Sounds very much like Forbidden Archaeology:
http://www.mcremo.com/ with many of the same anecdotes and the same conclusions, namely that the evidence he presents is proof that humanity has existed far longer than scientists tell us, that there have been previous civilizations that reached a technological level similar to our own, and that they destroyed themselves by warfare. The book is lavishly (even beautifully) illustrated.
There's really nothing new here. You certainly can't begrudge the effort that went into making this available, but if you've already read Forbidden Archaeology and Graham Hancock, that pretty well covers it. Igan does not confine himself to re-telling these anecdotes, but uses many of them as a platform for his ideas on modern politics, al Quaeda, capitalism, and the usual litany of grievances against the modern world.
Igan's sources are sparse. He does list a few at the end of his book, but they aren't well tied to the text, though he will sometimes mention them in context. He does list Cremo, but also uses von Daniken, Sitchin, Churchward (of Mu fame), the Lemurian Fellowship, Blavatsky, and similar sources. As an example here is a bibliographic entry in his list:
Ramayana, The. That's it. Another source:
New York Herald. No date, no volume, no number, no article. Just what are we talking about here? How does this constitute a bibliography?
In other words, many, if not most of these archaeological anomalies are not documented. Of course, his sources often don't document them either, and some of them, such as the 'Crystal Skull,' are known forgeries. As a result the book contains a hodge-podge of real mysteries combined with abject speculation done (usually) by others who have no idea what they are talking about. Their one commonality is the idea that 'scientists don't know what they are talking about' therefore everything we can come up with is valid.
I am all for people who are not PhDs with academic appointments dealing with some of these issues because I agree that academics often don't see the forest for the trees, plus they are more interested in tenure than wild speculation. But I still look for some sense of understanding, of experience, or of iron-clad documentation to replace the usual appeal to authority. Igan is a pseudonym for a musician and artist who plays computer games. He's also heavily into the 911 Truth movement. Because he is hiding behind a pseudonym we don't know if he has any credentials whatsoever that would give him credibility in this field. The contents of the book as far as I can see are based entirely on the work of others, many of whom lack any sort of credibility themselves, coupled with opinion of the modern world. It is very much a tertiary work. That puts this squarely in the tradition of von Daniken. If you enjoy the entertainment value, by all means check this out. If you are more interested in these same artifacts and ideas presented with at least the hope of documentation (and no modern opinion), read Cremo and Hancock directly. You'd be one step closer to the sources.
