Fingerprints of the Gods

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).


A Travel Journal Through Time   February 25, 2007
B. Douthit
17 out of 19 found this review helpful

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


In defense of Graham Hancock   September 10, 2003
nico_laos (Earth)
11 out of 14 found this review helpful

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