Archaeologica.org

If there is a record of a voyage like that, then somebody will have to let us know. Hancock may have missed a huge point here. That voyage should be as famous as Magellans I think.

For now, I don't think I'm going to see any more than I've seen. But the fact that the maps exist at all may be the biggest wonder.

But the fact that the maps exist at all may be the biggest wonder

More of those anomalies.

I'll keep reading - and hold that thought for now.

For the last couple of days the temperature here has cooled off a little. The heat index has actually been below 100.

I've started part 2 of the book. Ch. 4 starts with Hancock going to Peru, seeing the Naazca lines and talking about various Indian legends. Ch. 5 and 6 are introducing the reader to Viracocha.

This will be fun talking about. But so far Hancock is only relating Peruvian legends. Min. I don't see anything controversial there, but let me know if we should discuss Viracocha now or later.

Later.

Wait till he starts drawing analogies to Old World "Creator" Gods.

Hancock is, right now, entertaining me to no end. I love these mysteries of history. It's the same stuff that we have puzzled over many times.

Other people have tried their best to resolve all of them in a "big tent" theory and obviously Hancock will too. I remember reading Von Daniken, Hapgood, Velikovsky, Stitchen, and now Hancock.

He's a good writer also. Very descriptive.

There was a long "Atlantis" show on last night. Stitchen and even a tape of Von Daniken were used, along with some others. These people are actually looking to identify Plato's Atlantis, down to its geographic details which is pretty much like trying to find Noah's Ark. Both stories were created long after the fact with emphasis on poetic values and cautionary warnings than historical fact.

I saw that the Atlantis show was on but I didn't watch it. I think that the only group of people that search for it now is the Cayce Foundation.

I think it's popularity must have it's roots in the collective unconscious that tells so many people that something is wrong with our history. That we have forgotten a huge portion of our past.

When I was listing authors earlier that had come up with a theory to fill that hole, I should have added the Atlantis theory.

As noted elsewhere, Hancock never uses the word "Atlantis" because of the pejorative nature of the word. But it does not take too much imagination to equate Hancock's Ice Age civilization with Plato's later attempt to fuse these myths into a coherent (and essentially Hellenistic) story.

Again, Plato was writing 10-15,000 years after the event and purely from the perspective of the Mediterranean world.

I've finished part two of the book. Most of Hancocks references are not books that I've read. Some of them are considered controversial themselves. So I think at this point I'm going to stop checking his references and just read the book.

The only thing he has said since the "maps" that should be discussed, I think, is the dating of the Teohuanaco construction.

The racial types depicted on Olmec heads (black) and stelae (white) blow contemporary theories of linear history out of the water. In spite of all evidence, modern archaeologists either ignore these anomalies or try to explain them away.

Blacks and whites in conflict with local Indians before Columbus is something which is not supposed to have happened.

And Tiahuanaco is important, too.

The anomalies that Hancock points out are the ones that have been known since Von Daniken. They are sitting there in plain sight in paintings and motifs. They are not a controversial part of Hancocks book, I don't think. They're just ignored by mainstream archaeology.

And yet I find it amazing at the dispersions cast upon any book or article that points them out. They are never contested, nor are they researched in a way to fit them into our history.

Mainstream archaeology actually wonders why these books sell faster than they can be written. So, unlike Teohuanaco, I didn't find them controversial. It might be worthwhile to list them here though.

I recall (I think it was Gunny) who mentioned something about red-headed mummies in the Incan mountains and, upon checking, he was right.

There are times when scientists are more worried about pleasing their peers than they are about pushing the limits of knowledge. That's one reason why I can't get too upset at ole Oz in Bosnia. At least the s-o-b is trying.

"Olmec" depiction of a bearded white man with an odd hat and shoes....from a time well before Columbus.

A couple of years ago, I read a magazine article (possibly National Geographic) in which a couple of archeaologists said that there did , indeed, seem to be pre-Columbian contact between the Old world and the New. Actually, I don't know how they could feel any other way.