Fingerprints of the Gods - Book Review

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:34 pm

What did you think of the 'fish scales' with Viracocha and the Sumerian god Oannes?

Pretty amazing coincidence.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:30 pm

On the surface of it, it would not seem too amazing that two ancient deities would be dressed in the same animal skin, since early man both deified and ritualized the animals that he depended on for food.

We know that ancient man dressed in every form of animal skin. However, I think the eye opening fact is that both of them - Viracocha and Oannes, both are given credit for being the bringers of wisdom to mankind.

Many cultures around the earth have a bringer of wisdom - or light. Or fire in the case of Prometheus.

There may not be an answer at this time, but the question remains.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:44 pm

Aside from Prometheus, who is punished for bringing fire to mankind, it's interesting that in the early mesopotamian lore Lucifer is the "bringer of light".

In the early texts of the Israelites, the serpent encourages man to "eat of the fruit of the tree of the "knowledge of good and evil". Which would make the serpent the bringer of wisdom.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:55 pm

Well, again, the "early" Israelite texts were copied from earlier cultures but there is certainly a common thread through much of this stuff.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:28 pm

Sure. It's all regional stuff. But the similarities are striking, and occur in much the same way on the other side of the world. It took a while to get the Jewish folks off the Baal thing.

I used to look for a common religion in the whole area. A careful study of language differences shows that Jupiter (Ju - pater) means Zeus the father. But I stopped a long time ago also.

Tomorrow I'll get back to the book.

Sam Salmon · Post by **Sam Salmon** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:02 pm

Thanks for the info on Afro Mexico.

Also I do feel we are sometimes being tad harsh on the author.

He researched all this long before the net-we now have more info than anyone could ever have imagined to prove/disprove/dispute/muddy the water at will.

stan · Post by **stan** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:35 pm

Minimalist wrote:

But the prevalent archaeological/historical model is still that the Americas were settled by Asians crossing the Bering land bridge around 11,000 BC and moving south from there to settle all of North and South America.
According to this model there were no contacts across either ocean.

Who cares?
Isn't that simple model going by the wayside as we speak? Is the above statement fair, or perhaps a "straw man"?

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:55 pm

I care. I think it should go by the wayside but my sense is that the orthodox view still clings to the Bering Sea crossing.

At some point the rash of discoveries will tip the balance but I don't think we are there yet.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:00 pm

Sam Salmon wrote:Thanks for the info on Afro Mexico.

Also I do feel we are sometimes being tad harsh on the author.

He researched all this long before the net-we now have more info than anyone could ever have imagined to prove/disprove/dispute/muddy the water at will.

You have a point Sam. There are many people dedicated to discrediting Hancock, however, and I don't mean to do that. Based on information that we have now though, there is some better inormation.

But for example - Hancock says that Teohuanaco was astronomically aligned, but he doesn't say in what manner it is aligned. I think he could have done a better job at that.

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:36 pm

Hancock is compiling a lot of material from other sources....Posnansky in the case of Tiohuanaco for example. He gives the highlights and provides footnotes to his sources but he could expand upon certain points.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:42 pm

There have been many archaeological tragedies in the world. Among them the loss of the Peking Mans' fossils, the burning of the library at Alexandria, and for sure the priests that accompanied the Spanish conquistadors to the New World.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 3:29 pm

Min. - back on page 115 Hancock says that Cholula was partially buried in volcanic ash and that it took place "at least 7,000 years ago".

I've never heard this before and so far, I've been unable to confirm it. I'll keep looking. I don't recognise his references either.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 3:47 pm

This seems to be one of the sources.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006014 ... yster07-20

Essan · Post by **Essan** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:42 am

Trouble is, this looks like another instance where Hancock used another author as his source, rather than finding the original research material.

How reliable was Tompkins' source?

And Posnansky isn't the only source for info on Tiahuanaco - although he may be the only way supporting an extreme date for its construction. A more balanced account would mention conflicyting evidence from other sources which suggests Posansky may well be wrong.

As I recall, the book continues in much the same vein - with evidence cherry-picked to support Hancock's theory and with little in the way of original source material and research referred to.

Of course, it's only years after I read FotG that I realised this

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 11:11 pm

stan wrote:Minimalist wrote:

But the prevalent archaeological/historical model is still that the Americas were settled by Asians crossing the Bering land bridge around 11,000 BC and moving south from there to settle all of North and South America.
According to this model there were no contacts across either ocean.
Who cares?
Isn't that simple model going by the wayside as we speak? Is the above statement fair, or perhaps a "straw man"?

You know, Stan, something about your comment got me to thinking (always dangerous, I know) so I checked MSN's Encarta online encyclopedia for 2006 to see what they have to say on the subject. Sadly, here it is:

Native Americans of North America, indigenous peoples of North America. Native Americans had lived throughout the continent for thousands of years before Europeans began exploring the “New World” in the 15th century.

Most scientists agree that the human history of North America began when the ancient ancestors of modern Native Americans made their way across a land bridge that once spanned the Bering Sea and connected northeastern Asia to North America. Scientists believe these people first migrated to the Americas more than 10,000 years ago, before the end of the last ice age (see First Americans). However, some Native Americans believe their ancestors originated in the Americas, citing gaps in the archaeological record and oral accounts of their origins that have been passed down through generations.

Looks the the old Bering Strait model is still well entrenched!