I was looking for an entertaining read in between semesters teaching. So I bought this and about 10 others in the same vein. After having just finished the excellent book The Hidden History of Mankind, I got an extremely dull and poorly written book. In it the author spends all of his time mentioning other researchers and their boring approach to the subject and in a clumsy rather stupid way. I could not finish it. There are too many other authors that speak to us in a much more lively form. People such as Graham Hancock. Anyway, I love reading about fringe science (since I am deeply embedded in hard science)and this book does not deserve the 4 star rating it has so far received. No way!

How old is the Sphinx? What was the Great Pyramid designed to be? I have never heard of Nabta Playa, but why would an astrophysicist claim that its megaliths were designed as a star map depicting the movements of the constellation Orion? And, over a 10,000 year period! These questions and more are addressed in this book, not in a dogmatic, close-minded way but honest and to the point.

The Sphinx, for example, according to what I learned in school was made at the beginning of ancient Egypt's civilization, 5,000 years ago. However, according to geology, the erosion indicates that it is much older. Not being gullible, I thought this was a little `out there.' However, the author surveys various erosion rates from scientific sources and shows that if the Sphinx is only 5,000 years old the force of water would have to match that of Niagara Falls in order erode the Sphinx and the surrounding rock.

Another example, the Great Pyramid, is said to have been a tomb. But a tomb explanation falls way short of explaining the unique design of its internal chambers. As he does earlier in the work of John West and Robert Schoch in the case of the Sphinx, here, the author supports the work of Christopher Dunn and believes the Great Pyramid was a machine designed to produce energy. (If you want to read more on this subject get `The Giza Power Plant' and `Seed of Knowledge-Stone of Plenty.')

This book is a big picture approach bringing together points of view from various researchers to paint a picture of prehistory. Books are my business so I read a lot of books. This is one of the best, and to the best of my knowledge the only digest of West and Schoch's theory of a prehistoric Sphinx. John West himself called this book "thoroughly enjoyable" and that the author makes "daunting and technical information accessible and readable." I agree.

The previous reviewer had a very reasonable complaint that the book was difficult to wade through because of the sheer volume of material devoted to seemingly irrelevant evidence. I would counter that many of the other books which delve into the prehistory of Egypt are sorely lacking in evidence. Saying something like "Aliens from Atlantis founded Egypt" would need a LOT of evidence to back it up, but a book which claims that would likely never go there. All of Malkowski's evidence may be difficult to wade through, but IMHO it's necessary if you're looking for a solid argument rather than a flight of fancy.

Malkowski's book is also one of the few that begins to make sense of the mysterious prehistory of ancient Egypt and its environs (like Nabta Playa). His conclusion that a Cro-Magnon civilization preceded that of Egypt by thousands of years would be a flight of fancy, were it not for the volume of evidence he presents.

This book is about the origins of the ancient Egyptian culture. It includes such issues as the erosion derived age of the Sphinx, the possible use of Khufu's Pyramid as a power plant, the Mediterranean valley culture theory, a Mayan origin speculation, a general stone age Mother Goddess society, the "Osiris" legend told via numerology (i.e. not really via general mysticism) and some other issues referenced. Over all, the inclusion and lack of topics appears to be quite arbitrary, resulting from the specific books the author had read rather coincidentally. As such, he focuses on these some half a dozen books, some of which are not that incredibly recent. Rarely does it become clear, wether the author/compiler actually agrees with the books he is recounting. Occasionally, he is even contradicting "himself" this way, apparently at least some times involuntarily. The very detailed start on the age of the Sphinx starts promising, actually updating that debate, not only re-narrating the respective other book, referring to the counter arguments and counter counter findings. At other times, the author failed to update his sources.

For example the 19th (!) century book on the supposed Mayan origin of Egyptian culture. He didn't even include the 1970s classic "update" They Came Before Columbus: The African Presence in Ancient America, which is actually reversing the connection and that much more convincing. A natural reversing, as Egyptian culture gets dated ever more ancient, while Mayan culture stays as young as it is by comparison. It would have to be the preceding Olmecs to start with, but even they are too young. He puts that theory in question at the end of that chapter, yet, he is not really doing that issue a service either. Even by just referencing other books, this doesn't get clear in every instance and most certainly it doesn't excuse not correcting wrong assumptions or putting them forward himself. In this example, a Mayan queen's name, "icin", meaning "Little Sister", would have morphed into "Isis" of Egypt. The meaning doesn't make any sense in the Egyptian context to begin with, but the major flaw is that the Egyptians never called Auset/Aset/Ast etc. "Isis". That was the much later Greek rendering of her name... Referenced Thor Heyerdahl proved the crossing of the ocean(s) all right. TO America, not FROM, which is a difference in chosen re-built ancient vessels and currents. The letter "m" is supposed to derive from a Mayan version. However, in reality, it is clearly derived from the hieroglyphic Egyptian word for "sea". In other European languages the sea is still called "mare", "Meer" etc. The "m" represented the wavy seawater surface.

Yet Malkowski is doing a better and more sound job than the in some respects quite similar Technology of the Gods: The Incredible Sciences of the Ancients by David Hatcher Childress. The latter is more concerned with sensationalism. Which becomes obvious, when both books extensively directly or indirectly quote the same book, The Giza Power Plant : Technologies of Ancient Egypt. Hatcher headlines (and nothing else in this matter) that an H-bomb destroyed the supposed machinery inside the pyramid, while Malkowski elaborates that by that the gas hydrogen is referred to, which supposedly was pyramid-inherently used for chemical-physical processes, potentially igniting during an earthquake. Though I have to say, as intriguing as this theory sounds in general, as quoted in both books it lacks convincing evidence, but most certainly no amount of speculation. Which is always necessary to propel us forward in eventual knowledge - knowing that some speculation on the way will turn out to have been just that. I still haven't read, what exactly was supposed to get powered by in ancient Egypt and why any other pyramid canNOT be used for this theory...

Also the Mediterranean valley culture theory is more convincingly presented in "Before the Pharaos". However, not fully. There are significant differences between the Strait of Gibraltar and the Bosporus the author is carelessly equating. The former wasn't existing the last time more than 5.3 million years ago (that's more than 26 times the mount of time humans dwell on Earth). It's respective (dis)connections are a result of plate tectonics. The gap is 13 km (8 miles) at it's narrowest point and the ground level is plate edge ocean floor, between 300 and 900 meters (some 1,000 - 3,000 feet) deep. The Bosporus on the other hand didn't exist before the end of the last more severe ice age: Melting ice made a river bed deeper and wider, then the rising sea level pushed through that river from the other way. It is 30 km (some 19 miles) long, but at places only 700 m (some 2,300 feet) wide and only 36 - 124 m (118 - 407 feet) deep. It is NOT representing the boundaries of plates, as the CURRENT European-Asian borders are nothing, but political constructs. True is that the sea level was much lower and as culture(s) usually settle at ports, there are a lot of ruins under water now. (Which will be the same case scenario with our culture soon.) The scenario illustrated in this book is highly exaggerated. In reality, the already existing Mediterranean cultures stretched a bit further into what today is under water. There wasn't this much land space during human times for an entirely different culture in some sort of huge valley. Under water ruins are true for other places on Earth, such as in western India. Flood stories are true not only for the selectively depicted "Old Known World" societies in this book, but also e.g. for ancient Australia. It may have been a tsunami of any possible source (earth quake, vulcano, meteor or: melted continental ice water as in a huge sea like lake breaking into the ocean at once, such as happened via Canada). In other words: We should stay with the existing land masses for theories of ancient cultures or if not, then at least address the geological evidence such as in this paragraph to make such theories at least potentially viable.

By the way, there are ancient(-derived) maps in existance which must have been (originally) made during the very ancient times this book is talking about. So yes, those very ancients were much more sophisticated than their descendents. Those maps indeed depict a lower sea level - one that is consistent with what would have to be expected, i.e. no wild exaggerations. Read and see Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings: Evidence of Advanced Civilization in the Ice Age.

There are books by specialists on special issues. They know, what they are talking about and the progressive ones undertake career killer science projects themselves with an open mind to gain ever more knowledge. And yes, once in a while, it is necessary for someone to put all those books in a holistic picture. This book is neither by such a specialist, nor a researcher other than researching books and neither really succeeding in synthesizing the latter. Which becomes clear at several points when the author of 2006 uses outdated sources with NO updates. For example, he is writing about the Venus of Dolní Vìstonice. Supposedly in Czechoslovakia. But that is only true from the time his source book was written. That country doesn't exist anymore. Today, it's Czechia and the town's new name is Okres Bøeclav. Yet, when the Venus was found, the country was Moravia. This may not really matter, however, the following does: The author entangles himself helplessly with the Homo sapiens issue. According to his respective source books he is correct in some chapters, but not in others. There must have been an old source, apparently still addressing a supposed "Homo sapiens neanderthalensis". Today, we know that the Neanderthals are a bit further related to us. But the confusion in this book arises, when the author avers e.g. that Homo sapiens first appeared in Europa, later in Africa. The Neanderthals (by the way stretching into geological Africa, i.e. today's "Middle East") really appeared in Europe, however, they were a variation only of Homo erectus, first appearing in Africa. Today's humans (Homo sapiens sapiens, sometimes abbreviated by dropping one "sapiens") appeared first in Africa and moved into Europe much later as well. The reader has to know all this and more in order not to jump to terribly wrong conclusions by reading this book. Sometimes the author may have phrased his sentences sloppy enough only to involuntarily insinuate a quite Eurocentrist (and wrong) picture, as in other chapters he is less confusing about this.

Speaking of which, occasionally, Malkowski enters the racist path. Describing some facial features as delicate, some skeletal structures as graceful. As in opposition to "robust and archaic" (we all know that this is still a certain euphemism), or the "more primitive human type". Guess, who is meant respectively! He is talking about races, uses the N-word and indeed combines that into the "N****** race". (In reality, there aren't any races and skull measurements should be handled with care.) That gives food for thought for a potential, maybe involuntary bias influencing his theories.

The bottom line is: Theories, even speculations are important, yet they should be worked through better than in this book, amount to more than a few circumstantial evidence scenarios and be void of folk etymology. Neither is the book well structured nor consistently up to date for 2006. The most important map provided does show hardly any locality described, which would have been especially helpfull as these are sites not easily found elsewhere. Yet, some parts were interesting to read and incite further research.

For an essential overstanding in the ancient ancients being more sophisticated than the later ancients, one doesn't have to search for cultures as of yet unknown and entirely buried beneath sea level, but look into the issue of cyclical/spiralling history (instead of linear in terms of progress, with a catastrophe). For that read Lost Star of Myth And Time.

Very well researched and very well written book. I would definitely recommend it to anyone interested in the subject.

Flawed premise followed by equally flawed argumentation can lead you to any conclusion you wish to find. This book is no different from the multitude of books out there trying to capitalize on the basic ignorance people have of the wealth of information we really do possess about the history of pre-Dynastic Egypt.

There's no mysterious connection between the Maya and they Egyptians...their pyramids are separated not only by thousands of miles of ocean, but by thousands of YEARS in time! The Sphinx at Giza has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be Fourth Dynasty in its origin... and not the fanciful product of some mysterious "Lost Civilization" for which not a stitch of evidence exists anywhere in the world. The "older sphinx" debate died when unbiased geologists (Reader, Solenhofen, Harrell, etc) looked at the site and easily explained the erosion patterns they saw within the timeframe required.

This book relies upon defunct theories from the 19th century as its theoretical foundation, and then proceeds to lead the (hopefully ignorant) reader down the rabbit hole to a place that has nothing whatsoever to do with real Egyptology, Egypt, or human history.

This book, by its very nature, is not worth the money or time to read it.

Arrived quickly and fed into a research project that I am conducting. Excellent questions and surprisingly a lot of sound answers. Good reading if you question the status quo of things.

The book is well written and very thought provoking. Seems well balanced considering the non-orthodox conclusions made by the author. If you have an interest, like I do, in speculative prehistory, a la Graham Handcock, then you will enjoy this book. I like that the author, unlike some, does not sweepingly dismiss conventional science and orthodox views and therefore does not come off as a fringe lunatic.

I had just come back from a trip to Egypt when I ordered this book. This book is for those genuinely interested in delving into the roots of an ancient civilisation. Its not a novel - so please don't insult the author by judging it as "slow" as has been stated in another review. Its an oustandingly well-researched, fascinating and thought-provoking study for those who have so often wondered about the origins and amazing feats of engineering of the ancient Egyptians. Malkowski is a meticulous writer who takes enormous trouble to try to clarify the origins our human history and the links between ancient civilisations and gives us the chance to make up our own minds. He forces nothing upon the reader - but dangles fascinating and seductive pieces of information which will leave you wishing for more.

this book has an incredible amount of fascinating information, but it is not organized well. The writing does not grab your attention, but rather, you have to force yourself to find the interesting material. It can get a bit "Von Daniken" at times-- especially the chapter about the pyramid being a power plant, but overall it is a good, solid, informative book that challenges the typical archeological canon we are all handed. If you are willing to wade through it, you will find info that is worth while.