It's clear that Graham Hancock's theories are not well-substantiated. And anybody watching the documentary, will probably agree.

But he is doing something that archaeologists and historians are deeply afraid of. He is weaving a grand narrative of history, superficially supported by archaeological artifacts. And I believe that much of the criticism of him, is less because of his misunderstanding of historical artifacts, and more because he dares to weave this grand narrative.

If academic scholars dared to create a grand narrative of history and archaeology, I'm sure that they could do a much better job than Graham Hancock. But they don't. And so we are left to people like Hancock to fascinate us with the magic of the past and give meaning to the events that occurred.