NationStates Jolt Archive

I just finished reading Graham Hancock's "Fingerprints of the Gods".

I want to know what those who are deeply informed in the field of archaeology feel about his work.

What things can you flatly disprove?

What things can you not?

I'm looking to get a glimpse into the other side of the issues now that I've read his take.

A VERY brief synopsis follows:

Mr. Hancock suggests, based on his extensive research, that the history of human civilization is much older than modern archaeologists say it is. He submits that human civilization is a legacy from an as-yet-unknown civilization that existed milennia before the Sumerians or Egyptians and met their doom around 10,500 B.C. The book is essentially a catalogue of things, written in a pretty entertaining narrative fashion, that explain how he came to that conclusion.

Not heard of him.

If you want interesting stuff talk a look at forbidden archaeology.

It deals with things that don't fit with the "flow" of things in history.....

At a cursory glance, Hancock appears to be following in the footsteps of Erich Von Daniken, with his Chariots of the Gods.

Fingerprints sounds like a fun book (http://knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/fingerprints/) to read, though.

Not heard of him.

If you want interesting stuff talk a look at forbidden archaeology.

It deals with things that don't fit with the "flow" of things in history.....

I have that book. I've heard a lot of skepticism about it, but much of that has to do with the credibility of the authors.

I'm pretty fascinated by speculative history, but I always like to hear people who are well-learned in the field telling me why they think the speculation is wrong (or right).

At a cursory glance, Hancock appears to be following in the footsteps of Erich Von Daniken, with his Chariots of the Gods.

Fingerprints sounds like a fun book (http://knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/fingerprints/) to read, though.

They are similar in that they espouse a different idea of human history than the currently accepted one, but Hancock doesn't attribute anything to aliens or (so far as I know) make wildly radical leaps in his logical progression.

Percentage of NS forum goers who arearchaeology buffs: 2%
Percentage of NS forum goers who have read this book: 0.5%
Percentage of both: 0.01%

You had better explain the author's main points if you hope to get the sort of reply you are looking for.

I have that book. I've heard a lot of skepticism about it, but much of that has to do with the credibility of the authors.

I'm pretty fascinated by speculative history, but I always like to hear people who are well-learned in the field telling me why they think the speculation is wrong (or right).

Ah! I figured you would like it and left out the skepticism aspects. :)

Thanks for mentioning that.

Percentage of NS forum goers who arearchaeology buffs: 2%
Percentage of NS forum goers who have read this book: 0.5%
Percentage of both: 0.01%

You had better explain the author's main points if you hope to get the sort of reply you are looking for.

That's fine. I was only interested in hearing from people who know their history/archaeology and have read the book.

Those interested in a quick synopsis of his argument should follow Willamena's link.

A VERY brief synopsis follows:

Mr. Hancock suggests, based on his extensive research, that the history of human civilization is much older than modern archaeologists say it is. He submits that human civilization is a legacy from an as-yet-unknown civilization that existed milennia before the Sumerians or Egyptians and met their doom around 10,500 B.C. The book is essentially a catalogue of things, written in a pretty entertaining narrative fashion, that explain how he came to that conclusion.

Ah! I figured you would like it and left out the skepticism aspects. :)

Thanks for mentioning that.

I have enjoyed it. But as with anything that deviates from "the norm" I tend to take it with a grain of salt until I hear from people in the relevant scientific/social field to rebut.

My personal belief is that most of what we think we know about human history is wrong, but I don't accept any new explanation until I think I've gotten a firm grasp on its pros and cons.

I've not got around to reading that yet, but the 'Atlantis Blueprint' by Flem-Ath deals with a lot of the same concepts and to be honest, it all seems more like a series of coincidences and circumstantial evidence than a conclusive theory. In particular references to the origins of the Egyptian pyramids can easily be refuted by looking at the assortment of failed attempts that chart their development.

I've not got around to reading that yet, but the 'Atlantis Blueprint' by Flem-Ath deals with a lot of the same concepts and to be honest, it all seems more like a series of coincidences and circumstantial evidence than a conclusive theory. In particular references to the origins of the Egyptian pyramids can easily be refuted by looking at the assortment of failed attempts that chart their development.

Two things can be a coincidence. If you have a laundry list of things, can you really call that a coincidence?

As far as the Pyramids go, I think what you're saying is that you can track the development of the "Pyramid" as architecture through early mastabas, bent pyramids, etc, right?

That's fine. I was only interested in hearing from people who know their history/archaeology and have read the book.

Those interested in a quick synopsis of his argument should follow Willamena's link.

A VERY brief synopsis follows:

Mr. Hancock suggests, based on his extensive research, that the history of human civilization is much older than modern archaeologists say it is. He submits that human civilization is a legacy from an as-yet-unknown civilization that existed milennia before the Sumerians or Egyptians and met their doom around 10,500 B.C. The book is essentially a catalogue of things, written in a pretty entertaining narrative fashion, that explain how he came to that conclusion.

Is he the guy who claims that the Sphinx is 10,000+ years old because of the weathering on the torso?

I've read a book called "Technology of the Gods," which suggests the same idea, based on some, though not smoking-gun, very intriguing evidence.

He sites carvings on Egyptian tomb walls that show things like(no joke, he had pictures) airplanes, UFOs and electric lightbulbs. The lightbulbs is likely actually, because until that hypothesis, no one had a good theory on how the Egyptians could carve/paint in their tombs. They didn't use mirrors, and torches would have left carbon residue and burn marks.

He details the finding of very unusual small objects like skrews and even what appears to be something similar to a sparkplug in rock so ancient it reaches back to the early era of Homo-Sapien man. Such higher-tech discoveries are not mere fancy, I recall that recently enough, someone found an ancient battery in Baghdad.

Also unusually enough, there was a roman coin from the reign of I believe Augustus, found in the bottom of an ancient mine shaft in South Africa.

Continuing with the ancient figherplane idea, he discusses a small amulet found in Central America that was made of gold, that has all the aerodynamic qualities of a modern fighter jet, including swept back wings, and a delta-shaped tail. In an unrelated history channel thing that touched on the same object, an aeronautical engineer built a much larger but exactly proportioned model of that amulet, stuck a small engine on it, and it flies quite well. Another amulet, though animorphic in nature, has several unusual features in common with modern earth-moving equiptment.

There is a section on metalworking that discusses(among other things) a large iron pillar in India that apparently dates back well before mankind(ala the Hittite Empire) was thought to be able to work Iron.

Then there is the less solid evidence, gathered from records, myths and whatnot. E.G. This guy goes deep into Hindu writings regarding high-technology, written thousands of years ago. From what I remember, there are distinctly drawn differences in the old Hindu writings between what is fiction, myth and religion, and what is historical and factual to those people - the discussions of high technology(including land and air machines(Vimanas)) fall under the factual, matter-of-fact writings. The Ramayana, though mythical, details in no uncertain terms large aerial battles of people in vehicles.

That's all I can remember right now. The book was very interesting, though not as well written as I would have preferred for someone making such claims. It's rather interesting stuff at the very least.

Is he the guy who claims that the Sphinx is 10,000+ years old because of the weathering on the torso?

He is one of them, yes. There are a lot of people who think the Sphinx is that old.

I've read a book called "Technology of the Gods," which suggests the same idea, based on some, though not smoking-gun, very intriguing evidence.

He sites carvings on Egyptian tomb walls that show things like(no joke, he had pictures) airplanes, UFOs and electric lightbulbs. The lightbulbs is likely actually, because until that hypothesis, no one had a good theory on how the Egyptians could carve/paint in their tombs. They didn't use mirrors, and torches would have left carbon residue and burn marks.

He details the finding of very unusual small objects like skrews and even what appears to be something similar to a sparkplug in rock so ancient it reaches back to the early era of Homo-Sapien man. Such higher-tech discoveries are not mere fancy, I recall that recently enough, someone found an ancient battery in Baghdad.

Also unusually enough, there was a roman coin from the reign of I believe Augustus, found in the bottom of an ancient mine shaft in South Africa.

Continuing with the ancient figherplane idea, he discusses a small amulet found in Central America that was made of gold, that has all the aerodynamic qualities of a modern fighter jet, including swept back wings, and a delta-shaped tail. In an unrelated history channel thing that touched on the same object, an aeronautical engineer built a much larger but exactly proportioned model of that amulet, stuck a small engine on it, and it flies quite well. Another amulet, though animorphic in nature, has several unusual features in common with modern earth-moving equiptment.

There is a section on metalworking that discusses(among other things) a large iron pillar in India that apparently dates back well before mankind(ala the Hittite Empire) was thought to be able to work Iron.

Then there is the less solid evidence, gathered from records, myths and whatnot. E.G. This guy goes deep into Hindu writings regarding high-technology, written thousands of years ago. From what I remember, there are distinctly drawn differences in the old Hindu writings between what is fiction, myth and religion, and what is historical and factual to those people - the discussions of high technology(including land and air machines(Vimanas)) fall under the factual, matter-of-fact writings. The Ramayana, though mythical, details in no uncertain terms large aerial battles of people in vehicles.

That's all I can remember right now. The book was very interesting, though not as well written as I would have preferred for someone making such claims. It's rather interesting stuff at the very least.

Hancock touches on a couple of the things you've mentioned, but the thrust of his book is more to put a few different anomalies together to make a coherent argument. Sounds like the book you're talking about is more like a catalogue of anomalies.

But yes, there are a lot of strange things to be found.