There is a delicate & dynamic balance that must be struck here. No, Mr Hancock is not an archeologist - a fact he emphatically points out repeatedly. He is, however, a highly educated, intelligent person who tries to employ critical thinking to ask questions.

OTOH, asking questions & questioning the status quo are fundamental to the scientific method. I fully concede that the experts, the archeology community, are - and should be - respected for that body of knowledge & ever-growing body of interpretation & understanding. It is inescapable to accept that our knowledge of our own history is far from complete & continually evolving. The process of evolving is best described as a "punctuated equilibrium" - that is a fancy-pants term that means most of the progress is gradual & progressive, but 'punctuated' with occasional major breakthroughs.

Unlike faith-based knowledge, which is "revealed knowledge" & very much tends to be stagnate & highly resistant to evolving over time, empirical or scientific knowledge is, by definition, progressing & evolving. The engine that drives the continuing refinement of scientific knowledge are questions.

Lastly, even though I fully concede that the experts must be respected & listened to, they are also human beings & subject to a litany of intrinsic human foibles. Among those attributes can be resistance to change, arrogance, & dismissal of perspectives from people they do not consider to be their peers. For absolute certainty, the non-experts should never be driving the boat. But, to completely ignore them is a fool's errand.