So I am watching this Netflix series featuring him discovering ancient civilisations, and the first episode sounded astonishing. 20,000 years old civilisations! Wow. And his conclusions seem to make sense, because they seem based on physical evidence (from the way it is presented at least).
He seemingly is disregarded by "real" archaeologists, and he is constantly criticising them. Why is that? Why do archaeologists not take his discoveries and value them? And why is he treated like a kook?
Caveat: I'm not a historian and others have already given a lot of good sources.
What I can offer is that Hancock is typical of the "do your research" types who believe they've found a groundbreaking discovery that upends the current paradigm, but whose research doesn't bear scientific scrutiy by those who are legitimate researchers.
One of the hallmarks of folks like these is shifting goalpoasts and cherry-picking ideas. For example in discussing Göbekli Tepe he claims the site shows sufficiently advanced architecture that it would have been impossible for the hunter-gatherers of the "supposed" time it was created to actually build it; therefore it must have been created by an advanced civilisation. When pressed on this claim he couldn't explain how such an advanced people also seemed to lack metal tools, writing, or other hallmarks of civilisation that weren't found at the site. Link. He's come to the site with the belief that it's a mysterty to be solved, and a preconceived idea of the solution, and only selects the 'research' that supports that solution -- it's bad science, and disregards the real research that's been done, and which disproves his theory entierly.
There's also his idea that his theories -- which of course he disseminates as the real truth -- are being covered up by 'mainstream archeology' for some reason. This is a common trope is such pseudoscience: that the story we've been lead to believe is wrong, that the speaker knows the real truth, and that this truth is being covered up for nefarious reasons. It puts the speak in a place of 'false authority' by suggesting they're up against a larger machine. They're the underdog, and they're only trying to reveal truths to the world. But for this to be true the entire scientific community -- includingarcheologists on the ground, teachers in schools, interns/administrators/TA/etc. who support them, publishers and fellow scientists who peer review, and so on --has to also be in on the conspiracy. That's remarkably unlikely; the more belivable explanation is that the speaker is selling you a false narrative -- probably to make money.
Which Hancock has. He's been enromously popular with these theories because they're good storytelling, and there's no lack of an audiance. But it's not science.
For a sceptical view of his work I'd suggest checking out Skeptoid, Our Fake History, Skeptic magazine, or a host of others.
Well, not really! Someone asked this the other day (actually it's been a popular question here since the Netflix special) so I'll copy from a prior answer!
First, a recent reply by u/Sherd_nerd_17
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.
the problem with it - and other theories like it with advanced civilizations - is that we already have plenty of evidence for the evolution of the three biggest changes in history - agriculture, animal husbandry and metalworking. in other words, we see wild plants and animals changing to become domesticated, with plenty of intermediate evidence and early attempts at simple metalworking giving way to more and more complex metal combinations. all of these advances took thousands of years and cannot be pinned down to one people or place. it's all been built on top of discoveries made prior.
so if there was another civilization that existed before the evidence we see of gradual development, those things would have been effectively lost anyway, making the civilization an isolated one.
there's just no pressing need for it. there is no mystery that a more distant civilization would solve. all that would happen is we would have to wonder where they came by their (soon forgotten) advanced knowledge.
if we do find evidence of a lost advanced culture, it would effectively be a bigger mystery than what we now have evidence of.
---------------------
"The Origins of Agriculture in the Near East" Zeder, Melinda Current Anthropology. 52 : 221–235.
"Taming the Past: Ancient DNA and the Study of Animal Domestication" Machugh, David E.; Larson, Greger; Orlando, Ludovic - Annual Review of Animal Biosciences. 5: 329–351.
"The Emergence of Man, The Metalsmiths" - Percy Knauth, Time Life Books
He has been a detriment to actual science and history. Him and people like him (Robert Schoch, Erich Von Daniken, etc.) are responsible for the misinformation and pseudoscience that has infiltrated our media and even politics. Anytime I debate people about history (especially on Reddit) they always reference his work.
Science is finding evidence and drawing conclusions from them. He draws conclusions first and then cherry-picks evidence to support his claims. This is the opposite of the scientific method therefore, he is not practicing real science.
Every one of his followers claim anyone who disagrees with him are part of an academic establishment to suppress truth. This is just a tactic to victimize themselves in order to demonize academic authority. Why would anyone in these fields want to suppress truth? The whole point is to uncover truth.
They also claim that archaeologists are rigid and don’t want to change historical models. In fact, archaeologists are dynamic and have been changing models since the beginning of the practice, as new evidence comes to light.
They even claim archaeologists make money by keeping the status quo, though they don’t explain how exactly. Besides the TV personalities, most archaeologists struggle to find funding for their research and live very modestly.
The truth is that charlatans still exist in many forms. People love mysteries and exciting stories, so of course a story about a prehistoric technologically advanced civilization is going to spark interest and sell books, shows and tickets. People also love knowing things that others don’t, so they present their claims like it’s secret knowledge that the mainstream doesn’t want you to know. It’s the same tactics infomercials use to sell products. It’s the same tactics that other pseudoscience fields (astrology, crystal energy, dream interpretation, alternative medicine, religion, conspiracy theories, etc.) use to persuade you. Once you recognize the formula, it’s easier to stay away from them.
It’s sad that channels like Discovery Channel, History Channel and streaming sites fund those types of programs. History is so amazing on it’s own. There’s no reason to create fantasies unless money is involved.