Archaeologica.org

Starflower wrote:For the last few days I have been what minimalist calls a lurker
But I have so thoroughly enjoyed reading this discussion I had to register and ask you to please not stop now. I read the book so long ago I do not have any coherent views on the matter but am willing to dig around for a copy and start reading it ASAP. Whether I can then come up with anything intelligent to say is another matter entirely. Hope to see you all still here tomorrow.

ROTFLMAO! Okay, Starflower....I hereby officially revoke your "Lurker" status and promote you to PARTICIPANT.

Take your time. It's a big book and we've hardly gotten started.

I fall into the same category as Starflower. I registered a few days ago and found this book review. Bought my copy yesterday. So yea, please don't stop reviewing now! Hopefully I'll be able to catch up to you guys and add something insightful. I highly doubt it as I'm just an undergrad student. You guys are way ahead of me.

Cheers!

Hi Jenn - I'm glad you're interested. I am just the reader in the spotlight. If you (and Starflower) want to join in a book review, I appreciate the help. I've decided not to worry about the thought police.

I have have a very good friend named Jenn.

Beags we could go back and talk about some early stuff until they catch up?

I've finished with part three. It might be good to pause and review here.

It seems to me that Hancock hasn't really presented anything that new so far. He is not shy about dealing with controversial issues and adds his own slant to the process. I'm just not able to verify many of his references because I don't have the books.

In short, here is a broad breakdown.

Maps: The only map that I have found that has any acceptable refutation is the Piri Reis map. There have been good arguments that it does not depict the Antarctic continent. In my own mind then, I've set that aside just to err on the side of caution. The others, collectively,I have given my thoughts on but I'll be glad to again if helpful.

Old & New World similarities : Again, nothing too new here but Hancock discusses a lot of deities,legends (especially flood destruction), and of course the Pyramids that are glaringly similar in different parts of the world.

Tiahuanaco : This is terribly fascinating. The standard dating is AD 500.
I think this megalithic city really needs some scientific study. There seem to be depictions of animals that would have gone extinct 10,000 yrs. ago. Some archaeoastronomists could be very helpful there. But especially having some geologists studying the lake (Titicaca) sedimentation could tell us when the lake level reached the port area of Tiahuanaco. To my knowledge it still hasn't been done.

Depictions & carvings of different races of mankind : In my view this is beyond refute. And I've read many scientists stating that these images are only those of mesoamericans. I didn't believe that twenty years ago, but in all fairness, I've looked at them very carefully. There are Africans, Caucasions, and Orientals depicted with great skill, in my opinion.

I'll stop now before mentioning Teotihuacan. Want to kick anything around here Min ?

Minimalist wrote:Beags we could go back and talk about some early stuff until they catch up?

You bet. After my previous post I'll just stop there. That's a lot of ground. The maps will take awhile.

It occurs to me that some folks may not have read the book and don't even want to - but might be very familiar with one particular aspect or other. Their thoughts would be welcome.

I don't really know what to make of it. The suggestion is that it was built, at least in part, on the ruins of an earlier city which makes dating highly problematical.

Before answering though, I did a search on Google and what I find really interesting is that there is a range of dates given from the 4th century BC to the second century AD...a period of 600 years in which scholars cannot seem to come to a consensus on when the city was built...or at least begun. The mathematical links to Egypt are bizarre to say the least because by 300 BC Egypt was essentially nothing, a remnant of Alexander's empire being run by one of his former generals.

However, if there was a pre-existing city...or even the ruins of one...all that goes out the window because who can say when that was started?

Minimalist wrote:Beags we could go back and talk about some early stuff until they catch up?

That is up to you guys. It'll be a while before I could add a lot of input. I'll be heading off to Hawaii on the 31st for two weeks. Almost as soon as I get back, Fall semester begins. Feel free to move ahead if you'd like!

Hawaii?? Why would anybody wanna go there?

Anyway - send pics.

If any part of the book needs a re-write to account for new discoveries it is the section on the Americas. Hancock copyrighted the book in 1995 but he had to have started writing it well before then. In the meantime there have been major discoveries in the Amazon basin and at Caral, for example, which have to be factored in.

In 2001 it was announced that Caral had been C14 dated to 2600 BC, which, coincidentally or not, happens to be the same time as 4th Dyansty Egypt.

Then, in 2003, settlements were found in the Amazon basin in Ecuador with carbon dates back to 4,000 BC.


http://www.brightsurf.com/news/may_04/I ... 051304.php

http://www.archaeologychannel.org/caralint.html

Now all of this was found after FOTG was written but has the effect of validating the idea that settlement in the Americas was far older than was initially believed.

Now all of this was found after FOTG was written but has the effect of validating the idea that settlement in the Americas was far older than was initially believed.

does it actually change anything with settlements in the middle east dating from 8000bce
Hancocks theory was that the south american settlements were the result of travellers from the old world to the new
as the dates get pushed back on both sides of the earth its still not true
he no longer runs with that policy
his new theory is that drug induced shamans were the cause of civilisation in the new world
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1844 ... y&v=glance
so he doesnt agree with his earlier work anymore anyway
and yes
you'd probably have to be on drugs to agree with him

(thought i'd get that one in before anyone else points it out)
if you'd like a good laugh you should hear Andrew Collins new theory

Minimalist wrote:If any part of the book needs a re-write to account for new discoveries it is the section on the Americas. Hancock copyrighted the book in 1995 but he had to have started writing it well before then. In the meantime there have been major discoveries in the Amazon basin and at Caral, for example, which have to be factored in.

In 2001 it was announced that Caral had been C14 dated to 2600 BC, which, coincidentally or not, happens to be the same time as 4th Dyansty Egypt.

Then, in 2003, settlements were found in the Amazon basin in Ecuador with carbon dates back to 4,000 BC.


http://www.brightsurf.com/news/may_04/I ... 051304.php

http://www.archaeologychannel.org/caralint.html

Now all of this was found after FOTG was written but has the effect of validating the idea that settlement in the Americas was far older than was initially believed.

Thanks Min. Very interesting. I think we have had other discussion about Caral here but we might want to revisit the thread. I've been looking at other sites on the web in addition to the two you posted.

I'm convinced that the archaeology of South America will yield other civilizations that are buried in the jungle.

And in Caral - more pyramids. Thanks again.

Apparently there is an updated version availabe at Amazon.uk.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0712 ... e&n=266239[/url]

http://www.jqjacobs.net/andes/tiwanaku.html

Here is one of the more academic sites regarding Tiahuanaco. Good pictures. Good Links.

TIAHUANUCO, THE BAALBEC OF THE NEW WORLD

Notice, statements about the age of the monuments are made with no hint whatsoever of the evidence used to make the conclusions.