not my cup of tea, don't you know.., 05 Dec 2008
I suppose I'm not really interested enough in 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 covered in other books. I dont agree with their dating system, so the whole thing was was just irritating, for me anyway.

Great book. Mind blowing, 09 May 2007
I love this book. It is written in a style capable of satisfying amateurs and scholars alike, and raises more serious challenges to mainstream dogma. Cosmology is my subject -- obviously there is some overlap -- and this book makes for a great reference work in addition to a fascinating read. I coudln't recommend it strongly enough!

Great book for non experts, 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 and discoveries are questionable and that too often personal interests interfere in what should be impartial judgements.

Interesting and one needs an open mind to enjoy it., 11 Jun 2001
The book is interesting and pinpoints archaeologists and anthropologist institutes which refuses to acknowledge ancient sites and artefacts which suggests humanity is far older than convention claims i.e. sites hundreds of thousands years old found in 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 lacking in 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 and they also buried their dead and 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 and 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 them in the book suggests that they are much more primitive and 'animal' than archiac homo sapians such as the Neanderthal though maybe there are decendents of homo erectus still roaming in 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 and very ancient sites found in North and South America, the book is well researched on that subject.

An archaeological perspective, 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, and it has often been more expedient to ignore the evidence than to reappraise the model. Now that Cremo and 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 some in 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 and entertaining and will certainly outlive its critics. I only refrain from giving it five stars because science this much fun seems too good to be true.

not my cup of tea, don't you know.., 05 Dec 2008
I suppose I'm not really interested enough in 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 covered in other books. I dont agree with their dating system, so the whole thing was was just irritating, for me anyway.

Great book. Mind blowing, 09 May 2007
I love this book. It is written in a style capable of satisfying amateurs and scholars alike, and raises more serious challenges to mainstream dogma. Cosmology is my subject -- obviously there is some overlap -- and this book makes for a great reference work in addition to a fascinating read. I coudln't recommend it strongly enough!

Great book for non experts, 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 and discoveries are questionable and that too often personal interests interfere in what should be impartial judgements.

Interesting and one needs an open mind to enjoy it., 11 Jun 2001
The book is interesting and pinpoints archaeologists and anthropologist institutes which refuses to acknowledge ancient sites and artefacts which suggests humanity is far older than convention claims i.e. sites hundreds of thousands years old found in 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 lacking in 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 and they also buried their dead and 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 and 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 them in the book suggests that they are much more primitive and 'animal' than archiac homo sapians such as the Neanderthal though maybe there are decendents of homo erectus still roaming in 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 and very ancient sites found in North and South America, the book is well researched on that subject.

An archaeological perspective, 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, and it has often been more expedient to ignore the evidence than to reappraise the model. Now that Cremo and 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 some in 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 and entertaining and will certainly outlive its critics. I only refrain from giving it five stars because science this much fun seems too good to be true.

A good companion, 21 Nov 2007
I read Coe's book on the Maya when visiting the Mayan sites in Guatemala, and I liked it very much. So it was only normal that I would get his book on the Angkor civilization when visiting Cambodia. I read it throughout the three week trip and it offered important background during the visits. Though not going in the utmost detail I found it covered most aspects well enough and as such it enhanced my visits very much (though I didn't take it with me on the sites themselves, its being slightly too heavy for that made it stay in the hotel mostly).


I expected better from a Yale professor, 03 May 2004
This is an average book, and average always disappoints. Much information is qualified with terms like "must have" and "surely". In one word, then, conjecture.

At other times, Coe seems to believe what he wants to believe. P205 - "These, as well as the seventeenth-century Chinese and Japanese graffiti painted on columns of the Cruciform Gallery, give valuable information on the social, political and even commercial culture of the epoch". I'm not sure I agree with this. It's an unsubstantiated statement. It gives valuable information about the people who did the writing. Beyond that, I'm not sure how indicative it is of a whole "epoch".

There is no mention about the effects of monsoons on the barays (reservoirs). Did the barays flood, or did they catch all the water that fell on their vast area? Or did they drain it off somewhere? I have no idea from this book.

I have not yet visited Cambodia, and am busy reading up in preparation for a visit later this year. I have gleaned from this book the names of some places I should visit in addition to the usual tourist attractions, and learned a little history. Some of the photographs and illustrations are quite stunning. I haven't found it especially rewarding reading. It has whetted my appetite, but now I need to look elsewhere to satisfy my hunger.

not my cup of tea, don't you know.., 05 Dec 2008
I suppose I'm not really interested enough in 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 covered in other books. I dont agree with their dating system, so the whole thing was was just irritating, for me anyway.

Great book. Mind blowing, 09 May 2007
I love this book. It is written in a style capable of satisfying amateurs and scholars alike, and raises more serious challenges to mainstream dogma. Cosmology is my subject -- obviously there is some overlap -- and this book makes for a great reference work in addition to a fascinating read. I coudln't recommend it strongly enough!

Great book for non experts, 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 and discoveries are questionable and that too often personal interests interfere in what should be impartial judgements.

Interesting and one needs an open mind to enjoy it., 11 Jun 2001
The book is interesting and pinpoints archaeologists and anthropologist institutes which refuses to acknowledge ancient sites and artefacts which suggests humanity is far older than convention claims i.e. sites hundreds of thousands years old found in 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 lacking in 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 and they also buried their dead and 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 and 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 them in the book suggests that they are much more primitive and 'animal' than archiac homo sapians such as the Neanderthal though maybe there are decendents of homo erectus still roaming in 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 and very ancient sites found in North and South America, the book is well researched on that subject.

An archaeological perspective, 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, and it has often been more expedient to ignore the evidence than to reappraise the model. Now that Cremo and 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 some in 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 and entertaining and will certainly outlive its critics. I only refrain from giving it five stars because science this much fun seems too good to be true.

A good companion, 21 Nov 2007
I read Coe's book on the Maya when visiting the Mayan sites in Guatemala, and I liked it very much. So it was only normal that I would get his book on the Angkor civilization when visiting Cambodia. I read it throughout the three week trip and it offered important background during the visits. Though not going in the utmost detail I found it covered most aspects well enough and as such it enhanced my visits very much (though I didn't take it with me on the sites themselves, its being slightly too heavy for that made it stay in the hotel mostly).


I expected better from a Yale professor, 03 May 2004
This is an average book, and average always disappoints. Much information is qualified with terms like "must have" and "surely". In one word, then, conjecture.

At other times, Coe seems to believe what he wants to believe. P205 - "These, as well as the seventeenth-century Chinese and Japanese graffiti painted on columns of the Cruciform Gallery, give valuable information on the social, political and even commercial culture of the epoch". I'm not sure I agree with this. It's an unsubstantiated statement. It gives valuable information about the people who did the writing. Beyond that, I'm not sure how indicative it is of a whole "epoch".

There is no mention about the effects of monsoons on the barays (reservoirs). Did the barays flood, or did they catch all the water that fell on their vast area? Or did they drain it off somewhere? I have no idea from this book.

I have not yet visited Cambodia, and am busy reading up in preparation for a visit later this year. I have gleaned from this book the names of some places I should visit in addition to the usual tourist attractions, and learned a little history. Some of the photographs and illustrations are quite stunning. I haven't found it especially rewarding reading. It has whetted my appetite, but now I need to look elsewhere to satisfy my hunger.

terracotta warriors, 03 Feb 2008
This small book (7.5 by 6 inches and 96 pages)is little more than a small extract of the final section of the book The First Emperor by the same author. It is adequate if all you want is a snapshot of the Terracotta Army but that bis as far asit goes.There is no indication how the Army fits intoChinese history or the Qin dynasty in particular.The pictures are excellent but to small.

not my cup of tea, don't you know.., 05 Dec 2008
I suppose I'm not really interested enough in 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 covered in other books. I dont agree with their dating system, so the whole thing was was just irritating, for me anyway.

Great book. Mind blowing, 09 May 2007
I love this book. It is written in a style capable of satisfying amateurs and scholars alike, and raises more serious challenges to mainstream dogma. Cosmology is my subject -- obviously there is some overlap -- and this book makes for a great reference work in addition to a fascinating read. I coudln't recommend it strongly enough!

Great book for non experts, 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 and discoveries are questionable and that too often personal interests interfere in what should be impartial judgements.

Interesting and one needs an open mind to enjoy it., 11 Jun 2001
The book is interesting and pinpoints archaeologists and anthropologist institutes which refuses to acknowledge ancient sites and artefacts which suggests humanity is far older than convention claims i.e. sites hundreds of thousands years old found in 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 lacking in 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 and they also buried their dead and 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 and 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 them in the book suggests that they are much more primitive and 'animal' than archiac homo sapians such as the Neanderthal though maybe there are decendents of homo erectus still roaming in 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 and very ancient sites found in North and South America, the book is well researched on that subject.

An archaeological perspective, 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, and it has often been more expedient to ignore the evidence than to reappraise the model. Now that Cremo and 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 some in 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 and entertaining and will certainly outlive its critics. I only refrain from giving it five stars because science this much fun seems too good to be true.

A good companion, 21 Nov 2007
I read Coe's book on the Maya when visiting the Mayan sites in Guatemala, and I liked it very much. So it was only normal that I would get his book on the Angkor civilization when visiting Cambodia. I read it throughout the three week trip and it offered important background during the visits. Though not going in the utmost detail I found it covered most aspects well enough and as such it enhanced my visits very much (though I didn't take it with me on the sites themselves, its being slightly too heavy for that made it stay in the hotel mostly).


I expected better from a Yale professor, 03 May 2004
This is an average book, and average always disappoints. Much information is qualified with terms like "must have" and "surely". In one word, then, conjecture.

At other times, Coe seems to believe what he wants to believe. P205 - "These, as well as the seventeenth-century Chinese and Japanese graffiti painted on columns of the Cruciform Gallery, give valuable information on the social, political and even commercial culture of the epoch". I'm not sure I agree with this. It's an unsubstantiated statement. It gives valuable information about the people who did the writing. Beyond that, I'm not sure how indicative it is of a whole "epoch".

There is no mention about the effects of monsoons on the barays (reservoirs). Did the barays flood, or did they catch all the water that fell on their vast area? Or did they drain it off somewhere? I have no idea from this book.

I have not yet visited Cambodia, and am busy reading up in preparation for a visit later this year. I have gleaned from this book the names of some places I should visit in addition to the usual tourist attractions, and learned a little history. Some of the photographs and illustrations are quite stunning. I haven't found it especially rewarding reading. It has whetted my appetite, but now I need to look elsewhere to satisfy my hunger.

terracotta warriors, 03 Feb 2008
This small book (7.5 by 6 inches and 96 pages)is little more than a small extract of the final section of the book The First Emperor by the same author. It is adequate if all you want is a snapshot of the Terracotta Army but that bis as far asit goes.There is no indication how the Army fits intoChinese history or the Qin dynasty in particular.The pictures are excellent but to small.

Don't bother..., 26 Feb 2002
As someone with a great interest in ancient history and lost civilisations, I bought this book with enthusiasm (it has a title not to be ignored). I feel compelled however to express my disappointment with this book; it is nothing more than a travel account written by a 1970s hippie backpacking through Asia. Occasionally the author would encounter another traveller who would tell an enticing tale (no guarantee of authenticity), and then postulate "is this a hidden mystery?" - clearly gullible, the author seemed open to whomever he encountered and whatever fancy stories they had to tell (the old adage of "gullible American" comes to mind). There is no new information, no quality thought-provoking research, and no new images either - all pictures in the book are old archives published in many other books for decades, and what's more they are positioned between chapters seemingly as an afterthought (there are no references to the images in the text). If you are interested in this subject, go to Graham Hancock who is a genuine researcher and has made genuine new discoveries. Hatcher-Childress's book is a complete waste of money; furthermore, every single page without exception is riddled with spelling mistakes and grammatical errors. Shame on the author, shame on the publisher.

not my cup of tea, don't you know.., 05 Dec 2008
I suppose I'm not really interested enough in 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 covered in other books. I dont agree with their dating system, so the whole thing was was just irritating, for me anyway.

Great book. Mind blowing, 09 May 2007
I love this book. It is written in a style capable of satisfying amateurs and scholars alike, and raises more serious challenges to mainstream dogma. Cosmology is my subject -- obviously there is some overlap -- and this book makes for a great reference work in addition to a fascinating read. I coudln't recommend it strongly enough!

Great book for non experts, 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 and discoveries are questionable and that too often personal interests interfere in what should be impartial judgements.

Interesting and one needs an open mind to enjoy it., 11 Jun 2001
The book is interesting and pinpoints archaeologists and anthropologist institutes which refuses to acknowledge ancient sites and artefacts which suggests humanity is far older than convention claims i.e. sites hundreds of thousands years old found in 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 lacking in 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 and they also buried their dead and 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 and 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 them in the book suggests that they are much more primitive and 'animal' than archiac homo sapians such as the Neanderthal though maybe there are decendents of homo erectus still roaming in 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 and very ancient sites found in North and South America, the book is well researched on that subject.

An archaeological perspective, 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, and it has often been more expedient to ignore the evidence than to reappraise the model. Now that Cremo and 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 some in 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 and entertaining and will certainly outlive its critics. I only refrain from giving it five stars because science this much fun seems too good to be true.

A good companion, 21 Nov 2007
I read Coe's book on the Maya when visiting the Mayan sites in Guatemala, and I liked it very much. So it was only normal that I would get his book on the Angkor civilization when visiting Cambodia. I read it throughout the three week trip and it offered important background during the visits. Though not going in the utmost detail I found it covered most aspects well enough and as such it enhanced my visits very much (though I didn't take it with me on the sites themselves, its being slightly too heavy for that made it stay in the hotel mostly).


I expected better from a Yale professor, 03 May 2004
This is an average book, and average always disappoints. Much information is qualified with terms like "must have" and "surely". In one word, then, conjecture.

At other times, Coe seems to believe what he wants to believe. P205 - "These, as well as the seventeenth-century Chinese and Japanese graffiti painted on columns of the Cruciform Gallery, give valuable information on the social, political and even commercial culture of the epoch". I'm not sure I agree with this. It's an unsubstantiated statement. It gives valuable information about the people who did the writing. Beyond that, I'm not sure how indicative it is of a whole "epoch".

There is no mention about the effects of monsoons on the barays (reservoirs). Did the barays flood, or did they catch all the water that fell on their vast area? Or did they drain it off somewhere? I have no idea from this book.

I have not yet visited Cambodia, and am busy reading up in preparation for a visit later this year. I have gleaned from this book the names of some places I should visit in addition to the usual tourist attractions, and learned a little history. Some of the photographs and illustrations are quite stunning. I haven't found it especially rewarding reading. It has whetted my appetite, but now I need to look elsewhere to satisfy my hunger.

terracotta warriors, 03 Feb 2008
This small book (7.5 by 6 inches and 96 pages)is little more than a small extract of the final section of the book The First Emperor by the same author. It is adequate if all you want is a snapshot of the Terracotta Army but that bis as far asit goes.There is no indication how the Army fits intoChinese history or the Qin dynasty in particular.The pictures are excellent but to small.

Don't bother..., 26 Feb 2002
As someone with a great interest in ancient history and lost civilisations, I bought this book with enthusiasm (it has a title not to be ignored). I feel compelled however to express my disappointment with this book; it is nothing more than a travel account written by a 1970s hippie backpacking through Asia. Occasionally the author would encounter another traveller who would tell an enticing tale (no guarantee of authenticity), and then postulate "is this a hidden mystery?" - clearly gullible, the author seemed open to whomever he encountered and whatever fancy stories they had to tell (the old adage of "gullible American" comes to mind). There is no new information, no quality thought-provoking research, and no new images either - all pictures in the book are old archives published in many other books for decades, and what's more they are positioned between chapters seemingly as an afterthought (there are no references to the images in the text). If you are interested in this subject, go to Graham Hancock who is a genuine researcher and has made genuine new discoveries. Hatcher-Childress's book is a complete waste of money; furthermore, every single page without exception is riddled with spelling mistakes and grammatical errors. Shame on the author, shame on the publisher.

A lucid and beautifully illustrated tour through the world of Buddhism, 25 Jan 2007
This is one of the best little books on Buddha and Buddhism I've seen. The beautiful photos really help to explain the points covered by the text. A quick flick through this is more profitable than poring through many a weightier tome.