While I find the series fascinating, I would be shocked to know that passionate archaeologists would choose to neglect potentially knowledge-shattering sites and artifacts to align with an accepted timeline of humanity. It simply goes against the nature of the profession, in my opinion.
How likely do you think it is that any part of this series is factual? And do you have any explanations behind the supposedly neglected ancient sites as featured in the documentary?
Someone actually asked about this about an hour ago,
u/wizoerda links to another recent example of someone asking! Which then links to another set of answers compiled by u/jschooltiger which I'll copy here for convenience:
www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4wzitm/is_graham_hancock_credible/
www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/yui5fz/whats_this_communitys_opinion_on_graham_hancock/
www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/u7400j/what_does_graham_hancock_get_right_and_wrong_in Long story short - he's a crank.
Edit: I've clearly messed the links up, hang on....
Ok let's see if that works....