Craig's Reviews > The Sign and the Seal: The Quest for the Lost Ark of the Covenant

The Sign and the Seal by Graham Hancock
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
5986885
's review
Aug 16, 11

Read in March, 2006, read count: 1

Graham Hancock makes me chuckle. As such, I picked up The Sign and the Seal as a bit of light reading, and I most certainly was not disappointed. In this book, Hancock weaves an intricate tapestry that ties together such disparate subjects as Freemasons, the magicians of ancient Egypt, the Knights Templar, Ethiopian Jews, and many many more.

The aim of this research? An effort to prove that the final resting place of the Ark of the Covenant is a small town in Ethiopia.

I won't lie to you - the book is a fairly compelling page-turner and no mistake. Hancock's painstaking investigation into the origins of the Jewish community in Ethiopia, among others, seems quite well thought-out and intriguing; if Hancock didn't have such disregard for "mainstream archaeologists," I think he'd do a great job. Sadly, Hancock tends to gravitate towards fantastic and unprovable theories and explanations, and also tends to belittle anyone who follows a more "orthodox" approach to archaeology.

All in all, a great read. Just don't make the mistake of being convinced of his pseudoarchaeology. I think the following quote really says all you need to know about Hancock's methodology...

I was well aware that scholars might dispute my findings, and the conclusions that I had drawn from them - but, really, the approval of the 'experts' and the 'authorities' was not what I had sought during 1989 and 1990. Instead my goal had been an inner one in which I alone had been the judge and final arbiter of all the evidence and of all the arguments.

~ Graham Hancock
2 likes · likeflag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read The Sign and the Seal.
sign in »

Comments (showing 1-3 of 3) (3 new)

dateDown_arrow    newest »

Frank Hancock tends to gravitate towards fantastical and unproveable theories? His theories appear to make more sense than the fantastical and unproveable theories of mainstream archeologists


Craig "Unproveable" is not the same as "unproven."


message 3: by David (new) - added it

David Craig, I see what you mean, Hancock is definitely wrapped up in himself but he

does tie some interesting thoughts
together


back to top