Rating: 
Summary: Okay... if you believe in the theory of evolution.
Review: If you are a creationist, this book will be a frustrating series of wrong conclusions.
If you are LDS, the 20 plus chapters devoted to Central and South america will be almost excruciating. I found myself reading every other paragraph knowing that the conclusion he came to was wrong, which in turn led to the next wrong paragraph. I even tried to look up his address to see if I could send him a Book of Mormon.
This book has a lot of intersting source documents, and a lot of great pictures and achealogical documentation. Mr. hancock does a wonderful job at research, however, 80% of this book's conclusions are a mish mosh of personal opinion, distorted facts, and scenarios based on the theory evolution.
I have studied many books on subjects related to this, have read a lot of interesting views on the Lost Civilization of Atlantis. I do believe that such a place existed, and I do believe that they were much more technologically advanced than our more recent ancestors.
I do not however belive that men evolved from a puddle of goo, nor from a really smart monkey. This makes most of Mr. Hancocks conclusions invalid and ill conceived in my view.
Mr. Hancock uses texts as evidence and then discounts them as accurate;
For example, he uses the text from the bible and many other civilizations to prove there was a worldwide deluge, that only a handfull of people survived, and then states his perplexity that all civiliztions would have the same memory of the family that survived , and of the same circumstances and of the same players in each of the stories (if it was all the same story, wouldn't it need to be similar? and doesn't that mean that we would all have the same story, since there was only one small group that survived, they being the progenitors of all who followed)
Instead, he starts to reach and grasp. He contradicts himself by trying to fit evolutionist and ice age migration pattern theories into The flood. Like he's Trying to marry many different time frames into one. He invlaidates the stories he is propounding as proof by ignoring the parts of the stories that don't fit into his idea of what he wants them to mean.
His book "the sign and the seal, was well researched, every point was checked and double checked and no conclusions were given until he was sure of what the evidence meant, and them backed each peice of evidence up again with more corroborating facts.
It would have been nice if he would have been as thourough in this book. Opinions and theories are interesting, but they should not be put forward as fact. He should have only proposed conclusions he KNEW were correct, instead of grasping at straws and jumping into bed with anything that fits.
Rating: 
Summary: A Truly Great Thesis!
Review: Author Graham Hancock, through "Fingerprints Of The Gods" and his other genre specific books, asks the fundamental archaeological questions never before presented for public consideration.
This book offers a complete thesis so as to complement, augment, and even change contemporary theories concerning the ancient history of mankind. If read with an open mind, this book has the potential to spark the research of a new breed of archaeological investigators determined to "fill in the gaps" of mankind's vague history.
This book will absolutely stimulate your cusiosity into the origins of ancient human history. Hancock's endnotes and research reference notes alone are worth the price of the book.
Highly recommended!
Rating:
Summary: But people want to believe it, don't they?
Review: Dear reader: before you see my low rating and immediately decide to give me an 'unhelpful' review, please consider the following. I am not hostile to the author's thesis, and I am inclined, in fact, to believe that there very well _could_ be a technologically advanced Atlantean civilization that existed prior to our own.
Let it be known that I tend to trust scientists and spiritual writers within their own contexts. (A few writers _can_ successfully bridge these two gaps, but they are not the norm.) As a general rule, scientific types, who only know how to deal with the minutiae of quantity, are best left writing about scientific ideas in their own particular niche or subspecialty. They almost always fail when attempting to extrapolate their findings onto the larger realm of human discourse. Likewise, those of a spiritual bent are best when discussing spiritual matters; at this point, I don't think we need any more people discussing how particle physics proves the existence of God, clarivoyance, or ESP when they have little or no idea what they are talking about. Those possessing true spiritual enlightenment always mitigate against ascribing too much literalism to their allegories. Anthropomorphic or archetypal elements in spiritual writing should be used to convey universal spiritual _principles_, not taken literally.
Now, who I don't trust are hack writers who take a jumbled pile of assorted geologic, archaeological, and spiritual 'facts' and throw them all in a pot to create a Procrustean stew that serves no purpose other than to satisfy their own sensationalist theses. (But hey, how else are you going to get your own series of BBC specials?) Hancock manages to enter the realm of elite pseudoscholars such as Sitchin, Von Daniken, etc. by proceeding as follows: first, proceed with an outlandish thesis that you take for granted as 'true'. Then, proceed to take any available 'evidence' and twist it to support said thesis. If a perceived 'fact' should perhaps be interpreted in a more Jungian, archetypal, or manner appropriate to the mythology of a region, treat it as a literal fact. But in the case of hard science, be sure to interpret it in as creative a manner as possible. After all, (per Hancock's own admission on his web site!) he's not saying whether or not his thesis IS true, he's just raising a possibility. That's all fine and dandy, but Aldous Huxley raised a lot of possibilities with _Brave New World_, and that book is still powerful today because it is a powerful piece of _fiction_.
Hancock loves employing cognates (words that sound alike and have a similar meaning in disparate languages) to support his thesis which have been a favorite of pseudoscholars for at least a hundred years, and have been employed to 'prove' dodgy theories such as the British-Israelite theory. However, any linguist can tell you that completely unrelated languages will often contain similar or identical words, especially for common subjects. For example, 'dog' means the same thing in English as it does in Australian Aboriginal languages, yet the two languages are in no way related; likewise, 'mahni' and 'many' mean the same thing in Korean and English, yet the two are in no way related. Statistically, large numbers of words will always be false cognates between languages.
Hancock also likes to take symbolism which is much more at home in a Jungian or similar such allegorical context and treat it as evidence of some literal truth. One of his favorite subjects is how the notion of water (or a flood) is contained in a wide variety of different myths and legends. However, does this point to the literal, materialistic fact that there was a giant flood that engulfed humanity, or is it just that water is processed in a similar archetypal manner on a near-universal basis?
Nevertheless, these errors could very well just be inevitable given a 'true believer' lacking in the critical thinking department. What I find to be most alarming, however, is how Hancock deliberately misrepresents geological science. The fact that the Earth could undergo certain changes over the course of millennia somehow gets twisted into evidence that a certain 'disaster' could happen almost instantaneously. To me, this error is so great that I cannot believe that Hancock actually read the article he is referencing, especially since it is so central to his thesis. And when I see something misrepresented so badly, I cannot help but automatically question the veracity of most of his other 'sources', as well as his overall motives.
There is some compelling evidence out there that ancient peoples possessed knowledge in certain areas that far surpasses what conventional scholarship would have us think (cf. Hapgood's 'Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings.') And I wouldn't be surprised if this came from some previously unknown advanced civilization. But for spiritually minded people (I subscribe to Vedic cosmology myself) any knowledge of these facts is going to be contained in spiritual doctrines; any attempt to elucidate on these subjects by working 'upward' from modern reductionist science is doomed to failure. (But if you're going to take this approach, you could at least not misrepresent the authors you are invoking.) For those interested in cosmic cycles and their implications, you would be MUCH better off reading John Major Jenkins' 'Galactic Alignment' or Weidner & Bridges' 'The Mystery of the Great Cross of Hendaye', both of which treat the notion of any potential cataclysm in a much more even-handed manner devoid of Hancock's sensationalism.
Rating: 
Summary: good book
Review: Good book with a very interesting premise and alot of facts that make you really think. What I didn't like about this book though is that the author used "negroid" to refer to black africans and drew the same old racist eurocentric view that "whites were the first, and whites were the first to civilize everybody." Another thing which confused me was he mentioned certain South American structures that were 12 to 15 thousand years old possibly than the rest of the chapters he concentrated on small dates of about a thousand and a half years and even said there was a stagnation or culture of the olmec unlike the egyptians. Than who built the earlier stuff that he talked about? It wasn't the third party (I'm thinking from atlantis) since he said the third party spread to egypt and latin america around the same time and in Egypt there was no civilization before about 3 and a half thousand years ago where "it appeared out of nowhere with no transition from primitive to great achievements." Godo book but it can be confusing.
Rating: 
Summary: A good solid read.
Review: Graham Hancock has written yet another fine work. I enjoyed this book, and read it twice. I found it interesting, and easy to read. Rather than a rehash of other work along the same lines, he has introduced some astounding new information that makes one think. I liked the book. It was a pleasure to read, and I recommend it to anyone who wants to question mankinds past.
Rating:
Summary: Revise the revision
Review: Hancock makes the case for a worldwide prehistoric civilization by drawing on the earlier works of Peter Tompkin's "Secrets of the Great Pyramid," Giorgio De Santillana and Hertha Von Dechend's "Hamlet's Mill," Charles Hapgood's "The Path of the Pole" and "Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings," the readings of Edgar Cayce, and other sources. Hancock also speculates that the memory of this civilization was lost due to a world-wide cataclysm.
However a major part of his evidence is the famous Piris Reis map that show parts of North and South America along with a part the Antarctic drawn from pre-Columbian sources. Hancock says that this points to that prehistoric world-wide culture that explored and mapped the world long before the European age of discovery. With the publication of Gavin Menzies' "1421: The Year China Discovered America," a whole new light is thrown on the Piris Reis map. We no longer have to go back to pre-history to account for early maps; the Chinese drew them and they found their way to Europe. Columbus and Magellan both claimed to have had maps that showed them the way. Now we know where they got them.
Hancock is attempting to revise human history, I hope he can accept this small setback and continue his interesting work.
Rating: 
Summary: Not worth your money or your time, really...
Review: I bought Hancock's book, looking for some information on the pre-Diluvian theory many scholars support. I was very interested in learning more about this fascinating subject which has long intrigued me.
The author begins with very interesting arguments and supports them with strong evidence. The first couple of chapters are really promising, with both a dynamic narration and well-founded thesis. But, as you move on, everything becomes increasingly flawed.
Hancock starts to make assumptions from things one can clearly see are not evident. He then supports his own arguments with these very same references! The next chapters are basically his 'Travel Diary', telling and retelling his holiday-trips to Mexico, Peru and other archeological places. You get to read over and over how he went to these sites, how he and his wife walked through these sites, how he and his wife conducted some sort of unscientific investigation on these sites...
To build his story, he tries to impress the reader with "strange coincidences" that any serious archaeologist -or at least, someone with some previous knowledge on Egypt and Prehispanic cultures- would find rather shallow and explainable. Sadly, this is his evidence. Sure, this theory isn't proven and evidence is not found around the corner; but hey, the author could at least try and build strong arguments instead of writing so many pages of worthless material.
Bottom line: it is not a well researched book. Hancock builds his thesis on arguments which can be easily refuted by any serious scholar, and tries to impress the unaware reader with weak historic and scientific facts. Nice if you have nothing else to do and want to read some fiction (and not the best). If you want something serious, or to learn more about the subject, please buy something else. I hope I had.
Rating:
Summary: ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS
Review: I bought Hancock's book, looking for some information on the pre-Diluvian theory many scholars support. I was very interested in learning more about this fascinating subject, which had been mentioned on a couple of other books.A COMPLETE WASTE OF MONEY AND TIME. The first few chapters are really nice and intriguing; afterwards everything becomes worthless. The book becomes more or less 'Hancock's Trip Diary': he tells and retells his visits to Mexico, Peru and other places, and about the "amazing things" and "rare coincidences" he finds which, in fact, are mostly assumptions. Even though he supports his points with very serious references, they are not well built and developed. He never goes any deeper than saying: "WHAT IF BLA BLA BLA?" - and that's really a quote of how most of the chapters end. The Pre Diluvian theory is a very intriguing and interesting subject. Yet, this book takes away all the magic that can lie within it. Go on and buy something else. This one es mostly crap. One of the worst titles I've read, EVER. Not serious, not well researched (and founded mostly on Hancock's assumptions).
Rating:
Summary: This was a fascinating book
Review: I just completed reading this book. I was very interested in the presentation of the similarity of myths from around the world. Equally fascinating was the mathematical patterns in the pyramids. As a former cartographer, I also found the maps at the beginning quite interesting as well. I believe that this book was not meant to be an end all discussion on these subjects and attacks on the author are unwarranted and unprofessional. This book presents an interesting theory supported by interesting "coincidences" and serves to penetrate the tunnel vision of the academic world which is clearly biased not only by it's own ego, but quite possibly (although never admitted to) the convictions of the scientists. It is hard to admit to being wrong and it is even harder to absorb facts that conflict with grass root level beliefs. This book has left me wanting to read more by Mr. Hancock as well as others. Someday I would like to visit some of these places, but not until I have absorbed as much information as possible (both orthodox and non-orthodox). All in all, it was a great read and I highly recommend it!
Rating:
Summary: Exciting, even intriguing, yet far-fetched
Review: I read this book when it was first published, back in 1995, and as a rather credulous 14 year-old, was captivated by the exotic locations, ancient structures, and provocative theories it featured. Hancock's writing style, though not in the least scientific, had such an energy and a genuine enthusiasm for even the most outlandish claims that I found myself utterly engrossed by the material. Looking back some years later, after subsequent re-consideration, I have concluded that while my initial worshipful praise of the book was unmerited, neither does the volume deserve the reproof and utter condemnation accorded it by some previous reviewers. It is certainly dangerous to uncritically accept many of the more improbable theories of this book, most notably the claim that Atlantis was in fact Antarctica, which itself (in an ice-free state) was home to an ancient and highly advanced civilization. The appeal here, as in many other instances, is to popular imagination rather than rational inquiry: the book is not written for specialists, but for the public, and as such Hancock can afford to spout baseless theories knowing full well that many gullible readers will be taken in. The opinionated attacks on so-called "orthodox" Egyptologists and the highly tenuous astronomical, mythological, and historical claims are not only irresponsible and unscholarly, they aid the spread of misinformation among a public that is obviously all too eager to absorb any new, enticing, "unorthodox" theory. At its very core, however, the book is grounded in fact, and it is at this most basic level that the astute reader can glean some genuine insight. The chapter dealing with Giza, in particular, raises some perfectly valid questions about the building methods of the Egyptians. Why, for instance, are the pyramids of Giza totally unadorned? Not a single commemorative line, cartouche, or relief sculpture graces the inner chambers of what are reputed to be the burial places for three great Pharaohs of a prominent Egyptian dynasty. How where these great structures built, and why did the builders prefer cyclopean, 200-ton blocks to smaller, more manageable ones, which would have been perfectly adequate in terms of structural and aesthetic qualities? These questions, and many more (particularly those concerning the antiquity of the sphinx) are sound and thought provoking. Despite some of the clear-headed logic that emerges in certain instances, the book often lapses into far-fetched theories on subjects as varied as Aztec mythology and Ice-Age climate. Hancock takes a valid point and carries it far beyond its logical conclusion. The book is at heart entertainment, and it is written to please the imagination rather than the intellect. We all want to believe in an ancient, highly-advanced civilization, a mysterious "Golden Age," lost in the depths of antiquity, during which humanity attained a godlike perfection. This desire (it unquestionably exists) is more the realm of psychology than history, and Hancock has taken it, as many of the myths he analyzes, far too literally. So, if anyone has bothered to read this far, the book is an entertaining read which provides descriptions of some of the world's most intriguing and ancient structures: it simply does not provide believable answers to the questions it raises. Take what you can from its more lucid passages, and approach the rest with a dose of logic and measured skepticism.
|
