What have archaeologists done to incur?

Conducting an eight-year historical review of archaeology, I found glaring errors in accounts of human origins and antiquity. First, these accounts simply fail to mention a vast amount of evidence, even in a negative sense, and this is suspicious. When all archaeological finds are considered, the current evolutionary paradigm—humans arose very recently and descended from more ape-like ancestors—collapses. According to contemporary accounts, creatures with the anatomical structure of modern humans appeared between one hundred and two hundred thousand years ago. However, the archaeological archives also contain numerous accounts indicating that such humans existed tens, even hundreds, of millions of years ago.

Does the aforementioned publication "attack" the theory of evolution as such, or only the version currently dominant in science? After reading Forbidden Archaeology, anthropologist Dr. William W. Howells, one of the founders of modern evolutionary theory, wrote to me in a letter dated August 10, 1993: "Most of us, wrongly or correctly, view human evolution as a succession of branchings—from earlier to more advanced forms of primates. Man appears here quite late [...]. If modern human beings [...] had appeared much earlier, precisely at a time when simple primates, which could have been his possible ancestors, did not yet exist, it would be devastating not only to the accepted image of man but also to the entire theory of evolution." I agree with Dr. Howells. The current version, which explains such origins, cannot be sustained in the face of the evidence presented.