Customer Reviews
not my cup of tea, don't you know.. - By: Mr. R. J. Paul, 05 Dec 2008 
I suppose I'm not really interested enoughin archeology, to plough through the 800 pages. I skipped to the interesting bits about artifacts found from the time of the flood, although they arn't christians, so it's just presented as an oddity. The other subjects about the human ancestors has been coveredin other books. I dont agree with their dating system, so the whole thing was was just irritating, for me anyway.
Great book. Mind blowing - By: David Drew, 09 May 2007 
I love this book. It is writtenin a style capable of satisfying amateurs & scholars alike, & raises more serious challenges to mainstream dogma. Cosmology is my subject -- obviously there is some overlap -- & this book makes for a great reference workin addition to a fascinating read. I coudln't recommend it strongly enough!
Great book for non experts - By: , 17 Jul 2002 
I'd been unsuccessfully looking for a not too technical book about evolution, when I came across this one. The reading is very easy, even when the authors explain somewhat difficult matters, like dating techniques or when they write about geology, anatomy etc.
It's also clear that they have done an enormous data compilation job, trying to give all existing theories a fair chance. They obviously support a specific one, but their aim with this book is to show that, even the most widely accepted theories & discoveries are questionable & that too often personal interests interferein what should be impartial judgements.
Interesting and one needs an open mind to enjoy it. - By: , 11 Jun 2001 
The book is interesting & pinpoints archaeologists & anthropologist institutes which refuses to acknowledge ancient sites & artefacts which suggests humanity is far older than convention claims i.e. sites hundreds of thousands years old foundin the Americas. Conventional view or belief is that modern man did not go there until around 12,000 - 10,000 years go. Open mindedness would allow unlimited research which is sadly lackingin archaeology at present.
However, I disagree with the authors' views on other non modern 'more primitive' hominids. They appear to be all lumped together as mere 'animal' whether they are the most primitive austropolocus or the more advanced arhiac homo sapians such as the Neanderthal. Evidence points to the fact that the latter did make tools & they also buried their dead & possibly mourned them. It could be argued that elephants also mourn their dead but it still does not prove their point. Also despite the fact the book is supported by a Hindu society, it states that modern man was the only hunter among the hominids. I thought Hindus believe that originally modern humans were not hunters either & that hunting by modern humans is a much more recent pastime. Many Hindus are vegetarians.
Also reports of wildmen 'sited' or 'captured'in recent times, the description of themin the book suggests that they are much more primitive & 'animal' than archiac homo sapians such as the Neanderthal though maybe there are decendents of homo erectus still roamingin isolated parts of the world.
The authors argue against anthropologists dismissing evidence that man is far older, but unfortunately, they themselves dismiss what evidence there is that other types of human or hominid made tools etc. But I do agree with the argument that modern man may not have evolved from other hominids such as the homo erectus. That view is logical enough.
Otherwise, regarding the artefacts of millions of years old & very ancient sites foundin North & South America, the book is well researched on that subject.
An archaeological perspective - By: , 31 Oct 2000 As an archaeo/anthropologist I was very pleasantly surprised at the quality of research presented here. Our record at coping with anomalies ain't good, & it has often been more expedient to ignore the evidence than to reappraise the model. Now that Cremo & Thompson have exposed the cumulative effect of thousands of these minor "adjustments" it may become easier to see what seemed too unique to be really there. They are thorough, non-dogmatic, observers who present substantial evidence without moulding it to fit preconceptions. The same cannot be said of somein this field, academic or otherwise. It would be a great mistake to dismiss them alongside those authors whose enthusiasm is not matched by their scholarship. Their work is genuinely exciting & entertaining & will certainly outlive its critics. I only refrain from giving it five stars because science this much fun seems too good to be true.
