My-Mu.com Blog My-Mu.com Guest Blog Podcast
Home About My-Mu Resources Book Store Interactive Media Links

Podcast #12 - Relics of Mu - Revisited


Relics of Mu - Revisited

In this podcast, I want to revisit the topic of the Ancient Relics of Mu from March 2007.
From the comments posted in Youtube, it appears that the message was misinterpreted.
To summarize that podcast briefly:
James Churchward produced little physical evidence from the daily lives of the people that survived in the colonies of the lost continent of Mu. One exception was the picture and caption in the 1931 book, "The Lost Continent of Mu", that showed and I quote his exact words: "the oldest jar ever uncovered." The caption also provides an approximate date for the artifact as being over 12,500 years old.
Also mentioned was that currently, the experts agree that the Bronze age began in what is now known as Iraq and Iran in the 4th millennium BC and that some evidence has shown that it may have started in the 5th millennium BC in Thailand.
Also mentioned was that I had received pictures of the 'jar' and three others that had been in the same private collection for many years and that one had been physically examined by a curator at the British Museum. His evaluation was that the vessels were manufactured in India in the late 17th or 18th century AD.
My final comments were that the evidence cast a shadow on his theories, but it was not the final word since this also revealed that more evidence was in private collections and needed to be examined.

Looking at the archaeological evidence known today, there is no evidence that indicates that human beings worked with metal before the 5th millennium BC. Even if tomorrow evidence pushes back the date another thousand years, then we are still talking about six thousand years between the time the evidence says it could be made and when James Churchward says the 'jar' was made. Obviously, we can interject here about conspiracy theories and strange dark forces that suppress the truth to minimize the damage caused by the discrepancy, but isn't there another reasonable explanation? First, these vessels are the only known items from 12,500 years ago and no other examples have been discovered. Secondly, the vessels were identified as being from India, at the earliest, the late 17th century by an expert likely to have seen hundreds of similar items over their career. Is it more likely that James took some liberties with a wealthy patron to maintain his lifestyle or that a dark secret order is responsible for the falsification of history and that the British Museum is implicated in the sordid affair? I would have to go on record as favoring the former and decrying the later as nonsense.

Takeaway points here are:

1. According to the available evidence, the bronze vessel depicted in the 1931 Lost Continent of Mu was not and is not more than 12,500 years old and did not come from a sunken Pacific Ocean continent. Most likely, it came from India or Sri Lanka in the 18th century.

2. James Churchward provided his friends/patrons with special gifts, including evidence he believed showed proof of Mu. Although he indicated in print that one of the 'jars' was from Mu, he also provided additional evidence in the form of three more jars to a private collection. Therefore, there must be more evidence out there than what he included in his books. Let's have a look at it all and fairly evaluate it.

3. For those folks that have evidence for the Lost Continent of Mu, please, bring it out for all to see and evaluate.

I hope this clears things up.
Thanks for listening and have a great day.

Jack Churchward
Clearwater, Florida

2009 Churchward & Company, Inc.