Fingerprints of the Gods Reviews

• As Valid As the Established Views

  
  By A2K4RNOAD5J3WB on 2000-01-26
  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.
  
  

• Revealing Ancient Mysteries - New Theories

  
  By A2SRZQU1SZG4RR on 2003-08-30
  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)
  
  

• Exciting, even intriguing, yet far-fetched

  
  By on 2000-01-09
  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.
  
  

• Intriguing, fun and just plain silly

  
  By A2P6PVWZS4NGV0 on 1999-08-10
  Graham Hancock is at this point perhaps the best known popularizer of what might generously be termed "alternative archaeology," one of the major points of which is that civilization originated far earlier than commonly thought, and was subsequently destroyed (i.e., Atlantis). Then again, this particular field is populated almost entirely by popularizers, who with rare exceptions (Robert Schoch, perhaps Robert Bauval) are unfamiliar or even hostile to establishment scientific principles such as peer review. Hancock's work is occasionally given to fits of pique at the supposed monopoly that establishment archaeologists have on the dissemination of knowledge; little understanding is shown of the simple fact that in scientific journals all ideas are subject to review by other scientists, and that if you wish to publish your views, you must present convincing evidence for them. Hancock and others like him should (and probably do, at least in private) be gratified that, as the parade of positive reviews of his books here on the Amazon.com web site attests, the establishment view of archaeology enjoys no monopoly on ideas in the public sphere, and in fact is if anything underrepresented. For an illustration, I would suggest that you go to your local bookstore and find something by Hancock, West, Bauval, Schoch, Cremo, the Flem-Aths, Sitchin, von Daniken, or Colin Wilson. Now find the establishment archaeological view. Which was more prominent? Which was there at all?

  In any case, "Fingerprints of the Gods" is Hancock's defining work (even after the publication of its sequel, "Heaven's Mirror") and provides the most comprehensive summary of the "evidence" for a lost civilization in antiquity as currently espoused by the above writers. You will find summarized here the notions that the Sphinx is far older than modern archaeologists would like to think, that the pyramids may be as well (which Hancock has since retracted, though he maintains that the ground plan is still super-ancient), and that other monuments in Latin America similarly speak of origins far in the distant past; that collected myths and legends from peoples all over the world speak of a common origin, in a civilization of great technical prowess that was destroyed by a worldwide cataclysm (essentially a summary of de Santillana and von Dechend's "Hamlet's Mill," albeit with conclusions they did not reach); that a series of old maps provides evidence of knowledge of the earth's contours in remote antiquity (a summary of Charles Hapgood's "Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings"); that the cataclysm in which this new vision of Atlantis was lost could be repeated the next time the earth's crust decides to shift (borrowed from Hapgood again).

  It is a mistake to consider anything that Hancock has done "research," as several other reviewers have done. His work consists of travelling the world to view ancient monuments and compiling the speculations of others. What results is often sloppy and inaccurate: Hancock repeats verbatim an assertion first made by Sitchin that early Egyptologist Howard Vyse forged the "quarry marks" in the Great Pyramid that link it to the pharoah Khafre, and this assertion has been rather conclusively proven wrong (as Hancock has admitted). Hancock also swallows whole the long-discredited theory of "earth crust displacement." Proponents make much of the fact that Einstein apparently liked this theory, but then Einstein was not a geologist, knew nothing of plate tectonics, and was wrong many other times in his life. Regardless, the "evidence" for a massive, concerted shift of the entirety of the earth's crust over such a short period has been completely invalidated by modern science. When Hancock mentions trees indicative of deciduous forest buried in Antarctic ice, he fails to recognize that these trees are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years old. And so on.

  It is chiefly by presenting a relentlessly one-sided view of the "evidence" he cites that Hancock creates the illusion of a coherent argument. In truth, the closer one looks at any single line of evidence in "Fingerprints," the less convincing it seems. Too many of Hancock's arguments rely on the inability to accept anything as coincidence, and the almost pathological impulse to manufacture coincidences where they may not actually exist. Anyone reading this book should be honor-bound to seek out the other side of the story--for example, Paul Jordan's "Riddles of the Sphinx" provides an excellent summary of how conventional archaeologists date the monuments of Egypt. It is not that difficult to find attempted refutations of most of Hancock's arguments on the internet. There is simply no excuse for taking "Fingerprints" as the last word on any of its subjects.

  This book is typical of tracts of "alternative archaeology" (one writer whose name escapes me termed pursuits such as these "pathological science") in that it often consists of first-person narrative. Hancock is a journalist and knows how to spin a tale for greatest effect; readers such as myself, however, who are not fans of travelogues may therefore find themselves impatient in certain sections. I give the book 3 stars simply for entertainment value--regardless of the truth or falsity of what's in "Fingerprints," it is fun to think about in a science-fictional vein. Those looking for the next paradigm shift should be greatly disappointed. _Should_ be, that is.
  
  

• But people want to believe it, don't they?

  
  By A3MHGGHQOCH11U on 2004-07-26
  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.
  
  
• Intriguing but flawed thesis
  By A3K6SQ9VPX94G0 on 2001-07-03
  I read this from the point of view of someone who believes that there is more about humanity than history has revealed. Therefore my expectation was to find out whether Hancock's book (recommended by my mother) would reveal anything to further convince me of my intuition. Although Hancock did reveal a few intriguing points about the possibility of some ancient but technologically advanced civilization, I found many of his arguments inherently flawed.
  
  In looking at something as profound as this, one should always try to detach oneself from the argument. Yet Hancock's bias clearly shows through. All the endless rhetorical questions that he bombarded the reader with suggested that he was searching only for evidence that supports his position. In other words, does he consider evidence to the contrary? He makes it sound as if there is some conspiracy of Egyptologists of hiding the truth. Are they really just idiots, or is there simply more evidence to suggest the contrary of Hancock's thesis?
  
  

  I also noticed that Hancock's thesis can be really convincing if read by someone who doesn't have a firm foundation in Egyptian history. There is also an over-dependence on how the Giza pyramids are aligned to Orion's belt. I'm not sure how that type of thing is calculated. I have a feeling that it's simply educated guesswork because I don't think the Egyptians mentioned specifically about this alignment. And if they were so keen on "transmitting the message", why not make it more obvious? Why not plaster the walls with pictures (which are as universal, and certainly more readily accessible) as mathematics.
  
  

  Another thing I don't understand, and this could be due to my own ignorance, is about the over-reliance on the constellations. When I look at the skies at night, I see stars. Thousands of them, allegedly, but the patterns don't really bounce of the sky. In fact, I don't think you can see a lion or a fish or a ram without someone telling you what the pattern looks like. Yet Hancock's thesis suggested that the Sphinx is the ancients' way of telling us that the sun rises in the constellation of Leo at their time. If they were so keen on making sure that their messages gets transmitted, why were they so certain that their descendents would also see a lion just as they did? Isn't that a bit risky?
  
  

  And finally: numerology. Numbers can be fun to play with, and certainly in the entire history of science and mathematics, we can find a lot of significant numbers. Maybe some of that is right, but maybe not. Again, it's educated guesswork. Hancock's entire thesis relied heavily on precession. I found it risky.
  
  

  My own guess is that we have both underestimated and overestimated the past. We underestimate them by assuming that they cannot possibly do anything as marvelous as the Giza and Mayan pyramids. They must have been assisted or even built entirely by some ancient race. Hancock wrote about the unlikelihood of the Egyptian civilization to spring into existence so abruptly, but then where did his hypothetical civilization spring up from? Doesn't this just defer the question further back in time?
  
  

  I found Hancock's final millennium/armaggedon ending a bit tasteless. If you can convince them through argument, shock them into persuasion, right? The verdict is certainly out there, and Hancock has managed to convince me that perhaps we should do more research in Antarctica, and other places. But his arguments require a real leap of faith, one that doesn't really seem convincing given the foundation that he builds his thesis on.
  
  

• The Black of Sheep of Hancock's Works
  By A3GOV8UUWMP08K on 2005-09-03
  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.
  
  
• Raises interesting questions
  By A2RL9JHYNEJ1QR on 2000-11-30
  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.
  
  

• Not worth your money or your time, really...
  By A2MY326T3XE2Y9 on 2004-05-20
  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.
  
  
• Unscientific and barely scholastic
  By A3ARIM945H0IJE on 2005-07-10
  I approached this book with an open mind, having heard several intriguing and convincing arguments regarding the subject previously. This was not one of them.
  
  Most of the time, Hancock dismisses the claims of historians and archeaologists regarding timelines by stating that when he visited the sites, he believed structures "looked older". This is hardly the rousing evidence I was expecting.
  
  Rather than making arguments, he really only makes insinuations. I eventually got tired of every other paragraph ending with "Could these vaguely similar myths/objects/facts be a coincidence...?" without giving any real indication as to why the reader should believe otherwise.
  
  He draws links between Ancient Egypt and Ancient South America with the resounding argument of "Bearded men, crosses, and serpents... Could these unique symbols, common to both cultures, be a simply coincidence...?" He usually doesn't answer his own question, leaving the reader to wonder why he really thinks these symbols are particularly unique.
  
  In examining a statue holding what is commonly interpreted as being an incense bag, our author decided that it instead looked like some kind of ancient ray gun or other mechanical weapon. But hey, he says, the picture is included so you decide. I was still unconvinced, despite yet more hard evidence - perhaps I needed more imagination to see the ray gun.
  
  Hancock makes a hamfisted attempt to insinuate his conclusions into your head, but if you're looking for some kind of real scholarly or scientific argument regarding this theory, then look somewhere else.
  
  
  
  
• Hancock plays on the ignorance and credulity of readers
  By AQSSFMNH9AXYD on 2001-12-07
  This book is pseudoscientific nonsense. Hancock uses all sorts of tricks to persuade reader's (and he loves the appeal to authority); it makes me sick to think that so many people will fall for it.

  Most of the "facts" and "data" that Hancock uses to support his vaguely articulated thesis are utter misrepresentations. A glaring example: His thesis rests on the assertion that the earth's crust was displaced in a short period of time (Hapgood's thesis; the earth's crust being like the peel of an orange, loosely attached to and rapidly sliding over the core). If this were to have happened to the earth's crust, then it would have caused catastrophic damage to everything on the earth's surface (in fact, the energy required to displace the earth's crust in so short a time would probably have resulted in the earth being reduced to interstellar rubble; but oh well, don't let the facts get in the way of an entertaining notion); according to Hancock's thesis, this crustal displacement destroyed some great, "lost", technologically and spiritually advanced civilization to which all 'historic' civilizations owe their heritage. Now, go and read the references Hancock cites as supporting this hypothesis (never mind the fact that Hancock does not cite and discuss scientific findings that do not support his thesis). I did. He cites some papers in legitimate, peer-reviewed science journals (good for Hancock as this differentiates him from most pseudoscientific crackpots) and those are the citations that I read for myself. The main article Hancock relies on for the crustal displacement theory does in fact support the claim that the earth's crust has been displaced in the past. And that is what Hancock in fact says. But the authors of this peer-reviewed article clearly state in no uncertain terms and their data quite plainly support their conclusion that the crustal displacement occurred over a period of many, MANY MILLIONS of years and occurred many, many MILLIONS of years ago, long before anything resembling a human being walked the planet. Hancock's crustal displacement theory requires that the displacement occurred a few thousand years ago and occurred over a very, very short period of time (like a few years, months,...). Clearly, Hancock is blatantly misrepresenting the results of real science.

  I found many, many other examples of this sort of deception and intellectual dishonesty. So frequent is it that there is no way Hancock can be forgiven on the basis of carelessness or the like. If you insist on paying money for this book and if you read the book, I strongly urge that you do yourself a favor and check for yourself some of the original sources that Hancock cites, especially those from peer-reviewed science journals and not the books from other authors who suffer from the same dishonesty as Hancock. There is very little work involved and besides, the library is a very pleasant place to read.
  
  

• Not sure what the complaints are about
  By A3H0I8UMCFTWFR on 2002-08-20
  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).
  
  

• Make up your own mind
  By AH39I9AYM233Q on 2000-03-07
  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.
  
  

• Non-scientific view of reality from a sensationalist reporter
  By AW495215W7QZT on 2005-08-21
  Why is this book getting any credibility? Hancock is a reporter, which is not the same thing as a scientist. His views are totally, and I do mean totally, off the deep end. He offers no real scientific evidence to back up anything he says except circumstantial evidence, which would not even hold up in a court of law if this were a court case. His views do not hold up to scientific scrutiny at all. I am totally fed up with the public view that states that any crackpot theory that includes the keywords "ancient pyramids," "lost civilizations," or "Atlantis" is somehow on the verge of some heretofore unheralded scientific mega-discovery that will prove all that we know is false or misleading. Scientists spend entire careers studying in their fields, and are specially trained to observe and interpret data using sound scientific methods. But when one of them disparages any of these nonsense theories they are dismissed by the lunatic fringe as being "establishment" or part of some conspiracy to fool mankind for some dark nefarious purpose. If being a responsible, informed scientist is being "establishment," than I am super proud to be of the "establishment" crowd. LONG LIVE THE ESTABLISHMENT! And please, IGNORE THIS BOOK!
  
  
• Interesting but Poorly Written
  By A1WOVIVOGQ49TL on 2001-01-12
  Graham Hancock succeeds in highlighting some curious aspects of ancient civilizations that seem to defy conventional thought on the antiquity of mathematics, astronomy, and architecture. His narrative loses more then it gains, however, because of poor writing and shoddy scholarship. A careful reading of the book, along with its footnotes, will highlight the decidedly unadvanced writing style of the author. It is apparent that Hancock does not know or follow the rules of citing references, as there are many statements of fact that should be cited that are not. Additionally his chapter on the ice ages and the end of the ice ages is filled with factual errors that significantly weaken his theory that ancient North Americans were continually subjected to earthquakes, volcanoes, and catastrophic floods which gave rise to great flood myths. Floods happened on millenial scales, not human scales, as melt water built up behind ice dams, and earthquakes were no more commen then they are today. Hancock goes on to make many more statements in this book that are either incorrect or not buttressed by his footnotes. His use of obsolete references coupled with overuse of a few sources detracts significantly from his work. Overall this book raises interesting notions but is so poorly written and filled with so many misreferenced or not referenced statements, not to mention some blatent factual errors, that it cannot be taken as a serious work of scholarship.
  
  
• What Welles was to Film Hancock is to History...
  By A3KB3T3K07ENOK on 2005-03-10
  Okay...I'll admit it. I just got through reading this book.
  
  I am about 5 years behind the rest of the population of Planet Earth in reading one of the most amazing books I have ever read.
  
  I had heard of Hancock here and there and read this or that patronizing, condescending review of his work and his theories.
  
  I had seen him on TV occasionally.
  
  But now...now that I have actually read what he has written...do I agree with every word or theory or conclusion...no. For One thing I am a Creationist and think Evolutionary Theory is laughable and crumbling before our eyes.
  
  But...that said...this book is truly a masterpiece...not an accumulation of theories from the lunatic fringe...but the analytical presentation of evidence that solidly refutes the linear version of History that many of us have been forced to eat all these years.
  
  The section on the History of Longitude was...believe it or not...riveting.
  
  Chapter 3 of this book is a perfect example. This chapter presents clear and inarguable evidence... (Photographs)...of legitimate authentic maps which show Antarctica described in detail long before it was "discovered."
  
  Maps which come many hundreds of years after the earlier one which detailed every nook and cranny of Antarctica...do not show Antarctica at all....?
  
  Then...once "discovered"...Antarctica again appears on Maps in the dimensions as on the earlier Maps from antiquity.
  
  Okay...YOU...explain that!
  
  This established Fact alone....by itself...is a fatal blow to the whole "History is Linear" argument that is the institutionalized version of History we are teaching our children....just as we were taught.
  
  Even for those who have new theories about the maps coming from China ignore the Longitude enigma.
  
  There is a sense that Hancock detractors need to discredit him because he is doing what....?....That is the question that perplexes me more than anything else. Why is it so necessary for establishment Historians and Egyptologist to have this fanatical response to Hancock? Are careers and reputations at stake?
  
  Another point in this groundbreaking Egyptologist shattering book...now infamous...is the fact that the Sphinx shows definitive signs of water erosion while the pyramids do not.
  
  Yet even now...to this day...Egyptologist refuse to even consider that the Sphinx could have been built at an earlier date.
  
  Hancock goes from one subject to another and displays a now legendary knowledge of sights and mysteries from all over the Globe.
  
  If you pay close attention to those who say Hancock is a loony bird...and you listen to what they are defending...then you again and again see that what Hancock is saying makes a whole lot more sense than the conventional explanations that we have been accepting as foundational truth.
  
  Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945) the Propaganda Minister for Nazi Germany once said that:
  
  "If one repeats a Lie long enough...then it becomes the truth!"
  
  Goebbels was wrong... a lie never does become the truth.
  
  But...if enough people believe the lie and then teach it...then it can tragically become the institutionalized version of truth for the population of a country or even an entire planet.
  
  Hancock seems to again and again be asking...If evidence refutes what we have been taught to believe is the truth about History...then should we continue to believe it?
  
  Such a simple question has had Egyptologist yelping like wounded dogs now for years as they are incapable of comprehending that they could even have their often ludicrous assumptions questioned.
  
  The Egyptologist and many Historians, Anthropologist and Archaeologist of our day are coming more and more to resemble and reflect the mentality of those in Cults.
  
  Those who when confronted with truth...would rather sit in a burning museum and die, or drink the tainted Collegiate lemonade than admit academic vulnerability. And that is only because these are modern times and thus they cannot hunt down Hancock and burn him at the stake!
  
  That is what Hancock seems up against...this ...I would rather burn than admit I was wrong... mentality.
  
  Perhaps the greatest mystery to me is how one man could have acquired, categorized and summarized such an incalculable amount of information and delivered it in such a pleasant and easy to read manner that has left the guardians of the linear History realm of Science and History in ruins.
  
  Say what you want about Hancock...but this man is a genius if ever there was such a thing.
  
  Lastly...some have lambasted Hancock as an Evolutionist.
  
  Well, hear this, I am a radical Creationist.
  
  Yes...Hancock does seem to give validity to some aspects of Evolution Theory...but yet...He also yields validity to much of the Bible that he references.
  
  Now to the idea proposed by many...that all of Hancock's conclusions are predetermined to have an Evolutionist ending to them...I'm confused by that.
  
  Hancock is a proponent of History being cyclical not Linear.
  
  Evolutionist and Egyptologist are radical proponents of a linear only version of History.
  
  So I'm not sure how Hancock is -guilty as charged- a proponent of Linear Evolutionary Theory...
  
  How can he be while at the same time....remember...this is the man who authored this trailblazing Landmark work of alternative History...such as the specific idea of the CYCLICAL Non-Linear version of the History of Mankind.....think about that.
  
  Anyway...this book is truly the work of a trailblazing master of his craft.
  
  
• A Great Read
  By on 2000-01-28
  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!
  
  
• A Great Read, but leaves questions unanswered
  By on 1998-12-08
  This was the fastest 500 pages I've ever read, which is high praise for an "archaelogy book." But can it be called a work of archaelogy? There's no denying Hancock has a way of ending his chapters to hook the reader to the next, and the next... But to what end? That the remains of an unknown civilzation rests beneath 2 miles of ice in Antarctica? If that's true, shouldn't we be looking? If a "advanced seafaring race" evolved on Artarctica, why would their fingerprints lie so far away--that is, in Ancient Egypt? Wouldn't we expect to see their signs closer to home, say, in southern Africa, rather than northern Africa? And if the Sphinx really was constructed thousands of years before the First Dynasty of the Ancient Egyptians, how can we explain the face, which so clearly represents a dynastic king? Hancock suggests that the head of the Sphinx was "resculpted" thousands of years later, but what kind of people would perpetrate such an act of vandalism on a monument which Hancock himself suggests was passed down from the "time of the gods." This would constitute high blasphemy in any culture. There are many other contradictions and basic errors in logic in this book. For example, at point he suggests that the Sphinx represents not a lion's body, but a dog's (in reference to the numerous canine myths of doglike "civilizers"); then later he turns 180 degrees around and suggests that the Sphinx was intended to represent the zodiac sign of Leo (not to even mention how an ancient civilization 10,000 years before Christ would even know about the signs of the zodiac). The Orion connection also begs the question: if the three pyamids at Giza represent the "belt stars" wouldn't we expect to find corresponding monuments for the stars representing the "shoulders" and "legs" of Orion? Wouldn't this send a clearer message of the "star mapping" intent of its builders to future civilizations? Bauval's idea that pyramids are "instruments" meant to stimulate ideas about the mathematics and engineering for future civilizations sounds very nice and "new agey" but this is a subjective opinion with no basis in fact whatsoever. It's just a poetic construct. I could say the same thing about modern football stadiums, which are also built to exacting mathematical standards. The point is, that is not the intention of the builders, is it? Or is it?
  
  
• The most thought provoking book I've read in years...
  By A36CDB51TCKZRE on 2005-11-22
  Hancock's book, "Fingerprints of the Gods," puts forth the argument that a great, scientific, and advanced civilization existed around 12,000 - 14,000 BC. Hancock argues that although archeologists have of yet not found tangible evidence of this civilization, we have an abundance of evidence in the forms of myth, maps, and architecture that conclusively prove the existence of this culture. This civilization, he argues, passed down knowledge after a great catastrophe and largely influenced the civilizations of antiquity - thus, influencing our own modern civilization. "Fingerprints" is largely the detailed analysis of this evidence and the tying together of these "strings" to form a coherent hypothesis. Hancock's theories are not just tantalizing - they are as seemingly solid as the massive monoliths that make up the pyramids at Giza, of which he speaks on at great lengths. I stayed up late reading this book night after night - it captivated me. I highly recommend this book to those interested in broadening their horizons.
  
  
• A Well Presented Theory
  By AAEP8YFERQ8FC on 2006-08-22
  I'm a big fan of ancient history. I remember when I went to a university open day toward the end of high school. I wandered over to the archaeology wing, and in a glass case they had a genuine Sumerian cuneiform, one of the oldest pieces of writing in known history. It was only a little one, but I remember being mesmerized by it. I'm also a big fan of alternative histories, because I do have a feeling there is more to prehistory than there appears, and have read quite a few of the "essential" reads.
  
  Alternative history books are a bit of a mixed bag as a genre. Some of them are really good, exciting and well researched (like Charles Berlitz' "Mysteries of Forgotten Worlds"), while others (like Erick Von Daniken's "Chariots of the Gods") are nutty rants about ancient spacemen and UFOs, stuff that makes for a good unintentional science fiction, the way a bad film can be a good unintentional comedy. Graham Hancock's "Fingerprints of the Gods", a reasonably thick volume speculating about a lost, ancient civilization, is one of the really good ones. Though its theory and evidence is something fans of alternate history like myself have read time and time again in different forms throughout the genre, I have hardly ever seen a book of this type presented as well as this one.
  
  Graham Hancock, over eight parts, discusses his theory. He has noticed that certain ancient peoples like the Mayans, Incas and Egyptians had a phenomenal understanding of mapmaking, mathematics and astronomy. Where had this knowledge come from, he wonders? Why were they so interested in this things? These same ancient peoples had also created great monolithic structures that even modern technology would struggle to reproduce. How had they done it? Hancock suggests a third party influenced all of these cultures, a third party hinted at through the various mythologies of the people. Also hinted at by worldwide myths is the idea of a global disaster, a deluge, a flood. Hancock believes in the worldwide flood, and connects it to the turbulence of what has been called the last Ice Age. It is this Ice Age, he says, that decimated a culture as intellegent and resilient as our own, a culture of which only remnants of their history exist, some remnants being some very famous ancient structures. Through references to the positions of the stars, he believes this civilization would have existed around 10,450 BC, several thousand years before the accepted dawn of civilization. Though Hancock is initially baffled as to where the hub of such a lost culture would have existed, he gets a little help from his friends, fellow alternate historians Rand and Rose Flem-Ath to be exact, and places the lost civilization's home in Antarctica, which they believe was once a little further north, a little more temperate, in times past.
  
  Graham Hancock's writing style, for the most part, is pretty easy to understand. I say for the most part because a couple of the astronomical and mathematical parts went right over my head. Still, he provides plenty of diagrams, and his wife Santha Faiia provides plenty of glossy photographs to go with his wonderfully vivid descriptions of each nation and people he discusses. He seems very passionate about the subject matter, yet never goes over the top and always checks himself before he can go off track. He is a meticulous researcher and has a hefty 70 pages of footnotes for those like me who are interested (there's a few ancient texts I'd never heard of before I now want to read!) Though he questions conventional historians and archaeologists, you can tell that he really respects their work, which is more than you can say for some alternate historians. Though he subscribes to the theory of evolution and throws in the Bible into the category of myth, you can tell Hancock has something of a belief and respect in a Creator and of spirituality. For instance, the book concludes with an interview between him and a 90 year old Hopi elder, who is grieving over the state of today's society, which may disappear as suddenly as Hancock's lost civilization if it isn't careful. The author is clearly deeply moved by the Hopi's words.
  
  Hancock's theory depends a lot on the procession of the zodiac, which, under various guises, was known by many cultures. One thing that bugged me was that he never actually explains who he believed thought up the zodiac, which I thought he would have done since it's such a cornerstone of his theory. Ah well, Jonathan Gray's book "Sting of the Scorpion" (which I've read) provided a very simple yet very eye opening history of its origins, so I'm not too fussed.
  
  In his research, Hancock and his wife travelled to each place, and in parts it feels almost like an armchair travel book. I thought it was quite a nice touch, actually. I've always thought it would be nice to go to Peru and after reading Hancock's beautiful descriptions, looking at the delicious pictures and poring over his full map of the Nazca Lines from above, I'm thinking a bit more seriously of going over there and checking it out, when I have a bit of money to spare. Mind you, I wouldn't recommend some of the things Graham and his missus do to travellers (like bribing the guards of the Great Pyramid so they can climb to the top at 3 in the morning!).
  
  This book has been, like many alternate histories, rather influential on certain works of science fiction that have followed. I have seen a couple of films which set a lost civilization buried under the ice Anarctica since this book was first published (The film "Alien Vs Predator", for example)
  
  All in all, this is a great, interesting, eye opening book. If you're at all interested, I highly recommend you pick it up. If you're a newcomer to this sort of book, you'll be amazed, and if you're a regular reader of this sort of thing, while you'll see similar evidence you've seen before (The Piri Reis map, the Nazca Lines, etc), there are a few fascinating tidbits I haven't seen anywhere else. If you read this book and enjoyed it, I recommend you pick up "Dead Men's Secrets" by Jonathan Gray and "Mysteries From Forgotten Worlds" by Charles Berlitz, books which are just as fine as this one.
  
  
  
• A Travel Journal Through Time
  By ATMDDRA2SM4V9 on 2007-02-25
  According to Graham Hancock in his book, The Fingerprints Of The Gods, "The Egyptian god Thoth was said to have succeeded in understanding the mysteries of the heavens [and to have] revealed them by inscribing them in sacred books which he then hid here on earth, intending that they should be searched for by future generations but only found by the truly worthy..." (Page 495)
  
  For Hancock, the books of Thoth may not necessarily be physical books at all, but merely metaphors, and they are not just limited to Egypt. These "books" lie in the Egyptian pyramids and other buildings, in legends and myths gathered from all over the world, in old maps recently discovered, and in ancient Mayan calendar systems and structures. These buildings, systems, and myths point to an advanced culture that existed prior to our known and recorded history, before the last ice age, that left its mark on the world for future generations. The "truly worthy" that Thoth referred to would be a civilization like our own that has an advanced grasp of the sciences such as astronomy and mathematics. Such a civilization could decipher and understand what was left behind.
  
  Graham Hancock is a former correspondent for both The Economist and The London Sunday Times. He is also the author of the international best seller, Sign And The Seal, his own personal quest for the biblical Ark of the Covenant. In Fingerprints Of The Gods, Hancock lays out a vast array of evidence for a long lost, yet advanced civilization. He seems to gather this evidence as independent clues and draws reasonable suppositions as to what they might mean. For example, Hancock believes the advanced civilization that existed prior to our own was destroyed around the time of the flood as described in the Judeo-Christian bible. In addition to the flood of the bible, he compares similar flood stories from many different cultures such as those told by the Incas, the Mayans, the Sumerians, The Dakota Indians, the Greeks, and the Egyptians, to name only a few. Many of these cultures share common beliefs in their stories of a cataclysmic flood:
  
  The flood was caused by a god's displeasure with the human race.
  A person, or a very small group of people, received prior warning of the flood.
  A craft was constructed by these people in order to survive the flood.
  Animals and food were placed upon the craft in order to repopulate the world after the flood.
  These people sent out birds to find land after the rain had stopped.
  Eventually, the craft came to rest upon a mountain and the people on board eventually repopulated the earth.
  
  Hancock goes further than simply drawing comparisons from these flood stories from many different cultures. He includes archaeological and geological evidence as well, and eventually draws the conclusion that the stories of a cataclysm are real, and that mankind did somehow survive it. Additionally, he asserts that this pre-flood civilization was very advanced, and that the proof of this lies in the many unexplained markers this civilization is responsible for leaving behind. These markers are in such places as the pyramids on the Giza Plateau, The pyramids and structures of the Olmecs and the Mayans, and the structures and clay tablets of the Sumerians.
  
  This is not a book written by a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist. This book is full of scientific and scholarly references as well as known myths and legends gathered from all over the world. Anyone interested in exploring the possibility of an advanced culture existing prior to our own will thoroughly enjoy this work. Despite the fact that this book is full of such references, Graham Hancock writes in a friendly manner and the book often reads like a travel journal. He takes a great deal of time to explain some of the more complicated material. A reader who is interested in Egyptology, the pyramids, ancient South American cultures, and even the lost continent of Atlantis, will find each part of this book interesting and informative. In the end, it's hard to say if Hancock draws solid and concrete theories or sets firm dates for anything. His intention appears to be to collect the evidence, to lay it out in an easy to understand manner, and allow the reader to draw a conclusion. After all, this is merely The Fingerprints Of The Gods.
  
  Brian Douthit
  Editor of Eyes Of The Poet: Love and Passion in Lasting Splendor
  
  
• Loathe science? Then you'll love this book!
  By A3RFBI8RATJDBP on 2000-05-09
  Many readers find Mr Hancock's ideas exciting challenges to the established orthodoxy. Well I suppose they are, but for a new theory to overturn an old one, it is generally the case that the new theory encompasses established facts and includes new ones which are at odds with the old theory. The overturning of classical mechanics by quantum mechanics is the typical example here.

  My problem with Mr Hancock's work is not that he challenges scientific orthodoxy, indeed anyone with the slightest acquaintance with science will know that such challenges are the very lifeblood of the advance of scientific understanding, but that there are glaring examples of his theory not accounting for facts perfectly adequately explained by existing theories. An example is the aging of Antarctic ice cores, Mr Hancock does not address the issue of how they can be so much older than would be allowed by his theory.

  While Mr Hancock's research may be "brilliant", to quote other reviewers, it certainly is not exhaustive.

  At the end of the day, Mr Hancock has presented a new theory, the onus is on him to show why it should be taken seriously. Making basic errors is not the way to persuade the scientific community.
  
  

• Fatally flawed, but interesting
  By AA4STYJ8ODNUJ on 2000-06-20
  The author of this book makes two main mistakes:

  1. He starts with a conclusion. In a violation of the scientific method, Mr. Hancock begins at the end; at the start of his work he has already decided that the Earth was home to a civilized people (from Atlantis?) millenia before current data suggests. He then distorts evidence to "prove" this thesis in much the same manner that Creationists distort data to prove their absurdities; by only allowing for one explanation for any apparent anomaly.

  2. Ethnocentrism and out-dated Anthropology. Hancock's work is also tainted by his acceptance of a cultural fallacy: That civilized life is the easiest, most "advanced" form of human social existance, and that it is a goal that all humans work toward, adopted by food-foragers as soon as they are given the oppurtunity. However this concept of unilineal evolution has been disproven over and over again, starting with Marshall Sahlins' 1972 book "Stone Age Economics." This puts the lie to phrases used by Hancock such as "golden age of agricultural plenty" and reveals the real (but perhaps unconscious) purpose behind the book as an attempt to explain why, since civilization and intensive agriculture are so wonderful, fully modern humans existed without them for 100,000 years.

  Despite these very serious flaws the book does raise some very interesting points, such as the apparent evidence of water-erosion on the Sphynx, and (most interesting) the apparently ancient map detailing an ice-free Anartica. Unfortunately, the serious problems detailed before cast a shadow over the credibility of the entire work, which makes me much less able to readily accept these enigmas, which would be very intriguing in a different context. However they are enough, combined with Fingerprints of the Gods well-written and very readable presentation, to lead me to give this book 2 stars instead of one. Readers are advised to take everything Hancock says with a very big grain of salt.
  
  

• Questionable solutions to intelligent questions
  By A3UTJ1XGIONDKP on 1999-03-08
  It's not a hard task to find flaws and half truths in Hancock's "Fingerprints of the Gods" and many reviewers have done so. Hancock seems to have acquired only as much familiarity with the subjects of mythology, sacred art and symbolism, egyptology, religion, geology and astronomy as was necessary to dress up his theory of a lost mother civilization from Antarctica bringing the gift of its own civilization to different peoples in South America, Mesopotamia and Egypt after a worldwide catastrophe has destroyed the original cultures in these places and forced the surviving communities into forgetfulness and savagery. Hancock has woven together a great number of fascinating facts but may have left out more pieces of the jigsaw puzzle than he thinks. For example, how will his theory accomodate the extremely old traditions handed down through Hinduism, traditions barely mentioned in his book?

  It is also disconcerting to see myths and sacred symbols interpreted as coded descriptions of physical realities (don't expect to find anything truly attributed to God in this book) while it should really be the other way around. Just as in genuinely spiritual alchemy, the physical appearances of things (including the constellations above us) serve as supports and symbols for entirely abstract realities. Thus, a pole stuck into the ground, regardless of its eventual practical or magical uses, actually and much more importantly symbolizes a number of levels of reality (psychic or spiritual as the case may be), anywhere from a vertebral column to Immutability itself. Likewise, flood myths are not quasi-literal eyewitness accounts of what happened physically to our forefathers on some specific occasion or what will happen to our progeny in the near future (though many such things probably did and might again happen), but is rather an allegorical way of teaching us about the principle of cosmic cycles and, ultimately, to allow us to transpose this same notion to analogical realities pertaining to our own spiritual constitution. In this lies the true meaning and usefulness of such symbols. In short, history and empirical facts can add nothing to sacred symbols and myths since the latter were formulated to express the essence of the former and not to depict any odd number of contingencies.

  But let us not miss all the good parts in Hancock's exciting hunt for a meaning in prehistoric sites. The book reads well and at times can be hard to put down. Above all, Hancock has a rare and precious talent for applying an all-too-rare common sense to simple, observable facts, such as when he asks us why builders supposedly unassisted by heavy machinery would go to the trouble of handling 200-ton blocks when their stoneworking skills indicate they could as easily have cut them down to brick size, or why the largest and most skillfully erected constructions in the world (the pyramids at Giza) feature corridors one cannot stand up in, or how half-savage artisans could have hollowed out and worked the inside of perfect and almost indestructible stone recipients, or even why ancient farming peoples would have created enormous stone calendars for predicting dates which they must have had fixed before they brought in the first boulder and which any country-born person is able to determine well enough for agricultural purposes.

  Thus, I have located tens of instances where Hancock's common sense has been put brilliantly to use raising issues to which specialists have never given us anything but rather puerile explanations. So while "Fingerprints of the Gods" may be superficial in several of the complex disciplines it necessarily encompasses, drawing conclusions much too fast and one-sidedly, it clearly outstrips a great many experts in its overall common sense approach to a bulk of "anomalous" evidence whose consequences these experts have unforgivably turned a blind eye to. It's all very well for experts to shake their heads at Hancock's attempts at erudition, but maybe they should apply their privileged minds to answering the riddles posed by the intriguing level of perfection inherent in the prehistoric engineering works Hancock has so laboriously sampled for our appreciation.
  
  

• Interesting book, demands more research
  By A10T0OW97SFBB on 2006-03-10
  This is the second Hancock book that I have read (Message of the Sphinx was the other), and I liked this one a lot better, though both are good. In this book, Hancock presents the case for an unidentified, very advanced civilization which passed its legacy on to the Egyptians and South/Central American peoples. He has no shortage of evidences, and while some of them are less than convincing, many seem unexplanable in the traditional explanation of man's history.
  
  Some parts are taken a bit too far (for example, he seems to buy into the Mayan's claim that the earth will experience a huge cataclysmic event in 2012), and there are some logical leaps, but there are also many, many things he brings forth which are rather convincing. I have noticed that when people criticize this book they focus on those few bad sections and present no argument against the many good sections Hancock has. Until someone qualified steps forward and attempts to refute Hancock's claims (I have yet to see anyone other than a few laymen on their websites do so), I will have to assume that they have nothing to refute him with, since it has been over a decade since many of his theories were brought forth, and nearly a half-century since Hamlet's Mill (another book along the same lines) was released, and to the best of my knoledge, there has not been anything substantial written to refute their claims.
  
  If you're looking for an interesting read, this is an amazing book. All kinds of things are in here which will make you really think about humanity's history. There are so many interesting facts that he presents in his compelling case, it is hard to process them all. I decided to take notes in a notebook for the other book I had read by him and ended up with 20 pages or so of notes. I took one glance at this book and realized that if I took notes on it, it would take weeks to read because there would be so much to write down.
  
  Overall grade: A
  
  
• Read for a laugh, and from it learn to think critically!
  By on 1999-10-04
  Garbage! I'm embarrassed I didn't more carefully investigate this book before wasting my money.

  Oh please, give me a break- a 2,000 mile shift of Antartica in a 11,000 year time period, isn't that like a geologic femtosecond? It must have caused some catastrophically enormous earth quakes. Why it is a miracle the earth didn't just blow up! Well, I'm no geologist (and neither was Albert Einstein, and by the way- what an appauling appeal to authority), but I do know there is a vast body of research literature (serious and peer-reviewed) about plate tectonics and paleoclimatology that could have, and should have been cited if this absurd hypothesis is to be taken seriously.
  
  

• In defense of Graham Hancock
  By A3NQI2JLNPFOF8 on 2003-09-10
  Regarding Antarctica in Hancock's controversy, even if the geological record doesn't support some of Hancock's and Hapgood's theories, what I find more interesting are the ancient maps (particularly the Piris Reis map) that dinstinctively cartograph Antartica without the ice sheets. Many of these geological features presented in the maps have only been recently confirmed. How were these maps made centuries before the 'official' discovery of Antartica? Many reviewers have accused Hancock of being all too willing to prove his personal theories. They have stated that a 'critical thinker' would conclude otherwise. But, how does critical thinking lead a researcher away from documented evidence of the existance of a continent that could only have been mapped from the air and thousands of years ago?

  Many attack Hancock and accuse him as an ignorant researcher because of his lack of credentials. Actually, those in the 'official' archaeological community purposely shy away from such ancient mysteries and their implications for fear of being outcasted by their colleagues. If that sounds silly and unbelievable try getting a grant from a university and tell them you want to investigate what could be the remnants of Atlantis and see what happens> There are "conventional theories" in archaeology and these theories are never challenged without ridicule
  
  

• Seriously Investigating Ancient Mysteries
  By A2VP7JOT3K7PFM on 2005-03-05
  +++++
  
  In this book (that has sold more than three million copies) by journalist, correspondent, and author Graham Hancock, Hancock presents the reader with "the evidence of Earth's lost civilization." He does this by going to different parts of the world and observing ancient structures & artifacts, studying myths & maps; then asking the reader and himself questions about what he's observed and studied; speculating and theorizing on possible scientific answers to these questions; and finally coming to conclusions.
  
  This book is easy-to-understand, well written, well-laid out, and has many illustrations throughout. There are also four sets of intriguing and beautiful black & white pictures, a total of almost seventy-five in total.
  
  The areas of the world he travels too are Peru, Bolivia, Central America, and Egypt. Personally, I found the two parts on Egypt very interesting and fascinating.
  
  I discovered that you can't rate this book properly without rating various criteria of it. (It seems that some of my fellow reviewers below based their rating on just one criterion of this book making it worse or better than it really is.) What I will do is rate this book on five criteria and my true rating will be an average.
  
  On the basis of what Hancock observed and the many questions he asks about what he's observed, this book deserves a solid 5 star rating. True, many modern-day scholars can answer some of these questions (unsatisfactorily in my opinion) but many of these questions remain unanswered.
  
  The topics covered in this book include astronomy, ancient history, archaeology, Egyptology, architecture, geology, geography, art, engineering, mythology, and mathematics. All concepts are thoroughly explained with illustrations, in most cases, aiding the explanation. On this basis alone, this book deserves a 5 star rating.
  
  I had problems with the two parts on mythology (comprised of legends, folk tales etc.). It's easy to read too much into what a myth means, and I feel that perhaps Hancock was doing this. Possible rating based on this: 2.5 stars.
  
  For a book of this type, you have to allow for speculation. However Hancock's speculation leaves room for much argument. Possible rating based on this: 3 stars.
  
  I had my main problem with Hancock's conclusion that makes up the last part of his book. There is sound, factual, scientific evidence that strongly contradicts what Hancock claims. On the basis of this conclusion I would give the book a 2 star
  rating.
  
  Despite my low rating for Hancock's conclusion, he does state by quoting someone else, what I feel is the real conclusion of his book:
  
  "We are told that the evolution of human civilization is a linear process-that it goes from stupid caveman to smart old us with our hydrogen bombs and striped toothpaste. But the proof [indicates] that [this may not be true]."
  
  Don't worry! There's nothing in this book about Atlanteans, extra-terrestrials, or flying saucers. This book comprises a serious investigation.
  
  Finally, I recommend this videotape set for increased understanding of this topic: "Quest for the Lost Civilization" (1998). Also recommended is the videotape: "The Mystery of the Sphinx" (1993).
  
  In conclusion, this fascinating book examines and analyzes ancient mysterious. If you like mysteries like I do, then you have to read this book!!
  
  *** 1/2
  
  (first published 1995; acknowledgements; 8 parts or 52 chapters; main narrative of 505 pages; references; select bibliography; index)
  
  +++++
  
  
  
• Needs more evidence
  By A2MQIZOARXH2HD on 1999-12-18
  I am shocked by the number of positive reviews of this book. People in this country must have extremly little background in science if they believe the thesis of this book. If anyone had done research on any of Hancock's claims, they would know that he makes entirely illogical and unscientific arguments. Future readers- don't waste your time with this pretend science.
  
  
• Read This First
  By on 1999-11-04
  I wish I had read "The Wild Side of Geoarchaeology Page", a web site maintained by Paul V. Heinrich, before buying this book. Like many reviewers, I was impressed by the "evidence" quoted in the book and the detailed references. But sadly Hancock's research seems to break down when those references are critically investigated. Finally, I am puzzled by the comments about the quality of the writing. I found it plodding, burdened by whimsical speculation and pointless introspection. Many times I wondered what the manuscript looked like before the editors went to work.
  
  

• Supernatural: Meetings with the Ancient Teachers of Mankind
• The Message of the Sphinx: A Quest for the Hidden Legacy of Mankind
• Underworld: The Mysterious Origins of Civilization
• Sign and the Seal: The Quest for the Lost Ark of the Covenant
• The Orion Mystery: Unlocking the Secrets of the Pyramids