My boyfriend has drank the Graham Hancock kook-aid and asked for seconds (thanks Joe Rogan). I'm an archaeologist specializing in the North Coast ranges of California. I can pretty well debunk that Graham Hancock nonsense regarding Pre-Clovis conspiracies, but my boyfriend keeps trying to ask me "gotcha" questions about "anomalies" all over the world. Since I don't claim to be any sort of expert on sites that don't relate to my niche area, I'd like to know if there's one place that thoroughly debunks Hancock that I can steer him to. We have a lovely relationship otherwise, and this Graham Hancock stuff is the only thing we argue about.
Unfortunately hesitation to speak about areas outside my expertise seems to "prove" that Graham Hancock knows more about archaeology than I do and does better research. Confirmation bias at its finest.
When I was younger I got really into Graham Hancock. I read all his books and debated my friends and family in the same way your boyfriend does. No one could convince me that I was wrong and for every conclusion someone debunked I had another shred of obscure evidence to take its place. The thing that eventually changed my mind was not related to Hancock at all but rather when I started to get into Roman history. Unlike the people Hancock talks about, we have written records from Romans which we can supplement our archeological findings with. To cut a series of anecdotes short, I could see that what Graham Hancock did was not evidence based speculation, it was evidence based suggestion.
It is essentially impossible to step by step debunk Graham Hancock theories for the same reason its impossible to do so with moon landing and JFK assassination conspiracies. The underlying premise of these "theories" is that they use snippets of unexplained evidence to build a foundation but use "common sense" to make actual conclusions. While that sounds fine, hence their popularity, common sense is actually a pretty bad tool for objective assessment. The human brain is a pattern seeking machine honed through millions of years of evolution, Graham Hancock can be so convincing because all he has to do is give you some facts and your pattern-desperate brain is the one that does all the work putting it together.
By comparison, profesional historians spend immense amounts of effort searching for scraps of evidence to construct a theory. This is super good at finding the truth but super bad at accommodating your brain's need to find patterns.
Basically, whenever you are both presented with an artifact, you have to pour over thousands of pieces of evidence to reach your conclusions while he just has to fit it into a pattern. Your way is hard and tedious, his way is something he is litterally built to be good at.
If you want to convince him that Graham Hancock is full of it you can't go on the defensive, he will always beat you in a "slugging match" debate, his brain is built to do so. You have to go on the offensive, take whatever evidence he has and make your own wild speculations, make him explain to you why his wild speculation makes more sense than yours. Present him with archeological evidence from things we have written records of (for example, artifacts from Rome) and ask him to speculate. If he comes to a conclusion that contradicts the written record show him how that pattern seeking mentality creates false conclusions.
It will be hard to convince him that Graham Hancock is wrong because the proper way to do archeology requires training and discipline while Hancocks way just requires a functional brain. I wish you the best of luck.
Finally, this podcast will probably be helpful. Its a great podcast for people who don't necessarily have any historical background and these episodes go in depth about Hancocks theories. He even goes through part of the Joe Rogan interviews which will hopefully be especially useful to you.
This is actually a part of my current research. Archaeology seriously lacks any core structure or support for outreach and education which puts the burden on individuals rather than the broader group. There have been a few papers that focus on it, a highlight from one:
“Too many professional archaeologists are still uninterested in public education and outreach. They are unwilling to to devote more of their own professional activity to it or to set higher priorities for it amongst activities of the institutions where they work” (McManamon, 2000).
There’s really nothing like WHO or the AMA who put together resources for educating and combating anti-vaxxers. I use that example because I see Hancockers in archeology the same way doctors see anti-vaxxers.
There are a whole host of other problems in archaeology regarding the scientific-ness of what we do and the lack of science and standards that let people like Hancock grow in popularity.
The best advice I have is to acknowledge the limitations of archaeologists, particularly in terms of evidence. How hard it is to acquire, how much time it takes, how much training, how little there is and how the data, once collected, is even harder to get access to. Then try to relate that to Hamcock’s arguments which are based on less evidence than archaeologist’s arguments, with no training, and no actual access to material or sites. Then it’s the same arguments as any of the pseudoscience nutters whether they are anti-vaxxers or flat-earthers. Yeah, there are problems with any science but they’ve put in the effort, have the experience, and the evidence that massively outweighs what someone who has no experience, no evidence, and just an imagination has done.
McManamon, F.P. 2000 Archaeological Messages and Messengers. Public Archaeology, 1, 5-20.