Reddit mentions of Archaeology: An Introduction

Ok, we can look at that for a moment. Before we start though, let's frame the discussion in a more academic light and say: "His views do not correspond with the current consensus of the research community." That way it's not about "right" and "wrong" but about what is "most likely" the correct outcome.

We should begin by noting that Hancock is not trained in history, archaeology or anthropology. Please recognize that this does not make him wrong by default, but it does make his claims more susceptible to criticism by individuals who are trained in those fields.

Wikipedia suggests that works by Fagan, Regal and Greene contain criticisms of Hancock's work. The wiki page on pseudoarchaeology also contains some discussion of Hancock. More importantly however, the wiki page lists characteristics of pseudoarchaeology that we can use to examine the claims that Hancock makes.

Not being my direct area of study, I don't know the location of strong academic resources, but I suspect that if you sent an e-mail to your local university's department of history/archaeology they would be more than happy to point you in the right direction.

I hope that this helps!

Edit: You might also try messaging one of the archaeology folks on the panel of experts for asksocialscience. They may not have checked in, but you might be able to get more direct answers from them.