Rating: 
Summary: Balanced View of Ancient Controversies
Review: This book accurately compiles the various arguments for and against the ancient mysteries that it covers. The Orion controversy is well handled (for example) as it puts forth a good summary of the theory that the ancient Egyptians aligned the pyramids at Giza with Orion's belt. The authors cover the arguments against the theory and point out that no other pyramid structure aligns with the rest of the stars in the Orion pattern. Then the authors point out that the ancient Egyptians often used the belt alone to designate the constellation Orion. The writers let us know that the Orion theory goes too far in its claims that many pyramids align with the stars of various constellations, but may be right on point with the necessity to look to the stars to explain a lot of what the ancient Egyptians were doing. Current scolars of ancient Egypt simply do not use astronomy to try and understand how the dwellers along the Nile in 3000 BC may have been thinking.Thus, according to Ancient Mysteries, both sides have good points to make. The entire book is filled with the pro and cons of those proposing the theories and those holding to the traditional ways of viewing history. It is the balance the authors bring to the discussion that makes the book so noteworthy. Direct quotes from key passages of the various books supporting or opposing the theories help bring home the essence of each point of view. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the theories of the past being proposed by Handcock and others as a fair view of the proposed theories (summarized of course) and their opponents attempts (often successful) to undermine them.
Rating: 
Summary: Ancient Mysteries--Destoyed!
Review: This book presents itself as an encyclopedia of the mysteries of the ancient world. First of all, the authors of this book tale a very rational view towards the subject matter. They present all of the theories for each ancient mystery side-by-side. When you see them this way, you can start to tell which ones are reasonable and which ones are just pure speculation. To be honest, the authors really dig into and destroy a lot of theories, but when you look at the evidence, you have to agree with the authors. If you're a true believer type, this book may not be for you, but those who are just interested in an overview of the unsolved mysteries of the ancient world will find this a very informative and interesting book to read.
Rating:
Summary: Objective, even handed and well researched
Review: This is a compendium survey of the various explanations for many an historic mystery. The writers, a historian and an archaeologist, avoid favoring either the academic establishment's party line or the antithetical views of sensationalist writers. Instead, they give a rather thorough, to the extent that information is available, analysis of the various points of view about each topic, with their critique of the merits of each. It is an extraordinary book, the best of its kind. For anyone who wants to delve deeper into its various subjects, it is a good starting point. I almost refrained from buying this book owing to a negative review found here. To my satisfaction, I found those criticisms to be wholly unjustified.
Rating: 
Summary: Seething with bias and a lack of true scholarship
Review: What is put forth as "a middle course" and "(presenting)...main lines of evidence" repeatedly degrades into a manifesto of personal agenda. What sporadic critical thought is found in these pages amounts to a mere couple chapters in competing books in this genre. The manner in which the authors completely ignore or gloss over both significant relevant issues and glaring holes in their personal favorite theories, which they put forth on nearly every topic, continually presenting opinion as scientific fact, is frustratingly irritating. Of particular note, the authors' somewhat whiney complaining about what they view as undeserved popularity garnered by Fingerprints of the Gods is a CONSTANT theme and are unpleasantly reminiscent of Howard Cosells infantile rants about retired professionals being allowed to commentate on the sports they mastered. While Fingerprints is clearly submitted as something of a thought experiment, this books authors spend so much type complaining that it comes of as an obsessive negative review of Hancocks book. The authors' near disgust that anyone could actually find Hancocks book entertaining is omnipresent. Fingerprints was put forth by a journalist who made no qualms about clearly expressing interpretation and opinion as such and tried to lead the reader through a journey of layman investigation of entertaining questions. This book, however fails miserably at being the scholarly contemplative effort it claims to be. Indeed, it clearly does not even attempt to be that, but merely declared that it will in the course of CONTINUAL fallacies that permeate the book (I am a mathematician and I wouldn't care to count the times the authors commit "poisoning of the well" alone). Time and again the authors speak of convential science views as if they are necessarily what they present them as, which they often are not, and are gospel. The repetitive diatribe in which they constantly preach orthodoxy are severely abrasive to anyone who reads the book for an unbiased viewpoint. Despite the promise to present facts and let the reader decide, they continually slap the reader in the face with their personal opinions; ending nearly every idea with a declaration of their favored perspective as fact or at least portraying it as if it is the only possible sensible interpretation, despite a theme of absense of fact in the ideas they clearly attempt to send to the "head of the class". The tiresome theme of bashing Hancocks book is so continuous that it becomes nauseating; I wouldn't keep bringing this up, but I realized it would be completely necessary to review this book around page 230....when the authors were STILL harping about Hancocks book. This book was NOT advertised as being an editorial reply to that book and I was frankly quite irritated to see it was exactly that. Theories which are contrary to their desires are dismissed, much as a child unreasoningly repeats the mantra of "I don' wanna!". They mention, in one perfectly characteristic instance, 6 facts about the Minoan Atlantis hypothesis which supposedly debunk it absolutely: 1) They mention that the volcanic explosion of Thera is inconsistent with tidal wave and earthquake effects, which is actually a poor estimate of the destructive powers of a tremendous volcanic explosion on a nearby island (a hallmark of the inadaquacies of scholarship of the authors work in this book is their riding the fence on Plato; they use his writings to supposedly "prove" their favored ideas, and selectively attribute many other of his writings to fantasy). 2&3) They mention 2 things which are actually archaelogically verified, but says these facts are insignificant because they each occurred in some other locations as well. 4) The authors make one of their characteristically incredulous remarks in proposing that Platos account lacking bull-leaping games, one of the many sports of Minos, somehow goes towards providing an incongruity! 5)They out-of-hand dismiss ALL other possible parallels without addressing or even presenting them; calling them collectively "too weak to merit discussion" (despite that being what the authors FALSELY put forth as this books purpose)! 6) Lastly, they attempt to say that the Minoan theory "completely collapses" when you consider that it's 'factor of 10' lemma can't be applied universally, despite the fact that it was explicitly not to be used for those (mostly indirect) applications....the authors then go on to completely omit ALL size and chronology information from their hard-sell of their pet viewpoint (except, inexplicably, a couple dates that they haven't contemplated enough to realize CANNOT be made to fit the model of Plato that they pick and choose from so freely; like an unruly child they leave the portions which are unsavory to them). Their free exchange of distict mythological entities is typical: the par for their course being at once particularly irresponsible, humorous and frustrating. I feel that the Minoan Atlantis hypothesis, and indeed all specific Atlantis hypotheses, are without any abundance of substance; but given the authors declared subject matter for this book (which indeed is a false declaration), the scholastic irresponsibility and selective ignorance of fact, used to promote personal opinion throughout, are sophomoric and reprehensible. While I rarely put pen to a bad review, I felt compelled to warn readers that this book is poor remedial journalism in scholarly clothing. A journalistic approach is perfectly viable when presented as such, to put forth something seething with bias as impartial academic investigation is pick-pocketing. The aggresive hard-sell agenda grates strongly on impartial readers. The childish arguments used, including calling anyone who questions certain ideas "racists" and continual use of logical fallacies, are enough to insult the intelligence of any reader who tries to approach the topics of discussion without walking in step with the bias of the authors. Pass on this one, there are plenty of books written on these topics, some legitimately scholarly, some more open-minded, which deal with the ancient mysteries herein without treating the reader to a manifesto of slant. -true__ibnFrey :)
Rating:
Summary: A rational look at the ancient world
Review: When I first saw the title "Ancient Mysteries" I was immediately put off by the title and thought: here goes another "aliens built the pyramids" New Age woo woo book. My closer read of the editorial reviews at Amazon indicated the book took a more sensible approach. Authors James and Thorpe do a great job of going through the various architectural and technological wonders of the ancient world. The book is a compendium of loosely linked chapters and the sections could easily be read backwards without losing much meaning. Though the book does a lot of debunking of fringe archeology, it does it in a very effective way. Rather than hitting hard at some of the fringe theories right up front, the authors do their best to present those theories in the best light possible. Often they got me hooked on them. Then they very gently begin to tear down the theories with hard evidence. (Which is often ignored or conveniently overlook by the fringe proponents.) I constantly felt the little voice inside me going "Uh oh..." You won't come away with any great understanding of the ancient world, the authors cover far too much ground for that. You will however have a fun -- and extensive read, and will gain some insight into how science and archeolgy work together. I was a little disappointed that they barely covered some of the issues concerning the ancient Pueblo sites here in New Mexico.
| 
