Offered an Idea? He presented a theory that was completely contrary to the current Geological data of Antartica, sorry that is a big deal and one that should not have been overlooked by anyone with any semblance of competence. He also got caught arbitrarily choosing points at Angor Wat and trying to pass them off as a match fro Draco when they CLEARLY were not, again is that just incompetence or he is being dishonest here. Why was these items never mentioned by him?
"Field Work" you yourself have just stated that he is not a trained scientist so I don't see how dives fully funded by his own book sales constitute as field work. If he stated that his theories were fiction and not meant to have a scientific basis to them then no one would bat an eye. Instead he states that he is presenting an alternate "theory" which his followers genuinely believe is grounded in scientific data. This is what I'm calling out.
Civilization requires a lot of prerequisites:
-Language for communication
-A surplus of food on a regular basis
-Selective Breeding of plants and animals
-Transportation technology to distribute
-Writing for administration and commerce
-A more complex social system
All of these took time, especially the domestication of plants and animals. If there were wild changes and catastrophes that wiped out groups and knowledge people would need to start again. The last 10,000 years have been a period of unusual climatic stability, markedly so when compared to the previous 500,000 years. It's really difficult to start selective breeding, settle into one place, create a government when wild fluctuations in global mean temp, crop production, rainfall and sea level keep happening.
As far as I've read, Hancock has never addressed what it would actually take to build a civilization from the environments that were present at the time and instead chose to make wild unscientific speculative claims.
Why is he even discussing evidence when he just makes wild speculation with no regard for the current geological data? If he wants to make fictional speculation be my guest but don't pretend it has any basis is science.
Look, it's pretty clear you have an axe to grind with Hancock. Have at it, I think he's probably generally right on missing high civilization (not commenting on extent of that advancement). He's also clearly been wrong about certain things. I think you're transparently irritated by him and that's fine, I also think it dampens your points about him when you criticize his field work but whatever, we can discuss this without him in the equation personally, the topic exists on its own.
I'll just make a few points here to give you some perspective on the points of view opposite Hancock that you're deifying in opposition to Hancock's views...at this point he is lock step with Geology so there is no disagreement to be had there any longer.
-Archeology isn't a science...it's art history. It's one of the least accurate of the research fields and HEAVILY based on guesses, some not very educated due to what is not there. The views of these art history majors is the view you are echoing in opposition to Hancock, and you're treating the field like a legitimate science. It ain't.
-The VAST majority of orthodox Egyptologists believe the Great Pyramid (all pyramids are tombs) in Egypt is a tomb for the pharaoh Khufu. The evidence for that is a joke by any "scientific" standard, which you seem to want to see followed, yet the theory is assumed true I'm guessing by yourself as well as academia at large based on almost nothing solid. In brief and near completion of the evidence supporting it, it is based on a 2 inch statue of Khufu found hundreds of yards away (lol), on the fact they believe they know Khufu existed (great), and a red cartouche in an upper relieving chamber saying "brotherhood/gang of Khufu", which may or may not be a forgery by Howard Vyse and proves nothing of who built what (I'm sold). Does that sound scientifically sound to you? Does that sound like a good enough reason to INSIST again all credulity that it was built in 20 years because it had to have been done during the Pharaoh's life? You think the above evidence is good evidence that Khufu built the Great Pyramid as a tomb for himself? These are the views you're on the side of...art history majors, not scientists. The above isn't because these people are dumb (some of them are for buying this completely, but whatever), it's because the amount of evidence to assume it is severely lacking.
NEXT...in order to aid you easing up bashing the "alternative history hack"...
-Overkill hypothesis...where to begin with this gem of nonsense from the other side of the coin to Hancock. Did you know that archeologists and those who studied the terminal Pleistocene extinction event for DECADES (and to this day) suggest that the mega fauna collapse was largely due to human hunting? Why did they not check with Geology before making such a claim of clear human grandeur and aggrandizement? Did mainstream academics not have the professionalism to check and take note of the Younger Dryas and the bookending events surrounding it that so obviously should suspect numero uno in the large animal population collapse? Do they still not take note (in the last decade they have started to change tune because they look moronic at this point arguing the overkill hypothesis)?
The suggestion of Overkill as the reason for the mega faunal collapse is another example of scientists, the ones you are deifying in opposition to "hacks like Hancock", getting it WOEFULLY wrong even when faced with the OBVIOUSNESS of climate catastrophe (regardless of cause) they were well aware, and choosing instead an alternative doctrine of explanation so patently ridiculous (now) regarding human beings murdering 100 species of mammals so fast they couldn't reproduce...and knowing full well the population of Mammoths worldwide might have exceeded that of humans...What idiotic, irresponsible hackery, right!?
maybe Hancock's suggestion of earth crust displacement in the face of no other avenue is forgivable given the above? Maybe you have taken critique a little beyond what is warranted in using his mistakes to bludgeon his overall works?
Regarding your thoughts on how civilization must arise, the meat and best part of your post, you may be right and the stability of the current climate, Hancock specifically aside, is the best argument against rises and advancement in civilization prior to the end of the last ice age..and it may well be correct in concert with the megafaunal die off aiding human beings "out of their holes. Or maybe not, and that underestimates human beings a bit. I do appreciate your contribution to the conversation, outside your personal distaste for the author most famous for popularizing a "lost civilization", I think you have helped me think of quite a few things in different ways that I thought about them before.