> > I have to say that B and H's basic
> > theory, that an advanced civilization existed in
> > the past cannot be simply dismissed out of hand
> > because it doesn't fit the "standard theory" of
> > history of progressive and cumulative advances.
>
> But then nothing can be dismissed out of hand.
That's right.
> I would be very happy to embrace evidence which pushes this progession back by a
> thousand years or even evidence which completely disrupts it altogether.
Part of the evidence is that no civilization (100% of them) has ever survived. Also, degeneration is an integral part of evolution. Look at any life form. After it reaches a peak, it degenerates and dies. Also, there is plenty of evidence throughout pre-History (more than 10K+ years) that Nature re-cycles itself with AGE and ERAs.
> The problem is that B and H's theory relies heavily on existing monuments, saying that
> there is already evidence when there isn't.
There is indeed already plenty of evidence...
> To this end it's simply wanting more than
> what archaeology has to offer, archaeology not being interesting or exciting enough.
Well, it is definitely very limiting in scope!
> If B and H were indeed saying that there is always something left to be discovered,
> then they are promoting archaeology in a sense and i'm sure archaeologists will love
> it, but that doesn't sell books.
I guess story telling and fiction are usually the best to sell books! Look at Harry Potter...
> Giving alternative, but bogus explanations for evidence, and drawing support from
> conspiracy theorists and new age cults, i think, are their basic premises.
Maybe, but maintaining an orthodox position without having an absolute reference is to me a lot more boggus! In other words, you are just desperately trying to tell a consistent story when others are pointing out to you all the holes within it! So, sooner than later you are no longer realitistic one way or the other and your story is going to become obsolete!!!
eom