received by Email
In his book “General History”, Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas, reports some legends he had been taught by the Nahuatl tribes.
The most important among these tells us that:
These men discovered that the land they
settled in was inhabited by primitive people, and was a very fertile
land rich with lots of gold. The legend also tells us that "These
men carried along the secret of time", a reference to the fact
that it was them who started to count time in Mesoamerica creating
the first Mesoamerican calendar.
The Codice reports that the First Sun
ended 13.133 years before the writing of the Codice itself because
of a huge flood. According to the tale, humanity was safe because 2
people were saved by a god: Nene and his wife Tata.
The only other information was that the
Fifth Sun would finish in
We have to add the information that the Fifth Sun would end in 2012 A.D., so we have a lap of time dating from 3509 B.C. to 2012 A.D. that covers 2 Suns.
A period of time of only 5521 years. Since the other Suns lasted some 4000 years each, this data is very anomalous. It is worth remembering another information: the Long Count calendar starts in 3113 B.C. (or 3114 whether we consider ‘year 0’ or not) and was calculated, according to the legend, since the arrival of Quetzalcoatl (Kukulkan for the Maya).
Now let’s try to make a comparison between the data covered by Zecharia Sitchin and the prehistory of Mesoamerica. Sitchin contends that the Mesoamerican civilization rose because of the settlement of some of the Anunnaki in Mexico and in Peru, moving from Sumer with the aid of some humans recruited in Sumer and in Western Africa (and Egypt).
Sitchin goes on stating that there were two distinct fluxes of deities and people: one originated the myth of Viracocha, the other originated the myth of Quetzalcoatl.
I think it is due, at this point, to spend some time entering in
details about these two deities, who were secondary characters at
Sumer, but preeminent deities in Mesoamerica and South America.
In the case of Ningishzidda/Quetzalcoatl we also have mythological common traits, like the attribution to both deities of a central role in the process of creating and instructing humanity. Ningishzidda was a pacific god, depicted with two entwined snakes, and when it was depicted in human form he had 2 horned snakes rising from his shoulders.
He was a cleaver engineer and architect, in fact King Gudea left us a tablet where he tells the story of the dream he had about building the Girsu for Ninurta, in Lagash.
The first king of the Cuzco civilization, called Manco Capac IV, an adorer of Viracocha, is often depicted with the golden axe of Viracocha in his hand.
Capac IV was a descendant of the first Manco Capac who founded Cuzco around 2400 B.C. According to the legend, it was Viracocha who gave Manco Capac I a golden rod/axe telling him to build a center of cult for him in the place where the rod would fall and penetrate the ground.
These two gods settled in Mesoamerica and southern America in two different times and locations,
It is also interesting to notice that the name ISH.KUR was the focus of certain linguistic controversy.
If the word KUR is clearly Sumerian, meaning ‘Mountain’, the root ISH is not Sumerian but Akkadian, deriving from ISHA that meant LORD. Reading ISHKUR as an Akkadian name, thus, defines him as the ‘Lord of the Mountain’, which is an obvious reference to the fact he was in charge on the Zagros region, but also claiming a similarity to the mountain regions of the Andes where the Candelabra still lays, and the myth of Viracocha was born.
The ‘akkadian bound’ between Ishkur and
Viracocha also shows out from a comparison of the dates. The cult of
Viracocha is thought to be born around 2400/2100 B.C., which, in
Mesopotamian lands, was the period of Akkad.
This would lead to a date of about 2500
BC, a date that the establishment refuses to accept. Many scholars
say that the Sumerian culture could never have been in contact with
Mesoamericans because by 1400 BC the Sumerian culture had already
disappeared, leaving ground to the Assyrian and Babylonian ones,
which had a very different cuneiform system.
Given that Nibiru’s orbit is almost 3600 years long, Sitchin states these dates:
We can, at this point, put all the dates
in correlation and notice some things.
Ningishzidda, an enkite
god, was depicted by the symbol of the serpent (as we already said)
and of the entwined serpents.
We can now make a list of some relating happenings:
Let us now have a look at some findings
that establish a direct connection between Sumer/Africa and
The Fuente Magna Bowl
Among the various linguists studying the bowl, we have to recall 2 important cases:
Clyde Winters was able to completely translate the content of the interior of the bowl.
signs in the Bolivian Bowl
In his study “Deciphrement of the cuneiform writing on the Fuente Magna bowl” Winters clearly states that, in order to analyze the glyphs, he had only used orthodox material officially accepted from the establishment:
After translating the panels of the Fuente Magna bowl, Winters states that:
The Fuente Magna bowl still remains the
most important finding supporting the link between Mesopotamic and
Mesoamerican cultures, establishing that Sumerians were able to
settle in Bolivia some 5000/4000 years ago..
Elamites in Peru and Bolivia
There is also a section about the various stalae discovered in Bolivia that contain logo-syllabic and cuneiform writing, of the same kind of the ones used in Egypt, Elam, and writings that are identified as proto-elamitic and proto-hebrew.
We obtain a perfect line with the same degree if we connect Bad Tibira (an old Sumerian metallurgic site) with Giza and going on to Machu Picchu, the old Tampu Toco (a Mayan metallurgic site in Peru).
1: Esagila (Babylon) – 2: Giza (Egypt) – 3: Teotihuacan (Mexico) – 4: Stonehenge (Britain)
In the image above we have enclosed also Stonehenge. How is it connected to the other sites?
We must remember that the Stonehenge I was only made of some 50 holes in the ground forming a circle, called ‘Aubrey holes’, and of seven vertical stones, six of which were forming a circle and the seventh was a little out of the circle, the famous Heelstone.
Well, we find a perfect match of these in Lagash, in the courtyard of the Girsu, the temple of Ninurta: six stones forming a circle and the seventh stone outside the circle.
Lagash is less than 1 degree distant from Babylon, so if we connect Lagash and the Girsu with Giza we obtain a line that points to Teotihuacan.
We then have:
Why did we have to notice these similarities?
The common trait among these 4 locations
comes from the analysis of the importance, in these 4 cultures, of
the same recurring figure: the Serpent.
He was, as a matter of fact, depicted with a serpent in his hands, as we can see in the image below.
Cernunnos with the snake in the hand
Traces of the cult of the serpent in Britain and northern Europe are also revealed by Balaji Mundkur in his work “The cult of the serpent: an interdisciplinary survey of its manifestations”.
For what concerns the serpent and the
other cultures, we have already discussed it in a wide manner, but I
think it is due to examine some other important similarities.
Both kind of hat had a serpent on the forehead.
This is perfectly coherent with the
identification given by Sitchin of Thot/Ningishzidda/Quetzalcoatl: The Egyptian hats would show a serpent in honor of Thot, and the Olmec/Aztec/Mayan ones would show a serpent in honor
of Quetzalcoatl, both these deities identified with Ningishzidda.
What other scholars do not mention, is that
Giza is not the only place where this alignment occurs. We find a
perfect match in Teotihuacan, in Mexico.
In the case of Giza we have an angle of 13 degrees, while at Teotihuacan we have an angle of 18 degrees.
Both sites have astrological meanings, and are correlated to the cult of the dead:
Teotihuacan is voted to the cult of Quetzalcoatl, and Giza is voted to the cult of Thot, both bounded with the image of the serpent and the bird (a Quetzal in the case of Quetzalcoatl and an Ibis in the case of Thot).
One of the best known examples in Babylonian culture is the famous image of Marduk and the Mushushu.
This was at first seen as a ‘perspective mistake’ made by sculptors not being able to correctly represent the depicted characters with one hand showing the palm and the other showing the back to the viewer.
It seems very strange that people who correctly carved and aligned monuments like the pyramids or depicted jewels like the Dendera Zodiac, or the incredibly small cuneiform signs in diorite (one of the hardest materials to carve), or the incredibly detailed statues of Chichen Itza, had so much trouble in depicting two hands.
Moreover it would require an extremely strange coincidence to allow that 3 civilizations in distant places could make the same mistakes.
The reason the iconography shows this particular of the two left hands is unknown, but is a clear evidence that the three civilization were bounded or shared the same origin.
These studies range from the identification of the Olmecs as a mixed population mostly made up of African people, to the finding of the resemblance and derivation of many terms in the Chinese, Mesoamerican, Mesopotamic languages, to the decipherment of the Meroitic and Dravidian languages.
Winters produced a huge series of documents, images, tables, that strongly put in correlation the Sumero-Akkadian and Babylonian civilization with the Hindu, Elamitic, Egyptian, Nauhatl, Mexican, and Phoenician.
Image of the Fuente
Magna bowl showing the sumerian sign ‘DINGIR’.
But Winters is also an excellent
discloser: in his studies he offers a tribute to many scholars in
paleontology, archeology, linguistics, naturalistic sciences and
genetics that prove the Mesopotamic and African origin of the
Mesoamerican civilizations. And as we have already seen this is a
focal point in Sitchin’s theory.
The Pokotia stelae also shares with the Fuente magna bowl a crucial common trait:
They are carved to be read from right to left, while the Mesopotamic signs of later ages were carved to be read from left to right.
This is, according to Winters, a precise indication that there was a migration from Mesopotamia to Mesoamerica about 5000/5500 years ago, and the writing system did not undergo the evolution occurred in Mesopotamia where the reading direction changed during time. Thanks to Winters’ documents we also discover that Fuente Magna and Pokotia are not the two only cases witnessing the journey of Sumerians in Mesoamerica.
He quotes studies of earlier scholars
(e.g. M.E.Moseley) that report the findings of some bricks in
Tiwanaku, Moche, Virù and Nepena in the northern part of Peru.
It indeed dates back to 1972 when Dr. Wiercisky gathered some evidence from the analysis of some skeletons found buried in well-known Olmecs sites. In the site at Tlatilco (Mexico) the 13.5% of unearthed skeletons had negroid traits, in the sites at Cerros de las Mesas the correspondence was 4.5%.
Although all these studies and comparisons were later disclosed by Jairazbhoy in 1975 and again by Rensberger in 1988, they are completely hidden or ignored by orthodox scholars.
The ethnographic and ethnologic
community particularly opposes to the disclosure of these documents
not even accepting to discuss these findings and their implications,
often stating that they are recent African skeletons of people who
arrived in Peru and Mexico after the Spanish conquer and someway
‘penetrating’ the earth strata.
Winters also reports the considerations
made by C. Marquez and M. Desplagnes who, respectively in 1956 and
in 1906, had already noticed a resemblance between the negroid
traits of Africans and the ones shown in Olmec statues.
Later in his documents, Winters offers an analysis made by well-known genetists Cavalli Sforza, Keitha, Kittles, Wuthenau, who were able to trace a chronology of migrations from the Saharan region to Mexico and Peru:
In “The lost realms”, Zecharia Sitchin reports of some similarities discovered by modern linguists that relate the term ‘Manco’, used to describe the Inca kings, to a similar term used in semitic languages meaning ‘King’. A similar analysis was made around the term ‘Meshica’ which is not Nauhatl but is used in some Mesoamerican celebrations singing, 'Yo Meshica, He Meshica, Va Meshica', and is put in relation with the term Mashi’ach from which ‘Messiah’ would derive.
Other terms with a clear resemblance are
the Nauhatl ‘Tupal’ with the Babylonian ‘Tubal’ (that arrived to us
via the Bible and the Semitic name Tubal, e.g. in Tubal Cain), the
Nauhatl ‘Nusan’ with the Semitic ‘Nissan’ and Babylonian ‘Nisannu’,
and the Nauhatl ‘Tic’ with Acadian ‘Ticu’.
Other terms that offer an incredible
resemblance are the Mesopotamic ‘Choi’, corresponding to the
Mesoamerican ‘Chol-ula’, the Mesopotamic ‘Zuibana’ related to the
Mesoamerican ‘Zuivan’, and the Mesopotamic ‘Zalissa’ related to the
Basque has always been considered a real mystery by scholars, and it is not secondary to mention that it is, like Sumerian, an agglutinative language.
Let us read what Nyland writes:
Clyde Winters too offers an analysis of two important terms.
He reports that one of the locations discovered by Yacovazzo was called ‘Potosi’ and puts this name in relation with the Sumerian term ‘Patesi’ who indicates the dynasty of priest-kings (the name was similar in meaning to the more famous Lugal).
The same term ‘Inca’, according to Winters, may have been an evolution of the Sumerian ‘En.Ka/En.Gal’ meaning ‘Great Lord’.