<HTML>Or,
Percival Lowell made observations of <i>canale</i> (which I seem to remember was simple a mistranslation of the Italian for 'channels') on Mars and recorded them. He was mistaken, pure and simple; this doesn't denigrate his work or influence, but I don't see how he was working <i>outside</i> what we might call the scientific method in the same way that Hancock is.
Lowell had evidence to support his contention that Mars was riddled with canals - his observations - it just so happens that these observations have not been confirmed by later observations. His theory has been superceded. This is how science works.
Now, GH proposes a lost civilisation which seeded the familiar cultures of the ancient world with their knowledge. He presents no physical evidence, not one potsherd, not one artefact of any kind. Instead, we get speculation on the possibilities that ancient peoples manipulated natural formations, as at Yonaguni, or specious rejection of established methodologies (e.g. C-14 dating), because they don't agree wth his chronology.
None of this is to say that GH and RB are not perfectly entitled to postulate their theories and sell their books by the cartload, or that this doesn't engender debate (these message boards are proof enough that GH gets people thinking), but he isn't some neglected pioneer of science, destined to be appreciated by a more enlightened future public.
I for one would be more impressed with the alternative authors if they attempted to theorise on the 'bread and butter' issues of the past; huge questions remain unresolved - the adoption of agriculture and metallurgy, the growth of urbanism etc etc. In the end, the popularity of alternative archaeology indicates two things to me:
1. the public don't have the attention span for more considered enquiry into the past;
2. orthodox archaeology isn't doing its job, in that people don't connect with <i>their</i> pasts.
If GH and RB serve any useful purpose, it is in bringing people to archaeology, so that they can make an informed study of the past, and share their knowledge and data with their peers (who will sometimes point out the error of their data/methods).
The rest is politics - personal animosities between the two camps, 'bad' science on both sides, and an historical lack of trust. I can agree with you that academia can seem like a closed shop, and that people need to be open to new possibilities, but surely there needs to be <i>some</i> quality control?</HTML>
