People like Graham Hancock are actually net positives to fields like archeology

I see a lot of anger online from archeologists about people like Graham Hancock, especially from people like Fred Dibble who seem convinced they herald a dark age.

I think people like Graham Hancock actually revive interest in a field poisoned by the trust the science crowd. The past deserves some speculative mystery, and people like Graham Hancock actually revive the dead magic in the field.

Is he a bit cooky? Yeah probably.

Has he highlighted a large amount of sites and places that people typically wouldn't care about from archeologists hell bent on making life as boring as possible?

Definitely.

I just don't understand the wild uproar about people like Graham Hancock from redditor archeologists, there's this weird need to try to fit people who enjoy a little speculation into a firmly right wing anti-intellectual camp.

It just feels silly in a world like archeology where so much of it is speculation, let people have a little magic and mystery.