Category Archives: Ancient Relics

In James Churchward’s books, the Naacal Tablets play an important role as the proof of an ancient advanced civilization named Mu.
For a bit of background, in 1926, James wrote in Lost Continent of Mu Motherland of Men that while on famine relief duty in India, he befriended a Rishi of the local temple and spent some years learning the meanings of symbols and glyphs from the Rishi. After a period of time, the Rishi showed James some clay tablets and together they examined and translated them. The Rishi revealed that only he and two others knew the hidden meanings in the tablets and that they were the last of the Naacal Brotherhood, the keepers of the knowledge and wisdom of the now-sunken continent of Mu in the Pacific Ocean. The tablets revealed that the Garden of Eden was not in the Middle East, but on Mu, that Mu was an advanced civilization many tens of thousands of years old, and that science and religion were fused together in their belief system.

In the 1896 “Queen Moo and the Egyptian Sphinx” by Augustus LePlongeon, it is stated [pages xxiii – xxiv of the preface] that Mayan adepts, known as the Naacal (Naacal = ‘the Exalted’) traveled across the globe colonizing the planet and bringing ancient wisdom and knowledge as Mayan missionaries. LePlongeon postulated that the actual birthplace of mankind was in Central America and his archaeological excavations had shown him the proofs he needed.
From James’ biography written in 1936, Percy Tate Griffith, notes that in 1890s, regular Sunday afternoon visitors to the Griffith house included Churchward and LePlongeon and others for discussions on metaphysical topics of the day. James also notes in his books that LePongeon allowed him the opportunity to copy his notes and books, so there is a known connection between the two men.

There are some differences between their theories:

1. For LePlongeon, the Maya were the people of the advanced ancient civilization of Central America; Churchward wrote that the Maya were the people that colonized the world from the now sunken continent of Mu (as opposed to the people that stayed home.)
2. For LePlongeon, mankind’s birthplace or “Garden of Eden” was in Central America”; Churchward wrote that it was in the Pacific Ocean on the now-sunken continent of Mu.
3. According to LePlongeon, his ‘land of Mu’ was in the Atlantic, and that the inhabitants of this island continent were so enamored with Queen Moo that they named their island after her before she traveled to Egypt and imparted wisdom and knowledge on them. To LePlongeon, the island was also known as Atlantis. For Churchward, Mu was in the Pacific Ocean.
4. For LePlongeon, the source for his information on Mu was the mistranslation of the Troano Manuscript, which is actually a Mayan astronomical treatise and only a part of the Madrid Codex. For Churchward, the Naacal Tablets were the source of his information on Mu.

Despite recent claims to the contrary, James is the only person to have seen the Naacal Tablets, except for visitors to the Khanassa monastery.

James did write that there is a monastery in Khanassa, Tibet (“very well known and often visited by Europeans and Russians”) where a complete set of the tablets exists, but that was from the 1927 Books of the Golden Age, and was not supposed to be published according to text inside the book. In all other instances, James did not reveal the location so as to protect the tablets.

Are there other mentions of Tablets discussing the land of Mu prior to the 1926 Lost Continent of Mu Motherland of Men?

In the next installment, we’ll dig into James’ scrapbooks for the answer.

Have a great day

The conclusion of the examination of the Mound Builder’s Calendar Stone that appears on page 230 of the 1932 Sacred Symbols of Mu by my great-grandfather, James Churchward, continues with the response I received from the National Park Service.

Links to Examining the ‘Mound Builder’s Calendar Stone’ parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six.

Again I must reiterate that Tom Hill, Curator of the Hot Springs National Park, was extremely helpful and provided some excellent references about the artifact in question. Some of the references were discussed in Part 5.

Additionally, Mr Hill pointed me to the book Didn’t All the Indians Come Here: Separating Fact from Fiction at Hot Springs National Park by Mark Blaeuer. The book contains a copy of a photograph of the artifact and devotes a few pages to the discussion of the item.

In Mr. Blaeuer’s book, the artifact is known as the Arkansas Calendar Stone and the text mentions that no one has reliably recorded when the object was “found.” (quotes from original) Other facts gleamed from the book include that the stone may have been made of quartzite and that Fordyce may have had two such stones in his collection. The one ‘almost perfectly round’ found it’s way into the storage area for the Arkansas Museum of Science and History in Little Rock and the other ‘pear-shaped’ stone was sold to a lady in Houston, Texas.

Mr. Blaeuer also specifically addresses James Churchward’s use of the stone, labeling his books as ‘thoroughly unscientific’ and the artifact as ‘of dubious authenticity.’ Additionally, he also mentions speculation about the stone on the internet, such as the Manataka version (discussed here,) and other links that I did not find in my search, such as

Another website’s article contains a sequence of diagrams purporting to show the connection of the stone to “The Great Pyramid of Giza,” “The Light Cones of Relativity,” “The Great Pyramid’s ‘invisible’ twin created by the full extension of the of the Pi dimension”, and “The completed ‘hourglass’ of Orion’s Belt.” Both articles reproduce what appears to be Churchward’s drawing of the pear-shaped stone.

The bottom line about the stone is in this quote from Samuel Dickenson, who knew Fordyce personally and would have had ample opportunity to examine the stone:

Yes, your photograph is of the fake calendar stone which so intrigued Colonel Fordyce and numerous other people. The interest that the New York Times article excited shows how eager people are to believe the irrational. The stone itself looked newly carved.”

So, whether it is called the “Mound Builder’s Calendar Stone,” “Washita Calendar Stone,” “Manataka Stone,” or the “Arkansas Calendar Stone,” apparently quite a few folks have been been led down a path of fraud and deception. This does not mean that any of these people were involved in creating the fraudulent artifact, however, one must suspect their interpretations since the item was manufactured in the late 19th or early 20th century and was not, as they previously believed, an ancient artifact.

Have a great day.