Most Helpful Customer Reviews
65 of 73 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Raiders of the lost Ark?, January 3, 2001
This review is from: Sign and the Seal: The Quest for the Lost Ark of the Covenant (Paperback)
"Hey, Indy I've found something", Oh, wait, that's a line from the movie 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' isn't it? and 'The Sign & the Seal' is a serious historical, archaelogical account of the search for, and supposed discovery of the biblical Ark of the Covenant. Yes, one is fantasy and the other non-fiction, although after reading some parts of the book, don't be surprised if you find yourself flipping to the backcover to check on the publishing category. For your reference it's 'history/religion/archaeology' That the book reads like a great adventure novel makes it enjoyable. That it purports to have solved the mystery of not only what happened to the Ark, but also that Hancock says that he knows where it is, makes this a book that deserves serious attention. The author spent considerable time researching this subject and his quest took him to Jerusalem, Egypt, the Chartres Cathedral in France and finally Ethiopia. He read widely and interviewed many people and discusses a wide variety of topics. The Kebra Nagast (the ancient Ethiopian history of the Queen of Sheba), the Templars, the Holy Grail, the biblical story of Solomon and the Babylonian Exile of the Jews all have some bearing on the wherabouts of the Ark. Hancock weaves it all together with style. Research, genuine interest, enthusiasm and writing style however are insufficient in overcoming the critical flaw of the book. Unlike a movie which can end however it chooses, an investigative history book must prove it's thesis. Hancock neatly dodges producing proof by telling us that the guardian of the Ark won't let anyone see it. In recalling the conversation Hancock remembers saying 'this is a great disappointment for me', to which the guardian philosophically replied 'there are worse things in life than disappointment', to which I say, there are many movies that could use good endings like this but a history book should not be allowed to get away with it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
44 of 49 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
West Arabian evidence, June 21, 2000
This review is from: Sign and the Seal: The Quest for the Lost Ark of the Covenant (Paperback)
Hancock's book is an entertaining account of an enthusiast who, from his own admission, was largely ignorant of his subject when he set out to discover the truth about it. The book has three main flaws. Whether by design or cultural self-centeredness, Hancock is too interested in searching for Knights Templar involvement, although the so-called Templar crosses in Ethiopia/Eritrea date from the 5th century AD. Linking the Ark to medieval Europeans sells books [Munro-Hay's Aksum (1991) and The Ark of the Covenant (1999) are far more informative but don't sell outside academia because European historical romanticism is absent in his works]. Secondly, Hancock had little understanding of the Kebra Nagast, which is a combination of two separate works, the Sheba-Menelik Cycle dating from oral (10th century BC) and written (pre-400BC) Semitic sources (Josephus summarises it (ca.90AD); and the Caleb Cycle (ca 518 AD). When Isaac's team compiled the Kebra Nagast around 1314 AD they used an Arabic Sheba-Menelik Cycle and a Ge'ez Caleb Cycle and then put in their own comments to try and make sense of the bizarre geography of the Sheba-Menelik Cycle. This included references to Cairo and Alexandria, which didn't exist in Solomon's day, something Hancock overlooked. Hancock is hardly alone in his third and major miscalculation. It is now generally accepted in mainstream archaeology that no evidence exists in Israel/Palestine of the events and places described in the Old Testament up until the Babylonian captivity. The site of modern day Jerusalem in Solomon's day was covered by a few small villages. There was no great city and nothing has been found of Omri's even more magnificent capital in Samaria. Historical linguistics, Tamil trade words in Hebrew, the lack of Egyptian words in Hebrew, the history of the Iron-Age (The Hebrews of Joshua were iron-age invaders of Canaan but were supposed to have fled bronze age Egypt), 11th century BC political-economic conditions, the name for the Ark in Ge'ez, the pattern of ancient Jewish settlement, the Saudi Gazette of Place Names, inscriptions on the Ethiopian plateau, remnant Judaic populations in northern Somalia and Eritrea, the history of the Queen of Sheba (three are mentioned in the Tigre inscriptions) and the extraordinary geographical references all point to the true location of Solomon's kingdom being between Taima and the Yemen border, in West Arabia, not Israel/Palestine. The Ark was probably stolen from a sanctuary near Abha in Arabia. If Hancock's hypothesis of a theft from the site of present Jerusalem it is difficult to accept that the Ark, reputedly the most dangerous weapon on the planet and in the hands of a small group of hunted desperadoes, would be casually waved all the way through tightly controlled Dynastic Egypt which was ruled by Solomon's own father in law. Hancock suggests the Ark was in the hands of the Elephantine Aramaic-speaking Jewish garrison in the 5th century BC who many commentators believe introduced Judaism to Ethiopia. However the Tigre inscriptions testify to a mixed Hebrew/Sheba population ruled by kings and queens of Shebans around 700 BC, which seems to corroborate the events in the Sheba-Menelik Cycle. Personally I believe the Sheba-Menelik Cycle pre-dates the Old Testament, which was first written around 400 BC without vowels and eventually standardised with vowels between 500-950 AD. Nevertheless, Hancock's work on the Ark in Ethiopia is very informative. What he has missed is a chance to show that the history of the Ark is the key to the true location of the Old Testament. Dr Bernard Leeman Ethiopian Research Council Former Deputy Head of History, Asmara University sheba@archaeologist.com
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
53 of 60 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Historical Detective Work at its Finest, December 26, 2000
This review is from: Sign and the Seal: The Quest for the Lost Ark of the Covenant (Paperback)
This is an exceedingly interesting book, albeit controversial, for anyone interested in "history's mysteries." For those of us who have pored through the works of Zecharia Sitchin and dared to ponder questions that the scientists and religious authorities regard as sacrilegious (after all, science itself is a religion), this is especially interesting material. You don't have to believe in Hancock's theories (although he offers a weighty, serious argument for them) in order to love this book. Even if you regard the idea of the Ark of the Covenant resting in Ethiopia (or the notion that the Ark even exists) as preposterous, you can still enjoy this book in the same way you can delight in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories; this book is about solving a mystery. Just as Holmes' series of adventures often resulted in no real, firm, graspable truth, so is the case here. This detracts little from the story, however. The final judgment is left up to you, the reader, which is the trademark of any substantive mystery--only in this way can the great and unattainable "truth," in its most esoteric sense, be glimpsed. Granted, Hancock is not a scientist or theologian, but this may in fact serve as his greatest qualification for tackling the types of lofty problems he embraces. After all, the vast majority of scientists and theologians dismiss without consideration the sorts of "wild" ideas discussed in this book; if not for the open minds of men like Mr. Hancock, many truths that have now been established would remain jokes told by the arrogant "experts" over tea--take, as an example, the discovery of Troy. As for the content of this book, it truly is a mix of history, religion, and archaeology. This is not Indiana Jones' quest for the Ark of the Covenant, so anyone looking for that sort of action will be disappointed. Anyone expecting to see pictures and Hancock's personal descriptions of the Ark will also be disappointed. Whatever rests in the Church of Saint Mary of Zion in Ethiopia will not and probably should not be revealed to the eyes of anyone other than its appointed guardian. What you will find in this book is a lesson on the history of the ancient Israelites and of the Biblical Ark, a history of Ethiopia (which I for one had never really heard the first thing about), a history of the mysterious Knights Templar (truly fascinating and mysterious men), and an enlightening story of Gothic architecture and mediaeval literature. Parzival is not an easy book to read, and thus it is rather unknown, even though it is just as important (and, if Hancock is correct, much more important) than Malory's better-known treatment of King Arthur and his search for the Holy Grail. The idea Hancock presents, namely that the Holy Grail was in fact the Ark of the Covenant, manages to bring together the story of the two most important Biblical artifacts in history. If you have an open mind and a zest for "understanding," then this book should definitely be included on your reading list. Believe Hancock's opinions or not, the tale he tells is fascinating, dramatic, and intellectually enlightening.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
