As a former student of archaeology, I find myself very interested in his books & talks. I could not comprehend that we (the human sapiens sapiens) never have had an advanced civilization before 5000 B.C. We have existed minimally for 200.000 years with the same brain capacity, and only in the last 5.000 years we have started to build up cities, innovate, etc. In the other 195.000 years we just basically hunted down animals and lived with other human species.
I am fully aware that the theory of former advanced civilizations is purely speculative, because we have never found the evidence. Though if I think logically about it, former (advanced) ancient civilizations make a lot of sense.
Graham Hancock speculates, but his stories are very compelling. Whether you like it or not, his theories are based on facts.
I want to hear what you think of his work.
-Is he manipulating the facts that he is given? -Do you also think his stories are very compelling? -Why do or don't you think that ancient (advanced) civilizations have existed?
Thanks in advance for your response!
Is he manipulating the facts that he is given?
Yes, undoubtedly, non-stop.
I've written a couple things on Hancock; this commentis a complete breakdown of Hancock's chapter on Tiwanaku, Bolivia in Fingerprints of the Gods and this one discusses his appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast. To summarize the sentiments in those posts, Hancock is a showman who puts words in the mouths of archaeologists just to prove them wrong, intentionally prevents readers from accessing the wealth of information available on topics so that he can make single factoids seem important, never reasonably engages with "mainsteam" scholars while endlessly battling the strawmen he's set up on stage, is entirely ignorant of the deeply racist and oppressive contexts from which his theories spring, and makes astounding logical leaps.
we have never found the evidence
his theories are based on facts
How do you reconcile these two statements? Hancock's written/spoken a lot, so my response will always be "Show me the facts." All the material from Hancock I've seen is extraordinarily light on facts, preferring to dwell inordinate amounts of time of tidbits of info. Is there any specific theory of his that you are particularly interested in the scholarly view of?