Good Read! Hancock specifically states that he is "not an archeologist and only a writer" positing ideas! It is not pseudo archeology, because he is very careful about stating that he is not qualified! "The only thing worse than so called, pseudoarcheology is archeology that thinks it ISN'T pseudoarcheology!"
The history of archeological exploration is replete with one false theory replaced by another false theory ad nauseum. IMO there is no less scientific form of research than Archeology! Dig something up that has been buried by who knows whom, (always a guess about who those people were and what their culture was) based on historical data, (which is inevitably biased and incorrect, ) dig it out of the dirt and date it using a faulty methodology, and take a wild guess as to what the cultural significance might have been! That right, their research relies on hypothesis on a very regular basis! Take "Clovis First" a cult of an Theory pseudo archeology that destroyed the lives of dozens of so called "pseudoarcheologists" at the time, who are now considered correct! Dominating the field for decades. The Bosnian Pyramids, was pseudo archeology just a decade ago and now has significant scientific data to validate what one "so called" determined "Pseudoarcheologist" said was true!
Hancock isn't always right, but at least he posits interesting ideas, which is exactly what Archeologists try to do and call it research and science! As if Hancock didn't predict Göbekle Tepe, and an advanced civilization existing 12,000+ years ago ,when everyone else said no such thing existed! It did though! So pseudo archeology is only pseudo until it becomes widely accepted. For the record, I always read or watch Hancock with a major grain of salt! But I listen!
https://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/10/prweb9970921.htm
