Commencez à lire Fingerprints of the Gods sur votre Kindle dans moins d'une minute. Vous n'avez pas encore de Kindle ? Achetez-le ici Ou commencez à lire dès maintenant avec l'une de nos applications de lecture Kindle gratuites.

Envoyer sur votre Kindle ou un autre appareil


Essai gratuit

Découvrez gratuitement un extrait de ce titre

Envoyer sur votre Kindle ou un autre appareil

Tout le monde peut lire les livres Kindle, même sans un appareil Kindle, grâce à l'appli Kindle GRATUITE pour les smartphones, les tablettes et les ordinateurs.
Fingerprints of the Gods: The Evidence of Earth's Lost Civilization
Agrandissez cette image

Fingerprints of the Gods: The Evidence of Earth's Lost Civilization [Format Kindle]

Graham Hancock
5.0 étoiles sur 5  Voir tous les commentaires (1 commentaire client)

Prix conseillé : EUR 15,10 De quoi s'agit-il ?
Prix éditeur - format imprimé : EUR 15,54
Prix Kindle : EUR 10,11 TTC & envoi gratuit via réseau sans fil par Amazon Whispernet
Économisez : EUR 5,43 (35%)

Auteurs, publiez directement sur Kindle !

Via notre service de Publication Directe sur Kindle, publiez vous-même vos livres dans la boutique Kindle d'Amazon. C'est rapide, simple et totalement gratuit.
-40%, -50%, -60%... Découvrez les Soldes Amazon jusqu'au 5 août 2014 inclus. Profitez-en !

Les clients ayant acheté cet article ont également acheté

Descriptions du produit

Revue de presse

"Intriguing" (Sunday Times)

"Hancock challenges orthodox history with extraordinary theories of a vanished early civilisation destroyed by a cataclysm... However heretical his arguments, his sweep through the ancient world is arresting and audacious" (Daily Mail)

Présentation de l'éditeur

The bestselling author of The Sign and the Seal reveals the true origins of civilization. Connecting puzzling clues scattered throughout the world, Hancock discovers compelling evidence of a technologically and culturally advanced civilization that was destroyed and obliterated from human memory. Four 8-page photo inserts.

Détails sur le produit

En savoir plus sur l'auteur

Découvrez des livres, informez-vous sur les écrivains, lisez des blogs d'auteurs et bien plus encore.

Commentaires en ligne 

4 étoiles
3 étoiles
2 étoiles
1 étoiles
5.0 étoiles sur 5
5.0 étoiles sur 5
Commentaires client les plus utiles
5.0 étoiles sur 5 Really good read 30 décembre 2012
Par Yen Il S
Format:Format Kindle|Achat vérifié
Personally this is as close to open minded science if such thing exist .
For anyone who feel like something has not been quite right with history taught at school .
Avez-vous trouvé ce commentaire utile ?
Commentaires client les plus utiles sur (beta) 4.2 étoiles sur 5  427 commentaires
777 internautes sur 847 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
5.0 étoiles sur 5 As Valid As the Established Views 26 janvier 2000
Par sid1gen - Publié sur
In his intriguing work, Graham Hancock offers a number of mysteries regarding Humanity and Civilization, and then proceeds to write his conclusions. I must say I found his ideas quite plausible, mostly because he is not alone in this field and many other authors, working independently, have also published similar books, or works that deal with areas that coincide with Hancock's main conclusions. It is amazing, though, to read so many of the negative comments loaded with animosity and almost personal loathing of not only the book, but of the author as well. Also, to those readers who patronizingly tell the rest of us to read real science, or check with real archaeologists, the truth is that scientists are every bit as passionate about their dogmas, as religious fanatics are about theirs. Peer review is all very well, as long as you don't deviate from the established paradigm. Otherwise your career as a scientist is in serious jeopardy. It happened to geologist Virginia Steen-McIntyre, who went ahead with her dating of a Mexican site: she was fired, her career ended, and the date for the site was established at a less provocative age that didn't threaten conventional wisdom. Therefore a message to those who trust "science" will provide the answers: it will, but since science is made by humans, imperfection at all levels is part of the baggage. The so-called "Anomalous Objects" in museums fill rooms, almost nobody gets to see them, and they are there, stashed away, because they do not fit with our traditional view of history, geology, archaeology, etc. Graham Hancock has simply published a book that forces us to question the validity of the information previously absorbed, and brings forward ideas from other people which have as much validity as the traditionally taught history of Egyptians or Mayans. The truth is, when the evidence presented by archaeologists, egyptologists, and other professionals is examined critically, the traditional school is very far from convincing. This does not mean that the general public is ignorant or gullible. It means that when we cannot build a replica of the Great Pyramid today, with our technology (the Japanese tried and failed, and theirs was a far smaller "scale" replica), but are expected to believe that copper-tools wielding Egyptians could (2.3 million blocks of stone; weights going from 1.5 tons to 15 and 17 tons; "killer" slope of 52 degrees; near perfect alignement; perfect 90-degree corners; perfectly cut diorite blocks, and so on), then is when inquisitive, intelligent people wonder, How is that possible? Since traditional science provides answers that prove usatisfactory because they really feel like nonsense, people will look for alternative scenarios. Graham Hancock provides such scenario. He may be wrong, but his points are as solid, or more, than those of the now-accepted school of thought.
275 internautes sur 304 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
5.0 étoiles sur 5 Revealing Ancient Mysteries - New Theories 30 août 2003
Par Erika Borsos - Publié sur
Graham Hancock, a reporter for the Economist and Sunday London Times, has done what many of us only dream about, he visited the ruins of many ancient cultures from around the globe and came up with some startling findings and theories. His journeys included: Machu Picchu in Peru, the Mayan ruins of Central America and Mexico, the Aztec ruins near Mexico City, the city of Teotihuacan, and the Egyptian ruins of Giza, the Pyramids, Heliopolis, Saqqara, and Abydos.

He begins the book with a chapter introducing us to an ancient map of Antartica, made in AD 1513. It is called the Piri Reis map drawn up in Constantinople. It is an enigma because the 'modern' world only "recently" discovered Antartica in AD 1818. Graham Hancock ends his book with more information and theories about the reason Antartica may have shifted about 2,000 miles south of its original location, believed to be a subtropical climate, similar to that of the Meditarranean. Antartica is believed to have been situated about 30 degrees north of its present position on the planet. The explanation for its movement is based on an idea endorsed by Albert Einstein who wrote of it in 1953 *before* the scientific community had yet formulated the continental drift theory or the earth-crust shift theory. Graham Hancock provides numerous references from science and archeology to support his theories and conclusions.

Graham Hancock knows how to weave scientific facts and theories, ancient myths and legends, his own personal diary and the photographs his wife took ... into a seamless tapestry which divulges plausible explanations for the origins of the magnificent structures built by ancient civilizations. He is a phenomenal writer who knows how to build suspense and intrigue. He keeps the reader hanging on the edge of his or her seat, anticipating what "hidden" messages of the past will be revealed next. Most astonishing are his revelations of special numerical relationships which were built into the structures of the pyramids in Egypt and Teotihuacan. Most amazing also is the fact that these special numbers are mentioned in numerous myths and legends from different cultures around the world. Dr. Carl Gustav Jung might call it "synchronicity" but if he had read this book he would more than likely call it 'intention'. The author contends the builders of these monuments and structures were trying to leave us, the future generation of the human race ... a message. They did this through archeological, mathematical, and scientific evidence, along with information passed down in myths and legends. Once started, this book is difficult to put down. Although it is not easy reading, it keeps the reader totally engaged and hooked, right from the beginning. Graham Hancock manages to connect catastrophic global events of the past, which scientists agree occurred about 10,500 years ago B.C. to the ancient monuments and ruins that are still standing. This is one book I would give more than 5 stars to if I could. *Very* highly recommended. Erika Borsos (erikab93)
175 internautes sur 195 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
3.0 étoiles sur 5 The Black of Sheep of Hancock's Works 3 septembre 2005
Par Michael von Müller - Publié sur
I have to admit, in general, I enjoy Hancock's books. I've read all of them with the exception of Talisman, and every single one has been enjoyable on some level. I have a hard time buying into some of his arguments and central themes at times, but on the whole, he makes an entertaining and educational read.

That said, I found Fingerprints of the Gods, probably his most popular work by a wide margin, to be something of a letdown. I didn't find it as abhorrent as your average academic, but it's still not nearly as good as your typical reader would have you think.

The Pros: If you're not already immerssed in the world of ancient history, Fingerprints of the Gods is a fine place to start. Entertaining and thought-provoking, its best trait is pinning down some of the questions that the "orthodox establishment" has been unable to answer, and introducing its readers to three incredible ancient cultures. If this book had simply been written as a food-for-thought myriad of information with no central argument, I would have found it exceptionally good.

The Cons: The argumentative side of this book pretty much constitutes all the letdowns. Having read his later works, I can tell you write now that Hancock himself had retracted many of his central arguments.

If one must name a central theme to the book, it would probably be attempting to prove the validity of Hapgood's Crustal Displacement Theory. In short, Hancock claims that a rapid sliding of our planet's crust over the lower layers may have brought utter ruin to civilization at least once in human history. Assuming this, he claims Antarctica was located in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean as Atlatis (though for credibility's sake, Hancock himself does not use that name) up until around 15000 BC.

I am not a geologist by any stretch of the imagination, but to my knowledge, there is a good body of evidence to suggest that a crustal displacement did indeed occur on 527,000,000 BC. Even within Hancock's books, I have NEVER seen good evidence for a crustal displacement occurring within human history. A quick glance at his bibliography for the relevant sections will tell you that virtually none of his sources on crustal displacement were published after the 1970s. The supposed geological evidence he provides for it in the book is either deliberately misleading, or shows a contemporary critical lack of geological understanding on the author's part. Having read Underworld, where a Hancock's improved understanding of geology is quite apparent, I'm going with the latter.

In Fingerprints of the Gods, Hancock addresses some of the mysteries in the history of three different parts of the world: Peru, Mexico, and Egypt. Let's start with Peru, as Hancock did in the book.

In his section of Peru, most of what is not simply wild speculation is centered around Tiwanaku (Tiahuanaco). Hancock argues that Tiwanaku was actually constructed circa 15000 BC, when it would have served as an excellent portside metropolis along Lake Titicaca. His central piece of evidence for this is a solar alignment placed in the stone fortress of the Kalasasaya that supposedly matches up to the date of 15000 BC (a more accurate redating of this aligment performed after the publication of FotG actually suggests is matches a date some five thousand years later). However, I do not understand why an alignment of 10000 BC suggests a construction date of 10000 BC. Can we be certain that 10000 BC was not some important date in local mythology that was singled out in this alignment in say, AD 1? Or AD 300? In later books, Hancock himself argues that the Egyptians did the same thing with star alignments to Orion's belt that were made in 2500 BC, but single out a date in 10500 BC, so why shouldn't this also be possible in Tiwanaku?

In his section on Mexico, there is no clear-cut central argument, just some interesting facts and speculation, so let's move on to Egypt. Here, Hancock claims that the three great pyramids and the Great Sphinx of the Giza Plateau are not 4500 years old, but rather, 12500 years old. The best evidence for the Sphinx's redating is the work of Dr. Robert Schoch, who claims that the erosion marks on the Sphinx could not possibly have occurred in the dry climate of the Sahara Desert now, and that the Sphinx must have in fact been constructed between 7000 BC and 5000 BC, as opposed to circa 2500 BC. This argument was thoroughly refuted in an article by Dr. James Harrell in the Egyptology journal, KMT, in 1992. I have never been able to find any rebution of Harrell's arguments by Schoch, and, put simply, Harrell makes pretty quick work of all of Schoch's supposed findings.

Hancock claims that, due to various star aligments around the Giza Plateau, the Sphinx must be 12500 years old, rather than 7000 or 9000, pushing the date even further back than Schoch. Again, Hancock himself later points out that such alignments may not suggest any actual construction date.

I have seen both sides of the issue on the pyramids star aligments, and really have no opinion on the matter. Perhaps it is coincidence, perhaps it is not. The best solid argument for the Great Pyramid's antiquity that is presented in FotG is the number of individual blocks, and the speed that would have been required to place each one with such precision in just twenty to one hundred years. He is absolutely correct here, and frankly, it puzzles me as well. But I will say that the Lighthouse of Alexandria (Pharos) had 20% (up to 33%, by some more modern estimates) as many blocks as the Great Pyramid, and even with the same seemingly impossible block/minute ratios, it was constructed in just a decade. The architectural capabilities of the Egyptian Old Kingdom were superior to that of Hellenistic Alexandria, so it dates like twenty or one hundred years for the full construction time should come as no surprise at all. I'm no engineer, so I don't know how it was done, but later, seemingly equally impossible construction times were met, so there's no reason this could not also have happened with the Great Pyramid.

Finally, the thing that most confused me: if crustal displacements DO happen as frequently as the author suggests, then, do to latitude change of certain locations, any star aligments to dates like 10500 BC or 15000 BC are completely invalid. If crustal displacement theory is correct, then these star aligments are not. Two of Hancock's longest-running central themes are mutually incompatible right from the start.

In conclusion, if you're new to ancient history, and you intend to read this book, PLEASE do some independent research on the various assertions made within it afterward. I was sixteen years old when I first combed through this tome, and I found all sorts of errors after a few days of reading some "orthodox establishment" publications and online academic review of FotG. It's a good introduction to ancient cultures, but don't give the author your unwavering trust. Remember, even Hancock abandons the Palaeolithic construction dates for the pyramids and crustal displacement theory in his later books.
45 internautes sur 49 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
5.0 étoiles sur 5 Not sure what the complaints are about 20 août 2002
Par Plaque - Publié sur
I've been browsing the reviews posted here, and something really stands out in most of the negative reviews of Hancock's work. I've noticed that most of the negative reviewers have a tendency to point to 1. The "crime" of using a hypothesis as a starting point and attempting to find evidence to support it; and 2. The claim that Hancock is "selective" in which of the mainstream theories he chooses to quote and/or rebut.
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).
34 internautes sur 36 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
4.0 étoiles sur 5 Still a Solid Intro To History's Mysterious Past 19 août 2009
Par OtherWorlds&Wisdom - Publié sur
Format:Broché|Achat vérifié
I read the first edition of Hancock's book about 9 years ago. In spite of its immense size, I read it in one night. It's a fascinating look at the mysteries of ancient culture. In this edition he doesn't update the main text, but provides some updates and answers to his critics in a new introduction and some new Appendices. Since he first wrote this book, the paradigm has been changing. More scientists and researchers have suggested a greater antiquity in the Americas, larger populations and more pre-Columbus visits. These may explain many of the mysteries Hancock discusses, much better than "Atlantis" or some lost super-civilization, and he admits this in the new intro. However, he does not think these new finds completely eliminate his ancient super civilization. And indeed, there are still many questions, but multiple pre-Columbus visits and settlers is still the best answer.

He also now recognizes that "earth crust displacement" probably isn't the best explanation for the end of the Ice Age and submersion of lands. Sure, readers wish he would have put forth a new text, but with his addendums, this book is still of great value for those interested in ancient history.

Ironiclly, there are two irrational lines of thought that promote the isolationist models of the New World: 1. Those who think that natives became advanced completely on their own and any claims of interference are "racist"; and 2. Those, whom for whatever reason, still can't grasp that mankind has been traveling the seas long before Columbus.

See also 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, 1421: The Year China Discovered America, Who Was Adam?: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man and The Island of Seven Cities: Where the Chinese Settled When They Discovered America for some recent developments on these topics.
Ces commentaires ont-ils été utiles ?   Dites-le-nous
Rechercher des commentaires
Rechercher uniquement parmi les commentaires portant sur ce produit

Discussions entre clients

Le forum concernant ce produit
Discussion Réponses Message le plus récent
Pas de discussions pour l'instant

Posez des questions, partagez votre opinion, gagnez en compréhension
Démarrer une nouvelle discussion
Première publication:
Aller s'identifier

Rechercher parmi les discussions des clients
Rechercher dans toutes les discussions Amazon

Rechercher des articles similaires par rubrique