlas is far more than a sheer coincidence.

According to Rémi Simeon (Dictionnaire de la langue nahuatl ou mexicaine, Paris, 1885), the name of Tlaloc is composed of tlalli + onoc. Tlalli means “earth, field, property”, and onoc means “to lie stretched out”. Hence, the etymology is “the stretched (or flat) land” or “the wide earth”.

These are common epithets of Paradise, particularly in Greece, and corresponds to the Elysian fields and, above all, to the extensive plains of Atlantis submerged in the Flood, according to Plato. In fact, this is the very translation of the name of Paradise which, as we argue elsewhere, ultimately derives from the Dravida paratt-is (“flat (or expansive) marshland”). This name also brings to mind Sekhet Aaru (“ field of reeds”), the site of the Egyptian Paradise.

Above all, however, it brings to mind Atala, the sunken Paradise of Hindu traditions. Atala derives from the Skt. a-tala (“no-land”), implying the idea of “sunken land”. The very same etymology also obtains in Dravida. We note the correspondence of the Nahuatl tlali (tla-li) with the Skt. tala, shortened to tla-, as in the Greek a-tla, meaning the same as a-tala.

It may also be the case that the true etymology of tlaloc (and tlalocan) is really “the sunken land”, the idea of “to stretch out” being essentially synonymous with “to sink”.

This happens in Dravida, for instance in #1524 kita (“to lie down, to sink”); #1907 kūlu (idem); #3852 paţu (idem), etc.. Dravida even has #763 ūnnuk- (“to sink”), which visibly corresponds to the Nahuatl onoc, given the fact that these coincidences in both phonetics and semantics are too unlikely to be attributed to chance.

In other words, the Aztecs visibly adapted the name of Tlaloc from the Dravida (a-tala.) into their own language. We also note that Atala is a name of Shiva, who is in turn an alias of Tlaloc as the terrifying bringer of the Flood, in his evil aspect (Rudra or Kala). Shiva is also identified with Ahi Budhnyas, the “serpent of the bottom”. All in all, we could not expect a better agreement in any reasonable way.

According to Bernardino de Sahagun, Tlaloc’s face was covered with soot, and his body smeared with black. Now, these are typical attributes of Shiva. As we argue elsewhere, these attributes corresponds to his name as Kāla (“black one”). In fact, theses two attributes (among many others) corresponds to the god’s association with volcanoes.

More exactly, it refers to the submarine volcano (Krakatoa) associated with the Serpent Shesha and the Flood cataclysm. The connection of Tlaloc with volcanoes establishes another close connection with Shiva, a volcanic god, as I argue in detail elsewhere in this and other documents. And it also affords a connection with the mysterious Wondjina, as we now attempt to show.

We already noted that the curious hairdo of Wondjinas illustrated above seems to be either a halo or nimbus or, alternatively, a feather headdress of some sort. In fact, feather crowns (headdresses) represent precisely the same thing as a halo or nimbus: a connection with volcanoes in full eruption.

Tlaloc is also characterized by a feather headdress, as shown in his iconographies illustrated here and here, etc.. And this symbolism is precisely the same both in America and in Oceania. It is obvious that the curious custom of using feather headdresses originated somewhere and thence diffused to the other places.

The place of origin seems to be Indonesia itself, the very Land of Fire, thick with volcanoes of all sorts. From Indonesia, the custom passed to Oceania, and thence to America. And it was apparently diffused by the Wondjina, if we are in fact justified in interpreting their curious headdresses as feather crowns.

The book of Lévy-Bruhl just quoted also has a plate showing a Melanesian native wearing a gari. The gari is some sort of a feather headdress, except that born on the shoulders, as it is too large to wear on the head. The huge size of this decoration evokes the large haloes of Hindu and Buddhist deities, whose symbolism is again the same: a volcanic eruption.

Curiously enough, we find exactly the same type of feather headdresses and haloes among the Brazilian Indians. The Oceanian origin of this type of decoration and their connection with volcanoes can hardly be doubted now that it has been mooted out in detail by ourselves.

A somewhat less spectacular decoration is this feather headdress used by a Melanesian native. Rather than a simple decoration, we should keep in mind that the natives, in their dances and rituals actually imperson the dead ancestors, the Wondjina included. So, it seems that the volcanic symbolism – so evident here – actually passed from the Far East to the Americas.

It is true that America too has many volcanoes. But feather headdresses are particularly common in regions such as Amazonia, where volcanoes are totally absent. Moreover, it seems that the use of feather headdresses is far older in Oceania and the East Indies than it is in America. And we do know that the Amerindians came from somewhere in the Far East, after all. So, what place of origin is more logical than the vast continent of Sundaland?

Tlaloc and the Origin of Agriculture

A relief from Zanja de la Piedra Labrada, represents Tlaloc bringing in the maize which he presented to the Mexicans. It is very unlikely that the Aztecs would accredit to a foreigner the introduction of maize, had they developed the mysterious domesticated plant all by themselves, as most experts believe. Far more likely, the true origin of the plant is Paradise itself (Tlalocan), which is in reality no other than Atlantis itself.

Maize development demonstrably required sophisticate genetic techniques far beyond Amerindian capabilities, as we argue in detail elsewhere. These were also lacking in any known civilization of antiquity. Hence we must appeal to an unknown civilization far more advanced than the ones we know. And what about Atlantis as a starting point? Why postulate, say, Astronaut Gods or Civilizing Angels or Heroes, when ordinary humans is a far more economical hypothesis?

The other attributes of Tlaloc are also telltale of a connection with the East Indies. His cotton sandals bespeak of the fact that he also brought in cotton. Cotton is another domesticated plant which poses a great enigma. First of all, it is characteristic of the Indies, as several ancient authors such as Pliny attest.

Second, cotton is a diploid combining genes of Indian cotton, to American counterparts. This is again a development of Genetic Engineering requiring advanced technologies. Besides, how could one combine these different genes without a close contact of some sort? Quite clearly, the Atlantean survivors personified by Tlaloc brought in the seeds of cotton and crossed them with the local species in order to acclimatize it and improve the productivity under the local conditions.

The green gemstones worn by Tlaloc are also an important clue. As we already argued above, these green stones are connected with the Far East and with the mysterious muirakitans as well as with the kururu toads of Tupi-Guarani traditions. They correspond to jade which, according to several experts, was somehow imported from the Far East already in pre-Columbian times.

The green stones sometimes also correspond to emeralds, aquamarines and other such green stones. And these were an Indian exclusivity in antiquity, before other sources were discovered in America. In fact, they were called tarshish, according to St. Jerome.

And Tarshish (or Tartessos) was the legendary place where King Solomon fetched all his gold and silver and spices. And this place was Indonesia, the “Spice Islands” of antiquity. Josephus affirm the identity of Tarshish with Chryse Chersonesos (“Peninsula of Gold”), which is the same as Taprobane or Sumatra, as we argue in detail elsewhere.

The crown of feathers (aztatzone) worn by Tlaloc is also telltale of his Far Eastern origin. The Egyptians portrayed the inhabitants of Punt wearing feather crowns. And Punt – the Egyptian Paradise – is Indonesia all over again. Feather headdresses are characteristic both of America and of the Far East in general. The ancient Celts often wore such crowns. And, as we have argued, they came from the region of Mongolia, where they fixed residence after removing from sunken Atlantis.

Feather headdresses – general made of bright, iridescent feathers of birds such as the quetzal, the colorful araras, and the pheasants and peacocks of India and Indonesia – in fact symbolize a volcano in full explosion, blowing off its top. Such is also, by the way, the symbolism of auras and haloes, as we already argued. In other words, Tlaloc personified the volcano which destroyed Paradise, which we already identified as the Krakatoa.

The goggle eyes of Tlaloc are another feature of great symbolic importance. It closely evokes the similar feature of the Wondjinas, their most conspicuous characteristic. Several such images of Tlaloc can be seen in the site here, which also has useful commentaries. This feature is shared both with the Neandertals (see reconstruction here) and with the kritimukhas which we already commented. The kritimuka has a triple circle in his eyes, which explain the real meaning of the symbolism.

It has to do with Atlantis, also symbolized by the triple concentric circles, according to Plato’s detailed description of the place. One should not be mislead by the disguised nature of this type of symbolism. The intention is that it passes unperceived or even natural to the profanes, but can be read and understood by the initiates.

It is even better when the feature has an apparently natural explanation which leads nowhere but to confusion, for such is the purpose of myths and religious symbols.

In the figures in the site just linked, the eyes of Tlaloc are interpreted as water drops. Brilliant as it is, this interpretation leads nowhere, though. We believe that the symbolism is far deeper that that. It refers to Trikuta as the triple volcano (Krakatoa), which is the bringer of rains to the region of Paradise, assuring its proverbially enormous fertility. In other words, water drops are the exoteric interpretation, which at a deeper level leads to the volcano as their divine source.

But this illustrious author makes another connection which is quite remarkable: the one of Tlaloc with Quetzalcoatl and his Mayan counterpart, Kukulkan. However, rather than being the same god, the two are complementary aspects of each other. Tlaloc is the terrific ruler of the nether regions, whereas Quetzalcoatl is his Celestial counterpart, ruling above.

This reality is quaintly represented by the fact that Tlaloc is symbolized by half a Venus (planet) glyph, as the illustrious author moots out. What this means is that Tlaloc corresponds to Hesperus, the Evening Star, whereas Quetzalcoatl corresponds to its other half, the Morning Star. As we argue in detail elsewhere, these symmetric twins are the stellar counterparts of Hercules (Gadeiros) and Atlas, the twin rulers of Atlantis, according to Plato. And they also correspond to the Western Morning Star and the Eastern Morning Star of the Pawnee myths which we comment in detail elsewhere.

Another animal often associated with Tlaloc are toads. Toads correspond to the muirakitan, as we already argued. And the muirakitans in turn image the human phallus, whose shape they resemble. All in all, we again have a connection with the Shivalinga, the main attribute of Shiva. It is perhaps worth mentioning that volcanoes are associated with rains and fertility, just as is Tlaloc.

The fertility results from the fertilizing power of volcanic cinders. And the rains result from the fact that volcanic tephra and soot suspended as some serve as condensation nuclei for cloud droplets, leading to rains. Such is in fact the reason why volcanoes are so coveted as a place of residence, despite the dangers they pose to all when they go haywire and explode.

The Legend of the Sleeping God

Plutarch (De Facie XXVI) recounts that Kronos (Saturn), the Monarch of the Golden Age, lies deep asleep – along with his numerous court – in one of the Seven Atlantis Islands. These paradisial islands are real. And they are also the same as the Isles of the Blest and the site of Paradise Lost. Now, Paradise is of course the same as Atlantis, as we have been arguing for a long time now. The words of Plutarch are worth quoting, for they are charming:

For wonderful are both the island and the mildness of the climate; whilst the deity himself has been an obstacle to some when contemplating departure… For Kronos himself is imprisoned there in a vast cavern, sleeping upon a rock overlaid with gold; for his sleep has been contrived by Zeus for his chaining….

The tradition of a sleeping king or emperor asleep in a cave with his court awaiting for the time to be reawakened is extremely widespread. In our Atlantis site we show a remarkable Egyptian iconography of Osiris asleep within the Holy Mountain, there figured as a stepped pyramid. The same story is also told of King Arthur and of Charlemagne, Frederick Barbarossa, and several other such great monarchs.

This tradition is connected with the one of the Millennium and the return of the Golden Age, which will be brought back when the times come for it, and Kronos reawakens, along with his court. This curious tradition also concerns the return of the Celestial Jerusalem and its twin, the Eschatological Jerusalem, the one which lies under the waves of the ocean.

What this universal tradition really concerns is the rebirth of Atlantis, here identified with the Eschatological Jerusalem. And it is also certain that Atlantis will be reborn, come the Ice Age which, according to what the specialists now finally realize, is apparently forthcoming soon enough to cause them all to worry quite a bit.

Curiously enough, the same tradition is also connected with the Wondjinas in Australia. The natives are of course very reticent on this matter, as well as all such concerning the Wondjinas and the mystery they pose. But several wondjinas are portrayed in a reclining position, as if deep asleep. One such instance is shown in Fig. XXXXX below.

Fig. XXX – Rock Painting of Wondjina Asleep (Wonalirri, NW Australia)
(Enc. Brit. 1981, Vol. 10:733 Cf. also here same figure)

We note that the sleeping figure lies at the side of a plum tree, also felled. This tree seems to be the Tree of Life. The motif of the felling of the Tree of Life is a recurrent one in myths. It refers to the fact that, when the era ends the Tree of Life is also felled. This felled tree is obviously connected with recumbent figure of the Wondjina himself.

The mythical symbolism of the felled tree is extremely ancient, and already occurs in Minoan Crete, where it figures in several iconographies which we comment in detail elsewhere. Curiously enough, the same motif also figures in the Bible (Mat.3:10; Luk. 3:9), in connection with the advent of the Kingdom of Heaven, an euphemism for the end which Jesus came to herald.

It is strange to see the same symbolism used in Australia, apparently since an enormous antiquity, as the rock art of Wonalirri Shelter shows (Fig. XXX above). A description of the site can be read here. As we explain elsewhere, the Tree of Life is in fact an allegory of a volcano. In fact, the “tree” represents the volcanic mushroom of the giant explosion which destroyed the site of Paradise.

This interpretation of ours is corroborated by an interesting figure existing at the same site, and which can be seen in the link just given. It consists of a man with a curious tree-like headdress dancing around what seems to be a sun, itself also topped by a tree.

This “sun” is clearly not the sun but a volcano, a sort of terrestrial “sun”. Otherwise, the figure makes no sense at all. How could someone dance around the day star? How could the sun be topped by a tree? What could this mean? Instead, if we consider the “sun” to be a volcano, everything starts to make sense. The “tree” is the Tree of Life, whose true meaning we just explained: it is the volcanic plume or “mushroom”.

The feather headdress used by the dancer evokes the “tree” over the sun. It is clear that these two symbolisms correspond to each other, regardless of what they may mean. The dancer is visibly performing a ritual, either to stop the volcano, or to encourage it.

According to the traditions of the Australian natives, the Wondjina themselves painted their own figures in the caves soon after they finished the creative process. After this, they descended into a nearby lake or waterhole, where they lie asleep, awaiting the time for their return in order to make all things new again, with a new Creation.

Tlaloc too is often represented by a man lying on the ground. This corresponds to the etymology of his name given above (“stretched land”). In a relief of Temple C, in Chichén-Itzá (Yucatan) we see the giant figure of the god Tlaloc stretched out underground (buried). He is flanked by two bearded personages coming out of conchs. As we already argued, Tlaloc represents the flatlands of Atlantis sunken down under the sea (the marine personages).

And these in turn symbolize the two submarine volcanoes of the region (Toba and Krakatoa), invariably represented as seashell in mystical symbolism. These two volcanoes also correspond to the twin Pillars of Hercules and/or Atlas, personages who also correspond to Shiva and Vishnu. One clear instance of this symbolism, which we comment in detail elsewhere, is shown in our Atlantis site. This consists of a Phoenician coin showing the Pillars of Hercules whose submarine images are replaced by conchs.

The symbol corresponds to the Vadavamukha, whose frequent image is a conch or a coiled snake. The Vadava is also represents by a whirlpool or other such whirling features, the Whirling Mountain included. And Vishnu, the feminine counterpart of Shiva, is often shown issuing from within a conch or holding the conch as one of his emblems.

The recumbent figure of Tlaloc also corresponds to the one of Chac – or rather Chac Mool – his Mayan counterpart. And this in turn recalls Geb, the recumbent earth god of the Egyptians. The figure of Geb lying under Nut the sky goddess, held up by Shu is a recurrent symbolism in Egyptian religion. The meaning is the one which I discuss in my Atlantis site.

The Egyptian symbolism is obviously – now that we have deciphered it – the same as the Amerindian one just mentioned. In some Egyptian iconographies, the figure of Shu is explicitly substituted by the enormous phallus of Geb.

The idea is that Geb is the alias of Shiva and that Shu is the Shivalinga an independent god. Being immortal, the phallus of the god became another god all by itself. Hence also the giant serpent which is no other than the linga itself, spurting semen, and hence creating the celestial canopy allegorized by Nut.

The idea is that the symbolism represents the giant volcanic eruption represented by the Shivalinga shedding its fiery semen, as in the allegory of the Fiery Pillar. And this allegory in fact represents the giant volcanism which destroyed Paradise, as I argue elsewhere. The fiery phallus – or fiery pillar or serpent or conch, etc. – is a vivid replica of the huge Krakatoa volcanism, as illustrated here. Note how the pillar and the topping umbrella or mushroom closely recalls the figure of Nut supported by the giant pillar of fire. What else?

In the American symbolism, the allegories were slightly changed, but are still visibly the same. And one confirms and complements the other, as I now argue. The pillar of fire (Shivalinga) and the giant phallus of Geb have been substituted by the incense-burner which the god holds in his lap.

When incense is burnt in it, the smoke plume rises in the air, imitating a volcano, except that in a small scale. Incense is a symbol of Paradise, of Punt as the Land of Incense and other perfumes. This symbolism is both current and specific. Hence, it should not be idly doubted, unless is better explained otherwise, for it has had no explanation so far.

In fact, volcanoes such as Mt. Atlas are called “Pillar of Heaven” precisely because of the fact that their volcanic plumes often rise to the very sky.

This fact can be seen in this remarkable satellite photo of the most recent eruption of Mt. Etna volcano, in Sicily, as viewed from outer space. This remarkable image gives a good idea of the reason why such plumes are called “pillar of heaven” or “pillar of fire”.

Picture that in a scale a million times larger, and you may get mental image of the Krakatoa super-eruption which destroyed the site of Paradise and of the reason it created such an indelible image in human memory.

The stupefact expression of Chac Mool is now easy to understand. Deprived of his once gigantic phallus, he is totally incapable of understanding the event, as any male will readily understand. In fact, his giant phallus has now turned into a fiery yoni, the Vadavamukha. So, in some senses, Chac Mool is the dual of Shiva, already castrated and turned into a female, here represented by the incense burner.

Chac, the Mayan counterpart of Tlaloc is often figured with an elephant’s trunk in the place of his nose. This feature is curious, as there were no elephants in America. As is clear, the logical explanation is that the god and the symbolism was borrowed from a place where elephants existed. Since Africa may be safely excluded as the source of the myth, we are left with two places: Atlantis and the East Indies. In fact, as I have been arguing for over two decades now, the two places are one and the same.

In other words, this Hindu myth also passed to the Americas, probably via Oceania, where it also exists, as I am arguing here. We also note that in Sanskrit the word naga means both elephants and snakes. In other words, Chac was a naga, symbolized by a huge serpentine nose, as well as by his other attributes, including the frequent association with serpents and rains.

Chac was also called canhel, a name which Beltrán de Santa Rosa explains as meaning dragón (“dragon”), that is, a monster serpent. Some tribes (Mayas Chortis, of Guatemala) call the Chacs – for they are four like the Four Lokapalas of the Hindus and the Four Horsemen of Revelation – by the name of Chicchán (“Celestial Serpent”).

The Chiccháns are considered giant serpents or dragons, with a human head and a serpentine body. This creature closely correspond to the Hindu nagas and naginis. And these Mayas affirm that: talvez sea um hombre gigantesco que a la gente le parece serpiente (“maybe he is a giant man who seems like a serpent to us ”). This dubiousness is characteristic of the Indians, when telling something they better hide from the profanes.

It was probably with these fearful creatures that the myth of vampires and cannibals ultimately originated. This tradition is as absolutely universal as it is extremely ancient. And it is often associated with their killing and elimination by the heroes of all traditions, most of whom specialize in killing dragons and giants of all sorts.

We think we have found a natural explanation for this curious feature of the nagas and the wondjinas as well as their New World counterparts, Tlaloc and the Easter Island giants (moais). They are Neandertals and /or Asian Homo erectus.

First of all, let us note that the Neandertals had no chin. Second, let us keep in mind the fact that the Aboriginals entered Australia by about 60,000 years ago, soon after the start of the last Ice Age. At that time, both the Neandertals and the Asian erectus – not to mention the Cro Magnons – still thrived both in the Far East and in the West, Europe, the Near East and Africa included.

Hence, it is no great surprise to discover that the Australian rock art actually portrayed these giants, whom they equated with the gods, the heroes and the devils.

The Neandertals were big, and had large, protruding teeth; bulging eyes; stocky hairy bodies; as well as short, bowed legs, more or less as shown in this reconstruction of a Neandertal man. If we compare this picture of a Neandertal – created for an anthropological museum by a specialist – with the kritimukha and the wondjina shown above, it is easy to conclude that if these mythical being were anything real, they could only have been Neandertals and the Cro Magnons.

Another feature of the Neandertals is perhaps able to explain another characteristic feature of the nagas or Titans. These mythical beings are usually represented as anguipedal. This feature of the Titans is commented in my Atlantis site, here and here. The word anguipedal means that they are serpent-footed or strap-footed or yet, loripes, a word derives from the Latin lorus (“strap”)+pes (“foot”). This word is in turn derived from the Greek loros+pous, meaning “bow-legged, bandy-legged”.

This is clearly the original meaning of the word, rather than really “serpent-footed”. Such weird mythical creatures often result from misinterpretations of mistranslation of words from other tongues such as Sanskrit an Dravida into other ancient languages such as Egyptian, Greek, Latin, and so on. Such is the reason why etymologies such as the one just given often result in the clarification of enigmas such as the one posed by anguipedal creatures like the Titans.

It is again no mere coincidence that the Neandertals like other more primitive humans in fact had bow-legs like other apes such as gorillas, orangutans and chimpanzees. In reality, this evolutional feature is a relic of the times when we were all still arboreal, a few millions of years ago. Perhaps bow-legs are better adapted to holding on to tree trunks, after all. The short, bowed legs of Neandertals can be seen in the reconstruction already linked above, and repeated here for the reader’s convenience.

Perhaps the bow-legs of Neandertals were due to rickets (rachitism), a disease due to the deficient of vitamin D, due to a poor diet. No matter what, some early hominids – and the Neandertals in special –were bow-legged as their fossils show. Lack of sunshine also leads to rickets. This perhaps indicates a nebulous conditions such as the one which probably prevailed in Ice Age Europe.

But it may also be typical of forest people. Tropical forests such as the Amazonian and the Indonesian ones are remarkably obscure. Indians living in Amazonia are remarkably white-skinned, perhaps showing an adaptation to the sunshine-poor condition prevalent in forests. This also suggests the reason why white- or yellow-skinned people developed in Indonesia during the Ice Age. The light skin would be better adapted for forests, and so the short-, bow-legs better adapted for climbing trees, much as happens with orangutans.

The African instead developed their long legs and their black skins in response to the adaptation to the conditions which prevailed in Africa during both the Interglacials and the Glacial Ages. Since Africa mainly consisted of treeless savannas, the Africans were soon forced to descend from the trees, which disappeared soon after the start of the Pleistocene, some 2.7 Mya [Megayears ago].

They had to run a lot after their game, in order to hunt it. Hence the long, slender legs that make even today the Africans by far the best runners in the world. And they had to stand the scorching sunshine of the African savannas, a fact that soon led to their black skin, the best defense against it.

The Cro Magnons were probably the hybrid crossbreeds of the gracile, long-legged, black-skinned Africans with the stocky, bow-legged, white-skinned Asians of Eden. As the end result, these early hominids combined the best evolutionary features of the two worlds: sunny Africa and shady Atlantis-Eden. The Cro Magnons acquired the long legs, the gracile build and the black skin of the Africans, which they combined with the robust build, the huge braincase, and the white or pale yellow skin of the Edenic Asians.

The Neandertals were apparently not so fortunate, and eventually dropped out of the evolutionary merry-go-round. The Neandertal probably retained the black (or brown or tan) skin inadequate for a somewhat somber, clouded Ice Age, as their epidemic rachitism cogently suggests.

Their short legs – adapted from the tropical, forested conditions of Eden – did not suit them well in Europe or Africa, where they had to run after the big game and, even more, after the scarce little one. Hence they died en masse from cold and starvation, as well as from the systematic persecution of their better equipped brothers. This is, in a capsule, the story of Mankind as I was able to reconstruct it basing myself on a lot of evidence offered not only by Science itself, but by Tradition as well.

It is true that Neandertals and Cro Magnons were European and Near Eastern. But it seems that they both came from Asia, rather than Africa, as normally thought. The Africans were gracile, in contrast to Asians, who were tall, big, and sturdy, as well as generally beetle-browed (like the Neandertals and Homo erectus). We argue this matter in great detail elsewhere, and this discussion does not fit here.

Suffice it to say that though extinct in the west, Homo erectus – and their counterparts, the Neandertals – survived in the Far East (Java, etc.) far later than thought until recently. They attained not only a huge size, but also bigger brains than ours. So did the Cro Magnons, whose braincase is up to 30% and even more larger than ours. The Neandertals were cannibals, a feature which they shared with the natives of the region.

The Neandertals and the Cro Magnons were probably the two kinds of early humans whom the Hindus and the Greeks (among others) equated with the Gods and the Titans. The mighty Titans – evil, demonic and cannibalistic – were in all probability the nagas and the rakshasas or asuras of Hindu traditions. The more human Cro Magnons were in turn apparently the Gods (of devas, etc.). the gods were also big and mighty, but apparently kind and gentle, at least in the Indo-European view.

The Great War waged by the Titans against the Gods apparently refers to the eternal enmity of the Neandertals and the Cro Magnons, which apparently led to their extinction in Europe, except perhaps for a minor who succeeded in crossing with the other divine” moiety. The Cro Magnons apparently survived and evolved into the modern humans by crossbreeding with the African graciles, becoming reduced in size and in braincase.

The Neandertals instead apparently got extinct in Europe, by about 25-30 kya [kiloyears ago]. But they apparently survived in the Near East and, possibly, in Portugal and North Africa as well, where intermediate human fossils have recently been found. But, as we just said, their Asian counterparts, Homo erectus, apparently survived longer, down to the end of the Pleistocenic Ice Age.

In this context, it is worth noting that in their Flood myths, the Australian natives often tell that the wondjinas used to visit them with frequency, and even mingled with them to some extent. In fact, some intermediate fossils have been found in Australia, very clearly mixing the gracile features of Negritos (originary from Africa), and the robust ones of Homo erectus. In this sense, at least, fossil finds cogently confirm the traditional relations. In fact, it now seems that the last exemplars of Homo erectus in Indonesia (Java and Sumatra, etc.) in fact disappeared in the Flood cataclysm.

What is even more interesting is the fact that the Australian natives affirm that the wondjinas disappeared with the Flood, and their frequent visits ceased altogether. This tradition quaintly evokes the one of Genesis (6:4) concerning the fact that: “there were giants [nephilim] on the earth in those days; and also after that, when the Sons of God went into the Daughters of Men, and bare children to them, the same became mighty men who were of old, men of renown [heroes, gibborim]”.

Note that we here have four kinds of humans here: the Sons of God, the Daughters of Men, the Nephilim (Giants) and the Gibborim (Heroes). The Sons of God are, we think, the African graciles, which moved into Eden, becoming the Negritos and the Melanesians who inhabit Australia and Indonesia. The “men” whose daughters they marry are the Asians [whites]. And these are the Asian Homo erectus, the probable nagas.

The Heroes (or gibborim = “mighty ones”) are the mixed offspring of the two. It is certainly more than a coincidence that Hindu myths – for instance the ones told in the magnificent Mahabharata – tell of the nagas and apsaras (water beings)whose charming fair daughters (Ganga, etc.) marry the king or hero. This mixed marriage in turn also leads to doom and the Great War.

The Nephilim are the Fallen Angels, their name implying the idea of “fall” [nephil]. They are the decayed Atlanteans, as can be seen by comparing this curious text with the one of Plato on the causes of the “fall” of the Atlanteans by “too much admixture with mortal blood”. Curiously enough, the result in both cases was the Universal Flood, and the foundering of Paradise.

Summarizing what was just said, the Sons of God correspond to Adam (“brown, ruddy”), the African graciles, who moved into Paradise (Eden) during the Ice Age, when Africa went desertic all over but in a very few spots. The “men” and their charming daughters correspond to Eve and other such naginis (female nagas) who seduce the willing heroes and angels, causing their fall. They correspond to the Asian H. erectus, whose later specimens were not only big, but also brainy and, hence, intelligent.

The mixed offspring was probably of two kinds, as usual in such crossbreedings. One moiety combined the beauty of the mothers and the intelligence of the fathers, the other the poorer (?) intelligence of the mothers, and the ugliness (?) of the fathers. The information here is sort of poor and obscure so that it is hard to say. I am attempting to decipher it in the best possible way from the scant data. Besides, I am also attempting to fit it to what is known of this distant prehistory of human evolution, likewise poorly documented.

No matter what, this story nicely accounts for the appearance of the two kinds of mortals, the Cro Magnons and the Neandertals, which took place in precisely the times in question, the ones preceding the Flood. When the whole region was devastated by the Toba eruption at about 75 kya or so, the survivors – a few thousand individuals only – were forced out of Eden, moving to the near East and Africa, etc..

When conditions eased somewhat, they returned, and there reconstructed the magnificent civilization we know by the name of Atlantis. And this lasted from about 72 kya to about 11,6 kya, when it was again destroyed, this time by the eruption of the krakatoa volcano, the one which caused the Flood. This interpretation might seem farfetched and unwarranted by the data to some. But I also gathered a lot of useful data not only from myths and sacred traditions of all sorts, but also from sciences such as Paleoanthropology, Climatology, Geology and so forth.

And our interpretation of the data is the only one consonant to this multitude of facts. Among these we also add the undeniable reality of the endless battles of the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness, which endures even today in many ways. These probably pertain to the real ones of the Neandertals and the Cro Magnons, which ultimately led to the demise of the former.

The Neandertals disappeared, either totally as some want, or by absorption, as some specialists argue. One way or the other, if the Neandertals really survived in this way, it was only so marginally as to be almost totally swamped by the other moiety, in contrast to the Cro magnons, whose traits preponderate by far in the modern humans. This is more or less what happened with the Amerindians in America and the Aboriginals in Australia, not to mention many other such similar instances when two types of different humans enter in contact.

1. The Dravidian etymologies given below are based on the excellent Dravidian Etymological Dictionary of T. Burrow and M. B. Emeneau (Oxford, 1984). This work is a masterpiece of lexicology, compiled by these two widely experts, and cannot be confuted by any serious scholar, regardless of their pet beliefs. In this work, the similar lexemes in the various individual tongues are grouped together according to semantic bases. These bases are individually numbered, and total about 5,600 entries.For Tupian we used the short but excellent dictionary of Baptista de Castro (Vocabulário Tupy-Guarany, Rio, 1936), which records most of the several variants of each particular entry. We also used a host of other such dictionaries and vocabularies for further variants and etymologies. We also give some obvious connections with IE words. The Word List which follows only embodies about 74 entries.The choice of these entries was more or less random. But it is not claimed to be aleaatory or representative, as I chose the words which somehow struck my fancy as being similar to Dravidian bases. In other works of ours we do a far more detailed comparison of the two families. This embodies over 1,000 roots, essentially exhausting all possibilities, but for a few bases which could not be traced to Dravida or Sanskrit.We note that this number, though smallish, is more than suficient to prove a connection to a trillion trillion trillion parts. It is extremely difficult to believe that all these exact derivations are purely chancy. Linguistic coincidences in both phonetics and semantics are in fact “quite unlikely”, despite the contrary claims of certain “mainstream linguists” whose mathematical deductions are faulty.We note that if even a single connections of the many ones which we establish here is accepted as real, our case is automatically proved. And we also note that since we provided the evidence of our claim, it is now incumbent on those who refuse it to prove that they are somehow faulty or chancy or unnacceptable.

   Rather than attempting to reconstruct the original proto-Dravidian roots, we limited ourselves to picking the form inside the individual Dravidian bases which best matches its Tupian counterpart. In this way, we avoid having to do any speculations or derivations whatsoever, as it is obvious that the proto-Dravidian form necessarily evolved into the form given in B&E in one way or another.

   In this way we managed to circumvent the arbitrary reconstructions, while at the same time avoiding the lengthy synchronic and diachronic derivations. Given the simplicity and the rigorousness of our method, we sincerely hope this method of ours becomes a standard in such linguistic comparisons.

   The entries in question, numbered according to the entries in B&E (Burrow and Emeneau), are here given as, for example, #1931 civ- (“red, gold”) and #4112 *pola (“town, city”) > čiv-pola (“city of gold, city of the reds”) > cibola. Our notation is more or less the conventional one used in Linguistics. Dravidian c – which we graph as č for reasons of clarity – sounds like Italian c in dolce, even before a or o or u.

   Given the peculiarities of Brazilian Portuguese and of the Tupian language, this Tupian phoneme is often spelled t- before e or i, where it sounds similarly. When two different bases in B&E are interrelated, we join the different entries as a double entry, for clarity’s sake, like this #1931/2775 čem- (“gold”). ↑

2. This test I proposed to some “mainstream linguists” who made those claims. The result of the practical test I proposed to these guys? They only obtained two or three “coincidences” in about six hundred words, all of them rather farfetched and not at all compelling. And even those I managed to prove to be due to borrowings and to have cogent Dravidian counterparts. If their mathematics was corrected, one should expect some 27% coincidences, amounting to about 0.27 x 600 = 162 words.The odds of obtaining such a gross disagreement with their calculated value is, as I showed them, infinitesimally small, and can be dismissed in practice. When confronted with those results, these skeptic linguists vanished in a hurry without even saying goodbye, even though I had previously sent them quite a lot of confidential information on the matter, including the rigorous mathematical demonstrations just mentioned.This empirical fact proves that the above quoted standard claim of mainstream linguists is wrong, as anyone can see by picking this or similar examples of allegedly unrelated tongues. Moreover, I also showed where and how the probabilistic calculations they did, based on computer programs, etc. are all utterly wrong. This is perhaps to be expected from professional linguists, naturally as unacquainted with the complexities Calculus of Probabilities as they are with Comparative Mythology and other such matters.As an easy introductory exercise, we also challenge the readers to do the same Tamazight test in their own native tongues or in English or any other language of their choice. They may also try the Tupian Word List given further below, to observe in practice how hard it in fact is to obtain random coincidences.Since such coincidences are deemed by mainstream linguists to be “quite likely”, many such coincidences are expected, let us see what happens. In fact, these experts affirm that about 27% of acceptable concordances in both semantics and phonetics are to be expected as the result of chance alone. To this, we must add the ones due to borrowings and to pristine unsuspected connections in distant prehistory.

   If anyone reasonably succeeds, I promise to publish their finds in my site with due credit and, of course, with my sincere apologies and humble recanting. However, the a priori odds are entirely on my side. The a priori probability of an acceptable probability for each letter being about 1/10 (one in ten), the odds of a coincidence for, say, three four letter words is about 1/10¹² (one in ten to the twelfth) or even less, when the semantics embody more than two different though related etymologies. This is about the chance of wining the Irish Sweepstakes twice in a row. Has this ever happened to anyone by any chance? ↑

3. Different languages which just branched off from each other are often considerably similar. For instance, Spanish and Portuguese are mutually intelligible, even though they allegedly branched off from each other some 2 millennia ago or so. Far more likely, they never really branched off, but apparently developed in parallel from Latin, departing from originally different local Iberian dialects.Such is also the case of most such closely related languages, for instance Tupi and Guarani, etc.. In other words, Portuguese and Spanish are only “half-brothers” by different mothers. Latin is their common father, and the original dialects are their two mothers. The words they share in common have two different origins: some were adapted from Latin, some were already shared from their two original speeches.In fact, the very idea of mainstream linguists of a pristine language such as, say, Proto-Indo-European is apparently wrong, to start with. Instead of once sharing a common language which later branched off for some reason, the primitive Indo-Europeans, like most other early peoples, had a host of individual tongues and dialects ever since the dawn of time. Even though often emigrating together and warring as allies, etc., each individual tribe or clan had their own individual language or dialect.From their language they derived their tribal identity, along with their different mythology and religion, their customs, their individual territory, and so forth. Given the intensive contacts, their languages shared a considerable amount of cognate words, generally the result of borrowings from one to the other. The closer the clans, the closer the dialects and/or languages.And they all evolved in parallel, over time and space (synchronically and diachronically). All in all, this linguistic evolution is very close to genetic and adaptative evolution. Different languages roughly correspond to different species. When close enough, these different “species” can and do often interbreed, as is so often the case with animal and plant species.

   And its is this crossbreeding that in fact leads to the new species of organisms and/or languages. Left alone, in a fixed territory, evolution essentially ceases, as the specialist are finally learning. Given a major upheaval such a war, a territorial migration, an invasion or conquest, etc., evolution resumes its course, and fast leads to major changes both in the biological and the linguistic species, as the result of all sorts of many such “crossbreedings” of all sorts.

   In fact, the very word “evolution” is a misnomer. A far better name would be “adaptation”. When the environmental conditions change, everything changes: organisms, languages, customs, belief systems, traditions, and so on. After the initial period of confusion and turmoil, people (and species) eventually settle down, and reorganize their social structure to better explore the new environment.

   This type of evolution – or adaptation, rather – is what the specialists now call by names such as “saltation evolution” or “catastrophic evolution”. Change and adaptation happen in a relatively small span of time, and then essentially stop until a major catastrophe takes place, when they again start to change.

   As we calculate next, the average doubling time for languages under conditions of quietude is of the order of 10,000 years or so, becoming reduced by a factor of ten (to about a thousand years) under the turmoil conditions typical of Europe (Indo-Europeans) and of the Americas (pre-Columbian expansion). These are, we repeat, average values applied to the world and to linguistics as a whole

   It is clear that some primitives who succeed in keeping away from the usual confusions will be able to preserve their languages and their customs, race, etc. far better than the others who suffered the episodic impact of invasions or of climatic or other environmental changes forcing their moving out, etc.. It is in this way that we observe the wonderful resilience of certain primitive tongues such as, say, the dialects and tongues of the Berber and the Dravidian families.

   Instead, the Aryans and the Semites – with their unceasing wanderlust – are, like the Flying Dutchman, eternally forced to change their language as they conquer and absorb (or are absorbed by) the other cultures they meet on their way. It is hence among the more recondite tribes of India and Indonesia – and possibly even of the Americas as well – that we should expect to find the vestiges of the more pristine tongues of all.

   Some of them are expected to preserve some very discernible Atlantean vestiges such as the pristine forms of Dravidian grammar and vocabulary in an unambiguous way. The average branching time of languages is about the same as the one of Atlantis’ demise (10,000 years or so). And the differences between vicinal tongues is not so great after all. In fact, these are often mutually intelligible, as we already argued.

   Supposing that these languages preserve, say, 80% or more of their vocabularies in a readily recognizable form both phonetically and semantically, we can even estimate their change over time. This means they change 20% (0.2) or so per generation. In two generations they accordingly change (0.2 + 0.8×0.2) = 0.36, preserving 0.64 of commonalities (64%). In the lapse of three generations the linguistic change amounts to (0.2 + 0.8×0.2 + 0.64 x0.2) = 0.512 (or 51.2%).

   What this means is that in three generations – that is, over 30,000 years or so, about half of the vocabulary (and grammar) is preserved, and should be rather readily recognizable. Under conditions of relative quietude, this time is probably considerably larger than the average one, perhaps by a factor of two or three and perhaps even more. What this means is periods of the order of 100,000 years or so.

   This means that in some of the most secluded tongues we should be able to discern some elements which date back from the primeval tongue of humanity, the one which date back from the times before Babel and the confusion of the tongues. We believe that this myth is derived from reality, as is so often the case with etiological myths. This “confusion” apparently alludes to a divine intervention – probably by means of a major cataclysm (the Flood?) – which scattered the humans and set them on their way to their endless wars. ↑

4. Some experts have noted that the English vocabulary is presently composed from over 90% of words borrowed from French, Latin, Greek, Spanish, German, and so on. Even its grammar is changing towards the far more logical and precise forms of the so-called Latin tongues. Other experts have noted that IE languages have evolved into about 100 tongues over a period of about 5,000 years or so. This number ascends to 443 if we include certain dialects as different tongues, as the Ethnologue does.Since language is believed to have existed for over 100,000 or so, there are about 20 such intervals contained in this period of time. This would correspond to a total of about (100)²⁰ = 10⁴⁰ tongues in the world (ten thousand trillion trillion trillion). Since this number is far larger than the total amount of people on earth (under ten billion), the end result is that each person would have to master about one million trillion trillion tongues. The actual numbers depend on what one calls a tongue or a dialect, etc..The fact is that there are only a few thousand tongues on earth, meaning that in the average, people are far more conservative than the Indo-Europeans themselves. Supposing that there are presently 5,000 tongues on earth, we accordingly find that the average doubling time of a typical tongue is about 8,000 years or so. This should be compared with the doubling (branching off) time for IE, which turns out to be about 750 years.If we take the larger number of IE tongues, the doubling time is reduced to about 570 years. Similar values (1,200 years) would also obtain for the Amerindian tongues, again typical of an expanding society rather than of a permanently settled one. In other words, it seems that we are in no way justified in considering the IE results or even the Amerindian ones as representative, and that the actual lifetime of a language is of the order of ten thousand years, rather than a millennium or so, as ordinarily claimed.Those who defend these values are lying with numbers, something that is far easier to do than normally believed. Curiously enough, this type of lie is closely reminiscent of the one of Darwin and Lyell in connection with Evolution. Darwinian Evolution denies the very possibility of global and even of regional catastrophes of high impact, according to the infamous Principle of Uniformity.

   In actuality what we really have in Nature is global catastrophes such as Ice Ages, supervolcanisms and asteroidal/cometary impacts punctuating the course and speed of evolution essentially everywhere. Catastrophes often reverse the very course of Evolution with the selective elimination of the fittest, more or less as happened with the dinosaurs and, for that matter, with the great mammalian fauna characteristic of the Pleistocene Age. Evolution is accordingly called Saltation Evolution or Punctuated Evolution.

   It is nowadays fast becoming evident that, under equilibrium conditions, Evolution essentially ceases, and does not proceed at all. When a major catastrophe happens, evolution is greatly speeded, as new ecological niches are opened both by the climatic changes and the drastic elimination of their former occupants. Equilibrium is again restored, and evolution again practically ceases, until a new catastrophe comes around. Very much the same thing happens in Linguistic Evolution.

   Under equilibrium conditions, Linguistic Evolution practically ceases, as it only happens under disequilibrium conditions, when changes of all sorts are speeded by one or two orders of magnitude. It is high time that we all abandon these obsolete, outdated Victorian doctrines that are in frontal disagreement with the hard facts of life, as we just showed. Like with Genetic Evolution, Linguistic Evolution also becomes purely random when no driving force is present.

   In this case the problem becomes one of the mathematical type called “random walk” type. If d is the distance walked in each stride, the distance walked with n strides in a given direction is obviously nd. But if these steps are each taken in a random direction, the distance travelled from the origin is only (√n)d. Suppose one takes 10⁴ random steps. Since (√10) = 10², we see that the distance actually walked under these conditions is only 0,01 (or one percent) the one which obtains when a regular course is pursued.

   We can now apply this formalism to the linguistic problem in question here. Consider the doubling time for IE = 750 years as estimated above. In the interval of 100,000 years, the number of “steps” corresponds to 100,000 / 750 = 133,33. Taking the square root of this number (√133,33) = 11.55. Hence, the “random walk” in the same amount of time corresponds to 100,000 / 11,55 = 8,860 years. Considering the shorter time above, and repeating the same calculation, we get: 100,000 / 570 = 175.44.

   The square root of this number is 13.25, so that: 100,000 / 13.25 = 7,550 years. The average of these two values is worth 8,000 years, in close agreement with the value estimated above from the actual number of different presently in existence. If the development of language occurred right after the appearance of MHS (Modern Homo sapiens), which occurred at about 130,000 years ago, the average value just calculated becomes about 10,000 years or so. This is a nice, round number which is easy to remember, and which is probably even more reliable than the above ones. We can likewise round up the value of the individual “steps” to an even 1,000 years or so obtained as the approximate average of the values obtained for the IE and the Amerindian tongues. ↑

5. Tupi-Guarani is the name of the family of languages so called. This family is composed of some 70 languages, with Tupi and Guarani being members of the family. The Ethnologue makes a somewhat different classification, which seems rather confused to us. They call Tupi or Tupi-Guarani the whole family (70 tongues), and Tupi-Guarani the sub-family, composed of 49 languages.But they also call by these names the two sub-families shown in the site just linked. These numbers vary, as some languages are often classified as either dialects or sub-dialects. Tupi, also called Nheengatu, was the name given to the more or less common language of the Tupi-Guarani Indians, which was unified and consolidated in writing by the early Jesuit missionaries in their preaching efforts.We prefer to apply this name – which is an attempt to reconstruct proto-Tupian – to the primordial language, whether real or not. This name should not be confused with Ancient Tupian, the language used by the early Tupi Indians. No matter what, this erudite language was/is used as some sort of a lingua franca by the great majority of both Indians and whites in South America for purposes of intercommunication with the other members of the family. Though often considerably different, the Tupian languages are all mutually intelligible.The application of the name of Nheengatu – “the good (or polished) tongue” – varies according to the specific user of the term. It applies both to the Tupian dialects presently spoken in the Amazonian region; to the language reconstituted by the Jesuits and widely spoken in the following centuries all over Brazil, and, as we use it, to the (hypothetical?) pristine tongue which one could call proto-Tupian.We also note the interesting fact that gatu (“good, polished, refined”) is directly connected with the Dravida katu, meaning the same. But the Dravidian term also implies the idea of “divine”, as well as the fact that it originated beyond the ocean, in the site of Paradise itself (Yvymaraney, “the evil-less land”). This connection with the gods and with Paradise closely suggests a possible nexus with Atlantis itself, whose primordial language was Dravida itself. Did the Indians realize this pristine connection? We think so… ↑
6. Basic bibliography for the present chapter (mainly in order of importance). The allusions in the text will be to those works here. A far more extensive Bibliography on Brazilian Amerindian Languages is available in the Ethnologue site just linked.1) Baldus, H., Tapirapé, tribo tupí no Brasil Central, São Paulo, 1979.2) Wagley, C., Welcome of Tears: The Tapirape Indians of Central Brazil, Oxford, 1977.3) Abrahamson, A., Contrastive distribution of phoneme classes in Içuã Tupi, S. Paulo, 1968.4) Bendor-Samuel, D., editor. Tupi studies I, Oklahoma, 1971.

   5) Bontkes, C. and Merrifield. W. R., On Surui (Tupian) social organization, Dallas,1985.

   6) Jensen, C. J., Cross-referencing changes in some Tupi-Guaraní languages, S. Paulo, 1990.

   7) Munro, D., Review of Gramática asuriní: Aspectos de uma gramática transformacional e discursos, S. Paulo, 1978.

   8) Rodrigues, A. D. You and I, neither you nor I: The personal system of Tupinambá, S. Paulo, 1978.

   9) Harrison, C. H. Gramática asuriní: Aspectos de uma gramática transformacional e discursos monologados da língua asuriní, família tupi guaraní, S. Paulo, 1975.

   10) Lemle, M., Internal classification of the Tupi-Guarani linguistic family, Oklahoma, 1971.

   11) Nicholson, V., Breve estudo da língua asuriní do Xingu, S. Paulo, 1982.

   12) Nicholson, V., Aspectos da língua assuriní, S. Paulo,1978. ↑

7. This Sanskrit word is in turn derived from Dravida, and has no sound derivation but in this tongue. Lingas were/are often carved from jade, as explained by Jean Filliozat, the illustrious Indologist. One such existed in the temple of Tirunallar, near Karikla (India). This object was cylindrical and was about 30 cm tall and 15 cm in diameter. This object establishes a direct connection with muirakitans. So do, by the way, the marae – probably form the same Drav. root mara – used by the Polynesian chieftains.Marae were short clubs made of jade stone and used by the chiefs as a sign of authority. Their shape closely evokes the one of the linga itself. Curiously enough, the connection of jade and nephrite – whose name derives from words meaning “kidney” in Greek (nephritikos) and Spanish (ijade) – with kidney diseases stems from Hinduism (as usual). According to Jean Filliozat, the name jade stone (nephrite and jadeite) originated from the bile of the demon Bali, when he was killed by Vamana (Vishnu).Vishnu impersons volcanism, as we argue elsewhere. And Bali is the mighty lord of the universal kingdom which is no other than Atlantis itself. Bile is greenish like jade, and hence this connection offers an explanation for its name. Emeralds and other precious greenstones such as jade came from the East Indies in antiquity. The island called Smaragdinum (“emerald like”) owed its name to the commerce with the East Indies and the importation of emeralds via the Red Sea. This island was located in front of Berenice, the Red Sea port where this commerce was centered. This fact is attested by Epiphanius of Constantia (De XII gemmis, 17-21)The Sanskrit name is, as we just said, itself derived from Dravida. It derived from #4763 mara- (“death”) + #1416 kātt-, *kata (“to avert, ward off, prevent”) > marakata (“death averter”). This etymon is identical to the one of amulet, a corruption of the Skt. amrta meaning “immortal”. Hence the idea that jade and emeralds, etc. rendered one immortal, serving as amulets. It may also be that the suffix -an also derives from Dravida, where it names Shiva as the supreme celestial god (An). If so, the word mara-ka-tt-an means “the supreme death averter”. And it also embodies a reference to Shiva as the supreme god who brings both life and death to all.According to Skeat, the word “amulet” has no satisfactory derivation, and “the suggestion that this is a word of Arabic origin is now commonly abandoned”. We note for completeness’ sake that Dravida also has #4711 mara (“tree, greenery”) and #1147 katta (“knot”), from which the Tupian etymology – visibly popular in nature – probably also originated. as is clear, both the symbolism and the name of these curious amulets ultimately originated in the East Indies.

   It is not impossible that these mysterious objects themselves also came from there, as several experts hold. It seems that both etymologies of the word muirakitan – one exoteric and meaning “wood knot”, and the other one meaning “death averter” actually passed into Tupian. The popular etymology provided the exoteric explanation, and the more accurate one the esoteric explanation. In fact, Tupian also has the word mara in the same sense as the Dravidian one, meaning “death, war”, and kitan may be related to kit- (“to cut off”), perhaps in the sense of “preventing, averting, cause to cease”.

   A mineralogical analysis of these amulets – which exist by the hundreds in Brazil – is perhaps worthwhile, in order to clear up the mystery. Regardless of the result, it is clear that the symbolism ultimately originated in India in connection with Atlantis, as we just argued further above. If positive, however, the result of this analysis may provide a positive proof of the pre-Columbian Americas and the Far East, one which has long been suspected by many experts, exactly as affirmed by Câmara Cascudo. ↑