Disclaimer: I do not have a degree in History. History often follows a pattern of "thesis" -> "antithesis" -> "synthesis", where we tend to go from one extreme

Disclaimer: I do not have a degree in History. History often follows a pattern of "thesis" -> "antithesis" -> "synthesis", where we tend to go from one extreme ("thesis") to another ("antithesis"), but then end up with a moderate "synthesis" that may be closer to the "antithesis", but incorporates elements from the "thesis". One example is that we used to see written accounts as "facts" (thesis). We then rejected that view (antithesis) because it was too influenced by whoever wrote it. Now we have a more balanced view (antithesis), where we interpret written accounts differently, often by focusing more on the cultural aspects and cross checking with other evidence. The reactions to Hancock indicates that we are in the antithesis state, as a natural reaction to the thesis (unilinear evolution). We may think we have reached the "synthesis" stage, but based on the reactions to Hancock I suspect we have not reached it yet. The classic "unilinear" thesis may be wrong, but we could find that there have been a wider connection than we currently believe.