I would usually say, you first, since you made the outrageous claim he "provides no evidence at all".

But this might be fun... You do know the difference between evidence and proof though, right?

I'll go look at the most recent article on his website [0], and we'll see if there's evidence presented, or if he "provides no evidence at all"...

To avoid bias - and save time, because I'm doing your research for free - I asked ChatGPT to examine whether he provided evidence or not:

...

Evidence Provided by Graham Hancock

Cultural and Archaeological Evidence:

Hancock frequently references archaeological findings and scientific studies to support his theories. For example, he discusses the discovery of ancient human remains in California dating back 130,000 years, which challenges the conventional timeline of human migration into the Americas.

Comparative Analysis:

He often draws parallels between distant cultures to suggest the existence of a lost ancient civilization. For instance, he points out similarities between the spiritual beliefs of ancient Egyptians and Native American mound builders, arguing that these cannot be mere coincidences and suggesting a shared heritage from a forgotten civilization.

Scientific Studies:

Hancock cites recent studies and technologies, such as LIDAR, which have uncovered large, ancient geoglyphs and cities in the Amazon, suggesting advanced pre-Columbian civilizations that were previously unknown.

Historical Documentation:He references historical texts and accounts from early archaeologists and explorers, such as the work of Flinders Petrie and Margaret Murray in Egypt, to support his claims about the existence of older and technologically advanced civilizations.

Analysis of the Evidence

Pros:

Innovative Perspective:

Hancock provides a fresh look at ancient history by challenging established narratives, which encourages further investigation and discussion.

Detailed References: His works are often well-documented with footnotes and references to scientific studies, which lend a certain level of credibility to his arguments.

Cons:

Interpretation of Evidence: Critics argue that Hancock often selectively interprets evidence to fit his theories, sometimes ignoring data that contradicts his views .

Speculative Nature: Some of his conclusions are speculative and not universally accepted by the academic community, relying heavily on what some consider circumstantial evidence.

Conclusion

While Graham Hancock does provide evidence to support his claims, the validity and interpretation of this evidence are often contested. His approach is not always balanced, as he openly admits to focusing on evidence that supports his alternative historical narratives. Readers must critically evaluate his claims and consider the broader academic consensus when interpreting his work.

...

Summarizing: At least 4 different types of evidence are regularly laid out. Benefits to his approach include encouraging fresh investigation and discussion, and the cons are acknowledged by Hancock himself.

I'm no Hancock fanboy - I've seen one show of his. But I've seen the way he gets attacked and it's so often so dumb. It reminds me of how people attack Assange and Snowden, or RMS, or Jared Diamond: surprisingly emotional, personal, venomous, and more often than not completely made up (as in this case).

0 - https://grahamhancock.com/hancockg23/