> (correct me if I'm wrong, Adrian!) about the bias on the
> parts of some who are official "gatekeepers" of historical preservation
> policy with regard to recent historical sites.

Actually, I was thinking about historical archaeology in general.

My feeling is that HA's contribution is in the integration of history,
material culture, oral history, architectural history, and so on. As Smoke
wrote, sometimes archaeology can correct and add to documetary history;  but
more often IMO it's more subtle than that.  In spite of what certain
regulators may feel, the justification for HA isn't necessarily in the "new
facts" that it brings to light --  because, like social history, HA is about
providing insights into the past, into what we thought we knew.

(OK, back to work now!)

Adrian Praetzellis