I had some of the same thoughts, and to be honest, usually these kind of shows are kooky, so I know that going in. That said, I did finish the series and reflecting on your point, I think that is his point. When he includes things like the quote you reference, he's not denying the current understanding, he is simply asking more questions. So one of his over-arching indictments of archeologists, historians, etc is that they lack an imagination based on evidence that may be there. He laments the fact that there is so little curiosity, and believes they have something else to protect: their own reputations, status and our cultural conviction that clearly we are the most advanced civilization that has ever lived.

All that said, I didn't leave a Hancock fanboy (in fact, if someone had asked I couldn't have even told them his name), but I think it is good to be open to deeper understandings of who we are as a people/species so long as we are curiously following evidence.

@NeoLosman said:

He puts forth an intriguing theory. He also doesn't have much evidence to back it up

You may be correct. But it is intriguing, isn't it, that there is so much consistency the world over about some of these human narratives? And what of the physical remnants/architecture? Lastly, don't you believe our current establish views--that we all now accept and defend as truth--started out as a controversial theories in their own time? Could not a deeper curiosity just unearth more of the same? What evidence might be required?

quote hereBasically what he's saying is people 7000 years ago couldn't have been mere hunters and gatherers if they managed to bring all the stones to this site.> quote here

Actually yes, that is pretty much exactly what it means. Hunters and gatherers don't really make permanent structures. Agriculturalists that stay in one area and don't follow herds do, but as a rule when you have a megolithic structure, you have some form of permanent habitation around it.

And 7000 years ago fits well into the timeline of making that move from Hunter gatherers and agriculture

quote here So one of his over-arching indictments of archeologists, historians, etc is that they lack an imagination based on evidence that may be there > quote here

Once you start taking enough classes to call it a major you start to realize that historians and geologists stop agreeing after around 3,000 BCE.

Everything older than that is a point of contention between the two fields. I mean for about a century historians refused to believe that the Nile moved, until they were so overwhelmed with hard evidence they finally had to cave.

Now historians and geologists are fighting over the ocean having less water during the ice age.

There is a timeline and you can't question it... or even present anything that suggests otherwise. That's not exactly a new concept, especially now when people look at science as something you can't question and treat you like a heretic if you do.

With the attitude of today's "academics" and "scientists" Einstein would have never been able to rewrite gravity