Yes, but Hancock is talking about a concrete civilization that existed at the end of the last Ice Age. Not one that existed millions of years ago. We shouldn't mix up the two discussions when talking about what Hancock is saying.
Another thing he says is that it spanned the globe and taught the primitive peoples how to build stuff. This implies a civilization which built advanced and structures and was able to build large ships to travel around the world. This is something Australian Aborigines aren't able to do, but only a civilization at our level can do. And yes, archaeologists have been able to find traces of ancient Aborigines from many thousands of years ago. That's how we know how long ago they came to Australia. We can find stone tools from them from that era, but can't find anything from a supposedly advanced civilization that inhabited the Earth at the same time? There's a logical conclusion: The supposed advanced civilization did not exist.
And if you look at the stones in the megaliths. They are not even cut in precise ways, or anything. It's not that hard to transport them using the technologies available to the local peoples of the day. Scientists have even reconstructed these ways of building. No need for Hancock's mysterious advanced civilization to teach anyone. Those people were quite capable of learning on their own.
I still don't understand why people trust one who guy with a "theory" more than thousands of experts who actually work in the field.
