Customer Reviews

Fingerprints of the Gods

5 star:		(170)
4 star:		(62)
3 star:		(24)
2 star:		(14)
1 star:		(34)

 

 

In his intriguing work, Graham Hancock offers a number of mysteries regarding Humanity and Civilization, and then proceeds to write his conclusions. I must say I found his ideas quite plausible, mostly because he is not alone in this field and many other authors, working independently, have also published similar books, or works that deal with areas that coincide with Hancock's main conclusions. It is amazing, though, to read so many of the negative comments loaded with animosity and almost personal loathing of not only the book, but of the author as well. Also, to those readers who patronizingly tell the rest of us to read real science, or check with real archaeologists, the truth is that scientists are every bit as passionate about their dogmas, as religious fanatics are about theirs. Peer review is all very well, as long as you don't deviate from the established paradigm. Otherwise your career as a scientist is in serious jeopardy. It happened to geologist Virginia Steen-McIntyre, who went ahead with her dating of a Mexican site: she was fired, her career ended, and the date for the site was established at a less provocative age that didn't threaten conventional wisdom. Therefore a message to those who trust "science" will provide the answers: it will, but since science is made by humans, imperfection at all levels is part of the baggage. The so-called "Anomalous Objects" in museums fill rooms, almost nobody gets to see them, and they are there, stashed away, because they do not fit with our traditional view of history, geology, archaeology, etc. Graham Hancock has simply published a book that forces us to question the validity of the information previously absorbed, and brings forward ideas from other people which have as much validity as the traditionally taught history of Egyptians or Mayans. The truth is, when the evidence presented by archaeologists, egyptologists, and other professionals is examined critically, the traditional school is very far from convincing. This does not mean that the general public is ignorant or gullible. It means that when we cannot build a replica of the Great Pyramid today, with our technology (the Japanese tried and failed, and theirs was a far smaller "scale" replica), but are expected to believe that copper-tools wielding Egyptians could (2.3 million blocks of stone; weights going from 1.5 tons to 15 and 17 tons; "killer" slope of 52 degrees; near perfect alignement; perfect 90-degree corners; perfectly cut diorite blocks, and so on), then is when inquisitive, intelligent people wonder, How is that possible? Since traditional science provides answers that prove usatisfactory because they really feel like nonsense, people will look for alternative scenarios. Graham Hancock provides such scenario. He may be wrong, but his points are as solid, or more, than those of the now-accepted school of thought.

Graham Hancock, a reporter for the Economist and Sunday London Times, has done what many of us only dream about, he visited the ruins of many ancient cultures from around the globe and came up with some startling findings and theories. His journeys included: Machu Picchu in Peru, the Mayan ruins of Central America and Mexico, the Aztec ruins near Mexico City, the city of Teotihuacan, and the Egyptian ruins of Giza, the Pyramids, Heliopolis, Saqqara, and Abydos.

He begins the book with a chapter introducing us to an ancient map of Antartica, made in AD 1513. It is called the Piri Reis map drawn up in Constantinople. It is an enigma because the 'modern' world only "recently" discovered Antartica in AD 1818. Graham Hancock ends his book with more information and theories about the reason Antartica may have shifted about 2,000 miles south of its original location, believed to be a subtropical climate, similar to that of the Meditarranean. Antartica is believed to have been situated about 30 degrees north of its present position on the planet. The explanation for its movement is based on an idea endorsed by Albert Einstein who wrote of it in 1953 *before* the scientific community had yet formulated the continental drift theory or the earth-crust shift theory. Graham Hancock provides numerous references from science and archeology to support his theories and conclusions.

Graham Hancock knows how to weave scientific facts and theories, ancient myths and legends, his own personal diary and the photographs his wife took ... into a seamless tapestry which divulges plausible explanations for the origins of the magnificent structures built by ancient civilizations. He is a phenomenal writer who knows how to build suspense and intrigue. He keeps the reader hanging on the edge of his or her seat, anticipating what "hidden" messages of the past will be revealed next. Most astonishing are his revelations of special numerical relationships which were built into the structures of the pyramids in Egypt and Teotihuacan. Most amazing also is the fact that these special numbers are mentioned in numerous myths and legends from different cultures around the world. Dr. Carl Gustav Jung might call it "synchronicity" but if he had read this book he would more than likely call it 'intention'. The author contends the builders of these monuments and structures were trying to leave us, the future generation of the human race ... a message. They did this through archeological, mathematical, and scientific evidence, along with information passed down in myths and legends. Once started, this book is difficult to put down. Although it is not easy reading, it keeps the reader totally engaged and hooked, right from the beginning. Graham Hancock manages to connect catastrophic global events of the past, which scientists agree occurred about 10,500 years ago B.C. to the ancient monuments and ruins that are still standing. There are predictions that similar catastrophic events may again occur ... unless mankind changes their behavior on a global scale. This is one book I would give more than 5 stars to if I could. *Very* highly recommended. Erika Borsos (erikab93)

I have to admit, in general, I enjoy Hancock's books. I've read all of them with the exception of Talisman, and every single one has been enjoyable on some level. I have a hard time buying into some of his arguments and central themes at times, but on the whole, he makes an entertaining and educational read.

That said, I found Fingerprints of the Gods, probably his most popular work by a wide margin, to be something of a letdown. I didn't find it as abhorrent as your average academic, but it's still not nearly as good as your typical reader would have you think.


The Pros: If you're not already immerssed in the world of ancient history, Fingerprints of the Gods is a fine place to start. Entertaining and thought-provoking, its best trait is pinning down some of the questions that the "orthodox establishment" has been unable to answer, and introducing its readers to three incredible ancient cultures. If this book had simply been written as a food-for-thought myriad of information with no central argument, I would have found it exceptionally good.

The Cons: The argumentative side of this book pretty much constitutes all the letdowns. Having read his later works, I can tell you write now that Hancock himself had retracted many of his central arguments.

If one must name a central theme to the book, it would probably be attempting to prove the validity of Hapgood's Crustal Displacement Theory. In short, Hancock claims that a rapid sliding of our planet's crust over the lower layers may have brought utter ruin to civilization at least once in human history. Assuming this, he claims Antarctica was located in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean as Atlatis (though for credibility's sake, Hancock himself does not use that name) up until around 15000 BC.

I am not a geologist by any stretch of the imagination, but to my knowledge, there is a good body of evidence to suggest that a crustal displacement did indeed occur on Earth...in 527,000,000 BC. Even within Hancock's books, I have NEVER seen good evidence for a crustal displacement occurring within human history. A quick glance at his bibliography for the relevant sections will tell you that virtually none of his sources on crustal displacement were published after the 1970s. The supposed geological evidence he provides for it in the book is either deliberately misleading, or shows a contemporary critical lack of geological understanding on the author's part. Having read Underworld, where a Hancock's improved understanding of geology is quite apparent, I'm going with the latter.

In Fingerprints of the Gods, Hancock addresses some of the mysteries in the history of three different parts of the world: Peru, Mexico, and Egypt. Let's start with Peru, as Hancock did in the book.

In his section of Peru, most of what is not simply wild speculation is centered around Tiwanaku (Tiahuanaco). Hancock argues that Tiwanaku was actually constructed circa 15000 BC, when it would have served as an excellent portside metropolis along Lake Titicaca. His central piece of evidence for this is a solar alignment placed in the stone fortress of the Kalasasaya that supposedly matches up to the date of 15000 BC (a more accurate redating of this aligment performed after the publication of FotG actually suggests is matches a date some five thousand years later). However, I do not understand why an alignment of 10000 BC suggests a construction date of 10000 BC. Can we be certain that 10000 BC was not some important date in local mythology that was singled out in this alignment in say, AD 1? Or AD 300? In later books, Hancock himself argues that the Egyptians did the same thing with star alignments to Orion's belt that were made in 2500 BC, but single out a date in 10500 BC, so why shouldn't this also be possible in Tiwanaku?

In his section on Mexico, there is no clear-cut central argument, just some interesting facts and speculation, so let's move on to Egypt. Here, Hancock claims that the three great pyramids and the Great Sphinx of the Giza Plateau are not 4500 years old, but rather, 12500 years old. The best evidence for the Sphinx's redating is the work of Dr. Robert Schoch, who claims that the erosion marks on the Sphinx could not possibly have occurred in the dry climate of the Sahara Desert now, and that the Sphinx must have in fact been constructed between 7000 BC and 5000 BC, as opposed to circa 2500 BC. This argument was thoroughly refuted in an article by Dr. James Harrell in the Egyptology journal, KMT, in 1992. I have never been able to find any rebution of Harrell's arguments by Schoch, and, put simply, Harrell makes pretty quick work of all of Schoch's supposed findings.

Hancock claims that, due to various star aligments around the Giza Plateau, the Sphinx must be 12500 years old, rather than 7000 or 9000, pushing the date even further back than Schoch. Again, Hancock himself later points out that such alignments may not suggest any actual construction date.

I have seen both sides of the issue on the pyramids star aligments, and really have no opinion on the matter. Perhaps it is coincidence, perhaps it is not. The best solid argument for the Great Pyramid's antiquity that is presented in FotG is the number of individual blocks, and the speed that would have been required to place each one with such precision in just twenty to one hundred years. He is absolutely correct here, and frankly, it puzzles me as well. But I will say that the Lighthouse of Alexandria (Pharos) had 20% (up to 33%, by some more modern estimates) as many blocks as the Great Pyramid, and even with the same seemingly impossible block/minute ratios, it was constructed in just a decade. The architectural capabilities of the Egyptian Old Kingdom were superior to that of Hellenistic Alexandria, so it dates like twenty or one hundred years for the full construction time should come as no surprise at all. I'm no engineer, so I don't know how it was done, but later, seemingly equally impossible construction times were met, so there's no reason this could not also have happened with the Great Pyramid.

Finally, the thing that most confused me: if crustal displacements DO happen as frequently as the author suggests, then, do to latitude change of certain locations, any star aligments to dates like 10500 BC or 15000 BC are completely invalid. If crustal displacement theory is correct, then these star aligments are not. Two of Hancock's longest-running central themes are mutually incompatible right from the start.

In conclusion, if you're new to ancient history, and you intend to read this book, PLEASE do some independent research on the various assertions made within it afterward. I was sixteen years old when I first combed through this tome, and I found all sorts of errors after a few days of reading some "orthodox establishment" publications and online academic review of FotG. It's a good introduction to ancient cultures, but don't give the author your unwavering trust. Remember, even Hancock abandons the Palaeolithic construction dates for the pyramids and crustal displacement theory in his later books.

Graham Hancock provides a provocative, alternative interpretation to development of early civilization in this work. He challenges a number of traditional assumptions regarding the dating and sequencing of monuments and artifacts in such cultures as the early Egyptian, Peruvian and Mexican periods. And for daring to call into question some of the basic assumptions of archeology, he has been praised by some but widely vilified by many established members of the scientific community. It is interesting to note the strong reactions just in the reviews in Amazon.

While I may not be qualified to establish whether Hancock's theories are a revolutionary rediscovery of our past or just an interesting alternative interpretation, I can tell you that this book makes very interesting reading. It is not presented as a grand conspiracy theory, nor do I feel that Hancock is trying to justify a particular ideology. Instead, Hancock takes the reader on an exploration of a number of historical oddities - interesting phrases from ancient Incan writings about fires in the sky, ancient maps that precisely detail hidden parts of Antarctica and other possible explanations for the Atlantis mythos. He does not present any outrageous claims that earth was invaded by aliens or that Egyptians were an industrial civilization, however, he does present a fair amount of material for consideration by his readers to form their own opinions. In many cases, he admits not have the answers just questions that can not be answered by established "scientific facts". As a serious scientist, Hancock does research his questions sufficiently to justify raising issues with established doctrine

Overall, this is a though provoking book that is highly entertaining to read whether you believe it to be true or just an interesting theory.

I've been browsing the reviews posted here, and something really stands out in most of the negative reviews of Hancock's work. I've noticed that most of the negative reviewers have a tendency to point to 1. The "crime" of using a hypothesis as a starting point and attempting to find evidence to support it; and 2. The claim that Hancock is "selective" in which of the mainstream theories he chooses to quote and/or rebut.

I've read the bulk of Hancock's books and find them to be stimulating, although I have not done as much independent research on these subjects as I would like. The research I have done, in the form of random selections of mainstream (for lack of a better word) history and archeology books, is very interesting. When I take into account the criticism of Hancock et al and apply it to more contemporary work, the same criticism can very easily be applied.

Scientific theory demands that a scientist begins with a hypothesis and seeks a way to prove it based upon evidence which supports it. This is what Hancock does, and this is what any other scientist or researcher worth his salt does as well. A "scientific" book that is written using random evidence piled on top of each other, making no point, inference, or conclusion is not scientific by definition; it is a reference book or bibliography at best. Nobody would start a book without some notion of the idea he/she wishes to put across to the reader; this principle applies to everything from the trashiest romance novel to Stephen Hawking's work. Disagreeing with Hancock's hypothesis is absolutely the right of any reader, but being outraged that he has a hypothesis and has attempted to prove it is downright silly. The burden is on Hancock to prove his theory, and should you find that he has not been complete then you have the right to challenge him, or ignore it altogether.

I wonder, also, how many "opposing" sources someone like Hancock is expected to quote within his pages. Many people's criticism includes complaints about how the author does not show enough opposing theories. How many opposing viewpoints are published in the average scientific work, I wonder? How many should any author include within the context of his work? If every author quoted every viewpoint in their work, then every book by every author would be exactly the same! This is not to say that any writer who plucks an idea out of the air and "supports" it based upon one vague passage found in a mummy's tomb has credibility; he doesn't. If Hancock wrote like that, his hypothesis would never fly and no one with half a brain would find him compelling. This is of course not the case, and even those who disagree with the writer should be honest enough to admit that Hancock makes an effort to prove his idea from many different angles. I find that Hancock tends to use many sources of mainstream thought throughout his works, and takes the time to criticize them rationally. I do not agree with all his conclusions either, but he is NOT Von Daniken and doesn't jump to conclusions based upon one flimsy shred of evidence.

I find Hancock compelling and many of his theories logical. I think it is very telling that many rebuttals of Hancock (official and otherwise) are so full of spite and venom in their words. There is a very real hatred of people who offer differing ideas of ancient history, particularly in Egyptology, and it confuses me. Paranoia and conspiracy theories aside, there is a reluctance to accept ideas which differ from those which have been "established" for as many years as Egyptologist's theories have, sometimes for no other reason than to protect many people's life's work. Unfortunately for them, scientific and historical theory demands that no matter how entrenched a theory is, new evidence can and should change minds... "Life's work" or not. Our understanding of history is changed (for better or for worse, sometimes) constantly, when we are honest about it (the discovery of Troy, for example).

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.

What this book does is open up the mind to previously unexplored possibilites, presenting an interesting melange of pseudo-science and rivetting archaeo-astrological evidence for a different story of humanity's history. Much more than an attempt to rewrite Egyptian history, this book forces the reader to reconsider history as we know it. Wrapping myth, folklore and some incredible locations, Hancock has become a favourite referral to friends who enjoy a good mystery. His debunkers are many, but sceptics are hard pressed to explain a great deal of Hancock's evidence, such as the ancient maps clearly depicting an ice-free Antarctica. Proof of a complex, sea-faring civilization pre-dating the supposed emergence of civilization by some 5,000 years or a fabrication? Ultimately, Hancock leaves that decision to the reader, preferring to layer the evidence instead of sensationalize the obvious. An intelligent and worthwhile read. Those who enjoy this book should pick up "From Atlantis to the Sphinx" - cheesy title, but uses Hancock's book as a springboard for further explorations into the origin of humanity.

This is a book you MUST read to make up your own mind. If you don't want to spend the money on a book you think is controversial (and it is) - go and get it out of the Library. Don't let any of these reviews make up your mind for you, including this one. Just read it.

I am not a scientist and therefore cannot back or belittle these theories scientifically. But I am a person with an open mind with intelligence.

Graham Hancocks book is a fantastic theory whether you believe it or not. Reading this book made me realise how a lot of Egyptologists and scientist go around with blinkers on and are not prepared in any way to listen to another theory, especially if it may change school textbooks and the fact that they may have got it wrong.

We must remember that when we do walk around in musuems a lot of information that they have on artifacts are just good scientific guesses (a lot of people do believe everything they read - perhaps me included...), because basically they do not really know. Be nice if they were not too proud to admit that.

One part of the book which really got me upset (which was good) is the fact that a lot of artifacts which they really do not know what they are, are left to rot in the archives and eventually forgotton about (and perhaps thrown out! forever to be lost to us).

This book bought to me that it is about time some groups of people (i.e. egyptologists, Nasa and the rest of the world) started to work together with the realisation that we might actually discover some real truths about the world and our lost history that would benefit us all not just individuals if we simply worked as a team.

But I guess that is human nature. Shame.

In his fascinating book, Fingerprints of the Gods, Graham Hancock details his travels around the world studying ancient civilizations, focusing primarily on Central and South America and Egypt. Approaching mankind's history like a giant jigsaw puzzle, Hancock makes, what seems at first glance, two seemingly outrageous claims: 1) A civilization much more advanced technologically and culturally than our own existed thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands, years ago before perishing in a series of cataclysmic natural disasters; and 2) This civilization left warning signs around the world to prepare us for more forthcoming disasters.

To support his first claim, Hancock makes a compelling case. He uses, in turn, archeological, historical, and scientific evidence, forcing readers to challenge their preconceived notions of history and the evolution of human civilization. This premise takes up the vast majority of Hancock's massive tome, as he slowly and carefully reveals the evidence for his bold assertion. Unfortunately, Hancock makes the case for his second claim much more boldly and sloppily, resorting to a foundation built on more opinion and speculation than facts and evidence.

Hancock begins the book a bit oddly. Without any introduction whatsoever, he begins discussing the Piri Reis Map, a map made in Constantinople in 1513 derived from other, earlier, sources. Hancock quickly notes several peculiarities about this early map, not the least of which is that the Piri Reis Map accurately depicts the coastline of Antarctica more than 300 years before the frozen continent was allegedly discovered. He also explains that part of the coastline illustrated in the map had not been in an ice-free condition since approximately 4000 BC according to the all of the geological evidence. Hancock writes:

"In other words, the true enigma of this 1513 map is not so much its inclusion of a continent not discovered until 1818 but its portrayal of part of the coastline of that continent under ice-free conditions which came to an end 6000 years ago and have not since recurred."

It is here Hancock first introduces us to Professor Hapgood's "earth crust displacement" theory. Endorsed by Albert Einstein, Hapgood was a professor at Keene College and believed the whole outer crust of the earth can undergo massive shifts around the earth's core "much as the skin of an orange, if it were loose, might shift over the inner part of the orange all in one piece." I can neither competently endorse nor criticize this geological theory but the fact Einstein endorsed it seems to lend it some credence. Hancock then proposes that Antarctica's coastlines might not have been covered by ice thousands of years ago, when the sources of the Piri Reis Map were originally made because it might not have sat on the earth's South Pole. This would account for the coastlines being ice-free, allowing the cartographers to accurate map the continent's geological coastline.

After a few brief chapters on Hapgood's earth crust displacement theory and Antarctica, Hancock largely ignores both subjects for four hundred pages before picking them up again near the book's conclusion. While he does eventually tie everything together, this originally leaves the reader confused as to why he began his book this way.

It is after these chapters, however, that Hancock assumes the first-person narrative style of his travels and the pace of the book picks up and goes from interesting to fascinating. Beginning in South America, Hancock explores archeological artifacts that seem to point to one conclusion: ancient civilizations, of which we know little to nothing about, possessed vast and sophisticated scientific knowledge.

The first of these phenomena Hancock explores are the famous Nazca lines. The Nazca plateau in southern Peru is a desolate, unwelcoming place. The only thing making this plateau memorable is a series of drawings - on a massive, epic scale. How large are they? Hancock answers:

"None of the designs is small enough to be seen from ground level, where they appear merely as a series of ruts in the desert. They show their true form only when seen from an altitude of several hundred feet. There is no elevation nearby that provides such a vantage point."

The drawings include geometrical shapes (where some of the lines extend for miles) and pictures of animals and humans. In fact, some of the drawings are more remarkable for their precision and attention to detail than they are for their sheer size. Hancock writes:

"...let us note that the Nazca spider also accurately depicts a member of a known spider genus - Rinuculei. This, as it happens, is one of the rarest spider genera in the world, so rare indeed that it has only been found in remote and inaccessible parts of the Amazon rainforest. How did the supposedly primitive Nazcan artists travel so far from their homeland, crossing the formidable barrier of the Andes, to obtain a specimen? More to the point, why should they have wanted to do such a thing and how were they able to duplicate minute details of Ricinuclei's anatomy normally visible only under a microscope...?"

Hancock relates several other places of interest in the lower American continent. For instance, a sculpture from the Olmec site of La Venta very clearly shows a man seated and driving what can only be described as some sort of vehicular or mechanical device. Through it all, Hancock points to what might be deemed clues, but not cold hard proof, that a great civilization was lost deep in the annals of history.

The best part of the book, however, deals with Egypt and the great pyramids. Personally, I always imagined the pyramids were such a big deal because of their sheer size. Other than that, I never gave them much thought. After reading Fingerprints, though, I now realize that their size is just about their least significant characteristic. As he does with most of his subject matter, Hancock questions the conventional wisdom concerning the pyramids. He questions who built them, how they were built, how long it took to build them, how old they were, and even why they were originally built. Explaining some of these issues, Hancock writes:

"It wasn't just the tens of thousands of blocks weighing 15 tons or more that the builders would have had to worry about. Year in, year out, the real crises would have been caused by the millions of "average-sized" blocks, weighing say 2.5 tons, that also had to be brought to the working plane. The Pyramid has been reliably estimated to consist of a total of 2.3 million blocks. Assuming that the masons worked ten hours a day, 365 days a year, the mathematics indicate that they would have needed to place 31 blocks in position every hour (about one block every two minutes) to complete the Pyramid in twenty years. Assuming that construction work had been confined to the annual three-month lay-off, the problems multiplied: four blocks a minute would have to be delivered, about 240 every hour."

It is impossible to comment on all the mysteries Hancock reveals to his readers in the space provided here. Needless to say, I have whole new respect for the precision and scope of the pyramids then I ever had before. Throughout his book, Hancock also compares remarkably similar legends shared by different cultures he encountered throughout his journey. He believes (as do I) the similarities of these legends points to one common civilization all cultures share in their history. Some of these legends are familiar to all, like ancient accounts of a worldwide flood made famous in Genesis.

Something also needs to be said, here, of Hancock's writing style, which, I suspect, most readers will either love or hate. For most of the book Hancock resorts to a first-person narrative, describing his clues for an advanced ancient civilization as he travels to and explores the pertinent locales. At some points, this sort of narrative soars. For instance, while Hancock illegally scaled the exterior of the Great Pyramid in Egypt, he simultaneously talks about the Pyramid's stones. His first-person narrative of scaling these same stones added a lot of perspective and detail to the text. At other points, this writing style seemingly falls flat. For example, in another place in the book, he attempts to tell a humorous anecdote of being discovered by Japanese tourists as he climbed into a coffin to gain a different perspective. While this might have been amusing in a shorter book, in this 500+ page tome, it feels more tedious than anything else.

Hancock also displays a maddening habit of leaving his readers with more questions than answers. For instance, while discussing the complex Mayan calendar produced, by all other standards, a rather crude and simple civilization he writes:

"So how come the Maya got handy with big periods like hundreds of millions of years? Was it a freak of cultural development? Or did they inherit the calendrical and mathematical tools which facilitated, and enabled them to develop, this sophisticated understanding? If an inheritance was involved, it is legitimate to ask what the original inventors of the Mayan calendar's computerlike circuitry had intended it to do. What was it designed for? Had they simply conceived of all its complexities to concoct 'a challenge to the intellect, a sort of tremendous anagram,' as one authority claimed? Or could they have had a more pragmatic and important objective in mind?"

This might be inevitable considering the subject matter but I found myself constantly wishing for more concrete answers than Hancock provides.

Indeed, for such a long book most of my criticism centers on it not being long enough. Hancock ambitiously bites off a lot and sometimes fails to thoroughly cover all of his bases. When questioning orthodox scholarship on any particular question he usually handles the argument well, explaining why mainstream scholarship accepts a certain position and why he disagrees. In these instances, Hancock rarely fails to make a compelling case. In more than a few instances, however, Hancock states what orthodox scholarship believes on a certain topic but fails to disclose why they believe this. In these cases, it is impossible to judge Hancock's arguments based on the merits of the case.

Hancock concludes his book by coming full circle. He reveals his belief that an ancient civilization existed on the continent of Antarctica and that it was essentially destroyed when the earth's crust shifted and placed the continent on the earth's South Pole. There were a few survivors, however, who managed to pass on their knowledge to other civilizations, like Egypt and places in Central and South America. Hancock believes this explains why these cultures have so many common traditions and legends (e.g. a cataclysmic worldwide flood).

Furthermore, Hancock believes that within the Pyramids and other devices (e.g. the Mayan calendar), are complex codes meant to be deciphered by future advanced civilizations such as ourselves. These codes, Hancock believes, spell out when the next great crust displacement is to take place, giving us warning. Most of these conclusions are based on bold speculations, not facts, so I don't want to criticize Hancock too much for thinking outside of the box. These warnings don't seem to do us much good, however, as Hancock proposes we do little more than set up safe havens that would hopefully survive the next great crust displacement.

Overall, Hancock's book is fascinating. He explores several ancient cultures and civilizations, opening up a world previously unknown to millions of readers (myself included). While I found the book initially hard to get into and felt it hit a few tedious spots along the way, for the most part, Hancock holds the reader's attention while relating fascinating mysteries of the ancient world.

Absolutely superb book that is well written and engaging. Important material with profound implications. While the book is not flawless and there are some leaps of faith (especially in speculative conclusion), it will make you a believer. Take the advice of an iconoclast, skeptic and former college professor -- read this book!