Rating: 
Summary: Satisfying ending, if you can make it.
Review: It is a tough read because of all the details, and I find that Hancock repeats himself over and over. (I get the point!)If you can perservere there is satisfaction in the end. Hancock is the classic underdog and you really root for him.
Rating: 
Summary: Really Intriguing
Review: So we think there were human beings (homo sapiens) around during the most recent ice age. In documentaries, we tend to show these ancestors of ours as bearded, fur-wrapped stalkers of woolly mammoth, staggering around the tundra and pine forests of Europe trying to eke out an existence hand-to-mouth.Of course, during the most recent ice age, the seas were lower by some hundred meters. And all the land that was exposed 20,000 years ago and is now underwater was low, coastal plain, perfect for agricultural settlement. If you were to look for an ice age civilization -- with ships, and farming, and real constructions -- the place to look would be underwater. Think of it this way: if the oceans rose a hundred meters today, how much of our modern civilization would it swallow? And of course, underwater archaeology is only in its infancy. So this is a Graham Hancock book, a book about looking for tracks of ancient civilizations. It's also a book about diving. _Underworld_ is written in the comfortable travelogue / mystery style of _The Sign and the Seal_ and is very readable, very easy to follow. Hancock traipses around to exotic places like Malta, Japan and India, diving to purported submerged sites of megalithic architecture. Interspersed with this interesting narrative are his musings on literary and other traces that may reflect an ancient, ice age human civilization, now hidden by flood from human eyes. Hancock, of course, may be wrong. But he may just be onto something, and even if not, he's never dull.
Rating: 
Summary: The case is a little overstated but still an important read.
Review: The thing that makes Grahm Hancock's theories worth looking at is also the thing that makes them hard to believe. Essentially he is popularizing ancient history and forcing people to rethink the preconceived notions of it. Of course he has a tendency to take disparate facts and paste them into some fantastic theory of ancient history but if he didn't do this his books wouldn't sell all that well and he wouldn't have the cash to fly around the world viewing archeological sites.
The problem of course is that archeology is always trying to paint a picture with one hair left on the brush but if you write a book, or thesis, or a grant proposal with out having some foredrawn conclusion about what your going to find nobody will listen to you. And so it is with Grahm Hancocks theories in this book, and why so many have comented on it's seaming randomness.
He just does not have enough information yet to form a coherent theory. The basic premise is to my mind a very good one. Most of our modern idea of ancient history vastly underestimates what people have been up to for the last 200,000 years. This makes perfect since because the older something is the less likely we are to find it, and when you factor in Grahm Hancocks most provocative theory that the majority of humanity 20,000 years ago would have lived on the most inhabitable land, and that land is now mostly under water, (the least explored part of the earth) it makes perfect sense that we would have just a small sample of what they were up to. I also think that Grahm Hancock's attack on established archeological views is completely waranted. Much of what we have accepted as fact has to constantly be reinvestigated in the light of new technology and as we begin to notice more clearly how historical research is warped by political and personal agendas and a general Eurocentric view of the world. Finally I think the focus on 14th century maps, albeit well researched and detailed, is not terribly convincing. The basic problem is that if they really depicted the world has it was 11,000 years ago how did these ideas get passed down for 9000 years to Ptolemy's time and then disappear for 1200 years and show up again. The answer is no one will ever know. The libraries of Alexandria were burned, Europe was plunged into the dark ages and although it makes interesting speculation, it's a theory with very little possibility of confirmation either negative or positive. And it's a theory of very little consequence, as near as I can tell. Generally, I think this book is worth your time despite it's rambling nature and far flung theories because it generally discloses the separation between Hancocks theories, scientiffically proven facts, and evidence that is still controversial. And I am inclined to believe after reading this book that the accepted time frame for the change between neolithic and paleolithic will have to be thrown out. That the flood myths have atleast a part basis in reality and that there is ancient ruins of various "civilitations" underwater waiting to be studied.
Rating:
Summary: More truth in its theories than in many ancienthistory texts
Review: This book is great and eye-opening. Everything in it makes incredible sense. Like most ancient civilisations, it makes sense that the most technologically and societtally advanced cultures were located on the shoreline. This is where the most trade would happen, where the most advancements would be necessary and where the development of advanced economics and languages would be prevalent. The book tracks the global idea of Atlantis and makes it clear why everyone claims this ancient civilisation as their own. They are global because every area of the world experienced a significant de-evolution nine thousand years ago and as the stories of these civilisations grew, the history became myth and legend. The world changed nine thousand years ago, and like so many civilisations speak about, we all had to start over again.
The book itself would be an incredible 300 page book, but the book decides to dwell in some mundane intracacies, possibly in an attempt to gain legitimacy for a non-peer editted document, but there are things to gain from every section, even if it does get repetitive at times.
Rating:
Summary: Hancock needs a fearless editor
Review: This was the first Graham Hancock I have read. Being an avid reader and always searching for valid research for theories I bought this book. It lies unfinished due to repetition of details, conversations with himself and others ver batim. I can slog through details with the best but it was with great exasperation I attempted to stay on track with Mr. Hancock. He is too full of himself. Obviously, he is a great moneymaker because those who should be heavily editing his work are instead worshiping at the feet of the idol. I certainly will not buy anymore of his odes to himself. I have found better answers for my curiosity about underwater discovery of ancient cities by searching website news releases. Fluff and fill is my summary of UNDERWORLD.
Rating:
Summary: Tantilizing Possibilities
Review: While not as entertaining as "Fingerprints of the Gods", "Underworld" is both interesting and meticulous. You will certainly begin to question what you believe. More than that, you will definately learn something about culture and history. At the very least, reading anything by Hancock will provide you with endless factoids to amaze your friends. Enjoy!
Rating: 
Summary: Lots of words, no pictures
Review: While working on my Masters degree in the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, I found this book and immediately picked it up to read (if the title were to deliver what it promised, the ramifications would be amazing). Did the water level rise from ancient times, submerging ancient cities three to four hundred feet below sea level (or even deeper)?
I like to think of myself as a semi-astute reader, but no amount of words will make me believe such a grand hypothesis without photographs (after all, the camera is a simply technology for underwater investigators, so the evidence should be easy to produce!). If there are ancient cities under the sea, then I want to see the ruins. Hancock does not show us. The few pictures he does show are murky and uncertain at best. If I was going to write a book like this, I'd take a ton of pictures from multiple angles and prove that what I found was real. Not so with Hancock. I wonder why? Oh, I know, it's because his theory is make-believe. This book is long on words and short on the real kind of evidence that would prove his fantasy case. In short, this book is a full-length tabloid. I can think of some people who will think Hancock is a master, just like they believe the U.S. never landed on the moon. Buyer beware.
| 
