Fingerprints of the Gods
Good Fit
- Readers interested in ancient monuments, lost-civilisation hypotheses and «alternative history» books
- Those who like illustrated, smoothly written popular books in the manner of a travel report with a dose of science fiction
- Those who want to see how archaeological and geophysical hypotheses collide with orthodox explanations
Not a Fit
- Anyone who wants to learn archaeology and history from academic sources
- Readers inclined to accept claims without checking them: the book does not meet the basic standard of evidence
- Those after a short read: the book runs past 600 pages
Hancock opens his main thesis with maps: the Piri Reis (1513), Oronteus Finaeus (1531), Mercator and Buache maps show Antarctica ice-free and, according to the author, this could only have been copied from sources prepared before the ice cap formed, roughly 13,000–4000 BC. The author relies on Charles Hapgood's earth-crust displacement theory, recalls that sediments taken from the floor of the Ross Sea show «temperate conditions» before 4000 BC, and concludes that an unknown civilisation mapped the globe in prehistory.
The third chapter sets up the «longitude» problem: measuring longitude accurately needed Harrison's 18th-century chronometer, yet the longitudes of the Dulcert, Zeno and Ibn Ben Zara portolans and of the Piri Reis map are «impossibly» accurate. The author adds spherical trigonometry, Mercator-type projections and the opinions of Richard Strachan of MIT and of US Air Force cartographers; with the phrase «lost mathematicians» he claims traces of an ancient, advanced world science. In this section the arguments rest on Hapgood's work and no independent verification is shown.
The second part is built as Hancock's own journey in Peru: a flight over the Nazca lines, animal figures (hummingbird, spider, monkey, condor), straight lines, Maria Reiche's measurements and Pitluga's hypothesis of an Orion alignment. The author rejects the «alien landing strip» idea, but calls the age and purpose of the lines unknown and finds the depiction of a rare Amazonian spider species «extraordinary».
The fifth chapter turns to Inca mythology: Viracocha («Sea Foam») — a bearded, light-skinned «stranger» in long robes, a god with a statue in the Coricancha temple in Cuzco. The author compares him with depictions of Saints Bartholomew and Thomas and writes that the Incas took the Spaniards for the returning Viracocha. The text presents legends as historical evidence; documented source and hypothesis are given in the same tone.
- The book combines travel reportage and an investigative method; the author sees the monuments with his own eyes and writes his impressions
- The claims are built on the question «how else to explain it?» and alternative explanations are deemed unsatisfactory by calling them «orthodox»
- There are many references (notes and bibliography begin on page 540), but many sources are fringe or criticised theories
- Photographs, maps and diagrams enrich the text
- Myths and legends are presented as historical evidence and hypothesis in the tone of proof
Another famous alternative-history book about ancient monuments
A critical study explaining why pseudo-archaeological claims do not hold up scientifically
A popular view of human history written within an academic frame
At the end of the part read, Hancock writes that the same tall, bearded, light-skinned wise figure recurs under different names in the mythology of the Andean peoples, and the chapter ends with the question: «Who were the inspiration for the Viracochas?» The question stays open and is passed on to the later parts of the book.
If you see a problem, write to us. Publisher, author, rights holder, or just a reader — it doesn't matter. If there's something problematic about copyright in this review, if the review's author has broken the site's rules, or if you simply have a suggestion or complaint, hey@kitabdanevar.com. We'd rather resolve this between ourselves than go to court: we review requests within 48 hours and, if needed, correct or fully remove the review.
