Graham Hancock is a journalist, not a scientist. He doesn't pretend to be otherwise. He's likely wrong about most of his theories. But he's challenging accepted ideas in a field where accepted ideas are frequently overturned. That's useful. He stimulates the imagination and tells stories expertly, making it a joy to listen to him talk. There's value in thinking "What If" and being unafraid to think outside the box of the consensus. While being careful to understand probabilities enough to know it's likely wrong. I think Archaeologists need to be a little less uptight and remember why they go into the field in the first place. It's because their imaginations were captured by stories, told and untold, of history. Let's also not forget that every new idea in any science was once against the "consensus" view.

I find it fascinating to think that civilization could have started earlier than we currently imagine. It doesn't seem that crazy to think that humans like to settle around river deltas and near the coast, and all the river deltas and coasts of 10,000 BCE are now under 400ft of ocean. What secrets lie buried under the ocean sediments? What will we discover? Graham may well be wrong about most of it, but I'd bet my life savings that there are fascinating discoveries yet to be made that will overturn what we currently think we know about human history.