Rating: 
Summary: Major Joke
Review: This is not a scientific inquiry. It is more of a hoax, a money making project by the authors. Every single "ancient artifact"- ALL OF THEM- were NOT dated. Instead the authors claim that since the artifacts were found in certain layers of rock, then the artifacts must be that old. This is the same as sticking a TV in a 2 billion year old rock sediment, then when someone finds it, they claim the TV must be 2 billion years old. This is how EVERY SINGLE OBJECT IS "DATED".
It is a sad fact that some people believe such nonsense. The authors claim that they found human artifacts in a rock layer 2.8 billion years old, therefore modern man must go back that far. Yet they didnt date the object itself, only the rocks around it. Dont get sucked into this mess, it is a hoax.
Rating: 
Summary: Much of its style/content taken from earlier work of Corliss
Review: Great Book, but i was surprised to find an earlier work:Ancient MAN: a Handbook of Puzzling Artifacts,
isbn# 0915554038 I need to go back to my shelf and see if Cremo and Thompson
give this earlier work credit. the style and content are similarly edited both books are a great read.
Rating:
Summary: Forbidden Archeology - A Hidden Agenda or a Critical Review
Review: Since the Authors, Cremo and Thompson, gathered, compiled and analyzed such a large quantity of material from many diverse sources, I was initially excited about the book. However, as I read their book and referred back to some of the primary sources cited, I found that, at best, material was frequently taken out of context, , or, worse, the Authors ignored critical, supplemental material. For example, the Authors make early reference to the distal end of a humerus (KNM-KP 271) that was recovered from the west side of Lake Turkana in Kenya, at the Kanapoi site. The Authors went on to quote from Henry McHenry's early work that the Kanapoi humerus was "barely distinguishable from the modern Homo," thereby suggesting that modern humans were at least 4 million years old. However, other researchers (Patterson and Howells ) in addition to McHenery note that "it is difficult to identify the family from the distal end of the humerus [alone]," and that, in general, scientists are not able to distinguish between human and chimp populations based the humerus alone. Subsequent research (prior to the release of the Author's book) by Meave Leakey has shown that the remains in question belong to Australopithecus anamensis not Homo sapiens. While the above is but one example, I found that as I read further into Forbidden Archeology, I frequently had to go back to the original citations in order to get a "true," "uncolored" view of what information was actually presented in the primary sources. Given the fact that both of the Authors are members of the Krishna Bhaktivendanta Institute "that studies the relationship between modern science and the world view expressed in the Vedic literature," one begins to suspect the authors might have an agenda that "colors" the findings presented in their book. The more I read, the more it became obvious to me that Forbidden Archeology serves better as a bibliography than as Johnson suggests a "complete review of the scientific evidence concerning human origins."
Rating:
Summary: Fascinating evidence that questions modern scientific theory
Review: This book is a compilation of scientific discoveries that have been shuffled off into a closet or ignored because they call into question modern scientific theory even though some were for a time accepted by the scientific establishment. From human footprints and skeletons estimated to be millions of years old to evidence of human habitation far older than science is willing to admit, the authors gather these and many more bits of evidence that demolish accepted evolutionary theory. The book's only drawback is its length and sometimes dry explanation of discoveries and why they are valid. In fact, the reader can sometimes be forgiven for thinking he/she is reading a textbook on archeology. However, this weakness is also a strength in that the reader will see that the discoveries listed aren't included willy-nilly but rather have strong reason to be considered as valid scientific evidence. Indeed, the authors allow noted scientists who were connected to the time when the discoveries were made to do the explaining which makes the book all the more stronger. The book also raises the disturbing question (a question asked by Charles Hoy Fort decades earlier) about the scientific community really being willing to entertain all evidence, even that which conflicts will dearly held theory.
Rating: 
Summary: No title, can't think of one
Review: This book is a dictionary, basically. Of all the archaelogical finds which are forgotten, forbidden, ignored. I couldn't get through the entire thing, yet I would recommend it highly, absolutely, as it represents the failure of science to respect, to accept, that which it does not know, that which does not fall into accepted theory. The book is amazing. I read the first third or so, and then just skipped around. As I aforesaid, it is like a dictionary, or a phone book, just listing after listing of archaelogical finds which do not fit into accepted theory.
And, it is very important, as much in content as in intent. We, the public, just tend to accept whatever we are told by science. We don't question. And we should, as Cremo and Thompson have shown.
Quite honestly, most people aren't interested in this stuff. They don't even know that homo sapiens is supposedly on the earth for three and a half million years, and they don't care. But some of us do. There is an archaeology that goes back far longer than this, that represents possible intelligent life on this planet far earlier than even the earliest prototypes of humans existed. And this, combined with the knowledge that we now have of climatic cycles on this planet just has to give us pause for thought. Does it matter? Well, if one considers the survival of the human race something of importance:yes.
Rating:
Summary: The Controversy is what's really interesting.
Review: Remember Gary Larsen's "Far Side" cartoon of the scientists dropping everything and running outside when the Good Humor truck comes by? We tend to think of scientists as beyond reproach - but they're not. They're just as emotional and jumpy as the rest of us, especially when their pet doctrines get called into question. In Science the drill is to glom onto the accepted belief system and hang on for dear life. God forbid some punky upstart like Fritjof Capra should come along and write a smart-alecky book about how Vedic texts described the same tenets as Quantum Physics a coupla thousand years ago. Or Rupert Sheldrake would have the nerve to point out that the DNA emperor has not clothes. Howls of derision. Calls for book burning in the journal "Science". Yellink und screamink. Now I don't think it takes 900+ pages to make a point. Probably 150 would have been adequate to get everybody's bowels in an uproar. The 2-cassette audio abridgement seems to do a pretty good job. As far as the actual validity of the overall argument - who knows? The evidence proposed is probably just as valid as the official party line. It is important to remember that all scientific revolutions go through pretty much the same drill: Scorn and derision towards those presenting novel or contrary opinions, followed by fear, panic and banishment of those individuals when it begins to appear that empirical data is supporting the new theories, then total abandonment of previously cherished notions, accompanied by jumping on the bandwagon with abandon while announcing that they'd been supporting the new idea all along. So it's really the process that's important here. Hey, sit back and enjoy the show!
Rating:
Summary: Wow!
Review: Few books on such subjects ever provide full sustenance to their statements. This one does and in a great manner. It not only provides ancient civilizations but also provides with evolution lines, normally not quet well spread.
Rating: 
Summary: Missing facts
Review: The book doen't mention Fred Spoor, a famous scientist whose work in the early 90's showed that the ear canals of all modern humans are rather different than the ear canals of the extinct Neanderthals. Since the ear canal actually controls the ability to walk upright (to a large degree) this shows that Neanderthals most likely walked upright differently too but very differently than us modern people. The ear canals of the also extinct homo erectus show that like us it too was an upright walker and certainly not a giant gibbon (an animal the authors of this book seem to want us to believe erectus was). Since the revised version of this book was made in 1996 (or the most likely earliest at least 1995) I do not know why they didn't make a mention of Spoor and the ear canal studies he proved.
Rating:
Summary: Time travel
Review: This book, while interesting, mostly presents individual artifacts rather than evidence for civilization as a whole. While the data is unquestionable, in my opinion, it points not to civilization billions of years ago, but to the existence of time travel in the future.
Rating:
Summary: Yet Another Fundamentalist Assault
Review: If you are looking for valid scientifically based understanding of the proto-human theory this book is not the place to begin your search. The proto-human theory is itself a very weak argument, similar to the aquatic ape, or creationist theories of human origins. This book is biased and fundamentalist beggar dressed up in threadbare scientific rags. Only the foolish or uneducated will be swayed by its shoddy arguments, though the length and breadth of the book will probably make the propaganda "look" impressive to the lay reader.
Open-mindedness is a positive trait but naivety is a vice and the uneducated will not be able to distinguish fact from fiction in this book. Do yourself a favor and buy yourself a college-level Anthropology textbook before embarking toward the misty undefined shores of radical extremist theory. Why not at least failiarize yourself with more main-stream theories to begin with?
| 
