|Print List Price:||$24.00|
Save $15.01 (63%)
Random House LLC
Price set by seller.
Enter your mobile phone or email address
By pressing "Send link," you agree to Amazon's Conditions of Use.
You consent to receive an automated text message from or on behalf of Amazon about the Kindle App at your mobile number above. Consent is not a condition of any purchase. Message & data rates may apply.
Follow the Author
Fingerprints of the Gods: The Evidence of Earth's Lost Civilization Kindle Edition
|New from||Used from|
Explore similar books
About the Author
"A fancy piece of historical sleuthing...intriguing and entertaining and sturdy enough to give a long pause for thought." -Kirkus Reviews
"Readers will hugely enjoy their quest in these pages of inspired storytelling."-The Times, London
From the Trade Paperback edition. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
- ASIN : B0092EE5JC
- Publisher : Crown; Reissue edition (September 19, 2012)
- Publication date : September 19, 2012
- Language : English
- File size : 8780 KB
- Text-to-Speech : Enabled
- Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
- X-Ray : Enabled
- Word Wise : Enabled
- Print length : 669 pages
- Lending : Not Enabled
- Best Sellers Rank: #31,759 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
- Customer Reviews:
Reviews with images
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
It is fanciful at best. On content I would give it one star. However, it is fairly readable so I have it a second star for that. At least it is readable if you don't get too distracted by Mr. Hancock's leaps of logic and making of factual statements with no support or with pseudo scientific support. So if you are reading it for entertainment only and are scientifically and historically literate enough to recognize horse pooh when you step in it, you might find it interesting. As science or as history, however, it is worthless or worse than worthless. For example:
1. The book is replete with footnotes. However, if you look at the works cited, they all seem to be secondary sources of the same ilk as Mr. Hancock's work. That is, they are not scholarly works or even popularized versions of mainstream scholarship: they are books by other writers peddling fantastic theories. He even cites to Immanuel Velikovsky for heaven's sake. If there is a purported body of "scientific theory" of the 20th century that has been more thoroughly discredited than Velikovsky, I would be hard pressed to imagine what it might be.
2. The world is full of coincidences. Occasionally a coincidence in the subject matter of archaeology, evolutionary biology, or some other historical science is theoretically meaningful. Often it is just a coincidence. It takes (1) judgement based on experience and training in the relevant field and (2) evidence; to tell the difference. Mr. Hancock has neither; but every coincidence is meaningful to him. Some artifact of pre-Inca archaeology is similar to another artifact of pre-Sumerian archaeology? Voila! The ancestors of the Sumerians and the ancestors of the Quechuans must have been in contact with each other!! Maybe even they were parts of the same civilization!! Which must have been incredibly advanced to have left descendants in both Peru and Mesopotamia!!
Or maybe not, but that does not slow Mr. Hancock down.
3. And there is a map (a bonafide one) of the world that was produced by an Ottoman admiral in Constantinople in 1513. It is called the Piri Reis Map. It shows a land mass in the south Atlantic that has no discernable similarity to the shape of Antarctica as we know it but which Hancock asserts is a good match for what Antarctica would look like if it were ice free. He bases that on a (supposed) letter to a Professor Charles Hapgood (from whom Mr. Hancock borrows wholesale and who seems to have had a bit of a penchant for crackpot ideas) from a Lt. Colonel of the US Air Force in 1960. The Colonel is identified as an officer in a reconnaisance squadron assigned to an airbase in Massachusetts. The Colonel is quoted as saying that the land mass on the Piri Reis map shows "remarkable similarity" to what the shape of the coastline of Antarctica is under the icecap based on a British-Swedish study in 1949.
Okay, one might say. So what? The Piri Reis map (of which only a fragment is extant, btw) is not exactly a model of accuracy in most ways. It fairly plausibly shows far-Western Europe, West Africa and the coast of Brazil. If you compare it with a modern map, you can see those outlines easily but everything else that it shows is little more than random squiggles and rough guesses. And anyone who has looked at a few antique maps will know that ancient mapmakers had a penchant for filling in the blank areas about which they had no information with fanciful things. So the good Ottoman Admiral filled in his map with a hypothetical land mass and at least in the opinion of one otherwise obscure Air Force officer from 60 years ago, hit it lucky and filled in the blank space with something that might look like the coast of Antarctica would look like (there are a number of reasons for being skeptical of the Colonel's conclusion starting with but not ending with the actual existence of such a letter from such a colonel) if it were ice free. An interesting but not very profound coincidence if that is all there is to note. (there is not actually even that much to note, but that is another matter).
But for Mr. Hancock this is a eureka! moment. It is obvious to him that the Piri Reis map must be based on older sources that were made when Antarctica or at least its coast was ICE FREE! He then disregards the mountain of geological evidence and professional opinion that Antarctica's ice cap has been in place for a lot longer than civilization has been around as "the conventional wisdom." He then observes that map-making is a sophisticated civilizational skill. So, Voila! whenever it may have been that the Antarctic ice sheet had retreated from the shores of the continent, there must have been a technically competent civilization in existence at the same time! Because how else could the Admiral's source maps have shown the ice free coast so accurately?
And I could go on, but enough is enough; suffice it to say that the foregoing is Mr. Hancock's standard procedure. Find an anomaly or a coincidence, hypothesize an explanation for it that disregards accepted scholarship as well as common sense and build castles in the air from there. Entertaining? For some. Science? No, not even close. Historically plausible? Not on your life. Factual? Not remotely.
I has been about a year since I last read it so my memory of its exact content is dim.
The only criticism I can think of for it is that there was a moment or two in the book where he presents data about different ancient cultures and proceeds to use the similarities within them to suggest a hypothesis.This is actually the majority of the book and they are always very well thought out and valid points. There were only I a couple of moments where I felt that an idea of his(Hancock) was a stretch. I have no academic background myself so I just went by a gut feeling.
Other than that I recommend this book to anyone who enjoys a book of any kind.
The scenes are engaging. Its thrilling to learn about ancient history and even more thrilling to see different ways it could be looked at.
Top reviews from other countries
Of course conspiracy theories and the such are commonplace these days, and although I'm not a conspiracy theorist myself, I can't help but think that Graham talks a lot of sense, and backs it up with some excellent data. So if you're interested in ancient civilisations, man's history, or perhaps even some conspiracy theories, then I'd recommend this with no hesitation.
I would like to add that this sparked a love I didn't know I had, and one that I still have today - just where and when did man's civilisation begin...
I now have the Kindle version, which is so much easier to read (I have a real problem with big heavy books nowadays).
Reading this book back in 1995 really sparked my interest in the subject, and has led to more than twenty years of further research into the subject. Thank you Graham; keep up the good work.
Hopefully, I will get to meet Graham Hancock at some stage, as there is a lot to discuss...
Jeez what a mammoth of a book, maybe I’m just a young kid and have a terrible attention span but everything is gargantuan and colossal.
I still like Graham and will listen to future podcasts but the book wasn’t for me.
Sorry Mr Hancock