So, why don't archaeologists write more books as interesting and engaging as Graham Hancock's then that also offer refutations of his claims? I see many personal attacks such as stating he's a crank...prove it.
Unfortunately, people are busy, have real research to do, and don't have time to deal with every crank out there. Some are even state sponsored, which opens up a whole world of problems. It's not fair to expect people to do extensive rebuttals of every crank out there. It's the academic version of Brandolini's law.
Yeah but this isn’t just any “crank” out there, in this case it happens to be someone who is more famous and well known for their ideas than the vast majority of academics. We are talking about stopping to engage the crazy homeless person on the street.
This also happens to be what the egyptologists say about Robert Schoch and John Anthony West With respect to the Sphinx water erosion hypothesis. They can literally take time to hold press events to personally attack the people And state there is no evidence for these crazy ideas but refuse to address the Actual water erosion hypothesis.
You also mention that academics refuse to address schoch. Here are a few academics responding directly to Schoch:
https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.3340100203
http://www.hallofmaat.com/sphinx/comments-on-the-geological-...
I'd like to point out that the conversation in this thread has covered topics from Gobekli Tepe to the silurian hypothesis to early agriculture to climatology to early mesoamerican architecture and now to pharaonic monuments. That's an incredibly broad range of topics and no single person is an expert in all of them. Cranks like Hancock BS about an astonishing range of stuff.
I didn’t say there weren’t rebuttals. I didn’t even say he wasn’t a crank, only you can’t exactly apply the “we are to busy forwarding our field to stop and address every idea from every crank” argument to someone whose ideas (for better or worse) are gaining notoriety as potentially true and correct.
They do. There's more books written on history than you could read in several lifetimes. Just the kind of people who follow Hancock don't really give a sh*t and if you try to educate them you get accused of being in some vast conspiracy, and they'd much rather believe in 'ancient aliens' and total crackpots.
Here's the people working on Göbekli Tepe calling out Hancock https://www.dainst.blog/the-tepe-telegrams/2017/06/21/what-y...
That site is worth reading because it's written by the people working there. Just follow and read actual professionals, even email and talk with them on Twitter, they're regular people and they'd love hearing from you if you're genuinely opening to learn.
People are interested in possible hypotheses and explanations of phenomena and would love if the somebody could either provide more evidence or refute them.
Definitely more interesting than the mainstream "We don't really know very much" together with " and we don't care, we are too busy doing real archeology".