So far just a tiny issue.  The author is debunking the notion of the etymological relationship between the "TUL" root in Tulan with "TOLtecs".  Worst case scenario, I guessed wrong about an ancillary discovery that doesn't have a direct bearing on Atlantis itself.

Although the article is giving as much as it's taking away.  It supplied the interesting nugget that the Nahuatl name for the Tzutuhils was Tecpan Atitlan, or "Nation of Atitlan" (with Atitlan being an alternative representation of Atlan, Aztlan, or "Atlantis").

Tonatlan isn't a problem, etymologically.  Just a footnote, etc.

Hi Ciggy,

Sorry for the extremely, extremely late reply. I had a chance to see your hypothesis when it was first posted, then had to head out and about and have been caught up in a whirlwind of events since with life likely to get much busier for me in the next several weeks. I even began this reply a few days ago and just got back on the site today to finish it. I have been hoping to study The Annals Of The Cakchiquels in depth before responding, but still have not had a chance.

So I thought I would quickly pop in and say that I was indeed very impressed with much of your hypothesis including the link you made between Xibalbay and Shambhala. To be honest, I am still on the fence on the much of this mostly due to having very little knowledge in this field, but you've definitely presented an interesting and convincing hypothesis.

Sorry again for the delay and nice work Ciggy.

-Doug

Your work was the breakthrough I needed, as it explains more of the phenomenae than solely that of a Thulean Ice Bridge crossing from Europe to the Americas.  Cocaine in the mummified pharaohs, for example:

http://reneodeay.blogspot.com/2007/04/ramses-hair-evidence-of-cocaine.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1553039/Voyage-to-prove-pharaohs-traded-cocaine.html

These are interesting times.