Part 13/18:
Hancock’s approach—relying on anomalies, mythical motifs, and underexplored sites—has earned him both fervent supporters and vehement critics.
Mainstream archaeologists accuse him of cherry-picking evidence, misinterpreting data, and failing to provide rigorous scientific validation. For instance, the underwater “pillars” at Nan Madol, initially thought to be man-made, turned out to be natural coral formations.
Further, critics argue that his timelines often conflict with established science, citing reasons like the inability of ancient cultures to build large-scale stone structures more than a few thousand years ago, based on current dating techniques.