I get the digest version of HISTARCH, and for some reason I can't quote specific posts, but Denis Gojak wrote:"Literal Europeans - liberate yourselves!  Take all those gloves out of yourcar's glove compartments and put in a street directory and maybe a torch, and some of that crap the kids leave all over the back seat.  Then embrace the idea that 'Historical archaeology' is the name of a thing that studies themodern world and its growth, and that this isnt the same as the archaeologyof historical societies."I think some of the discussion over the last day or so has potentially confused two separate issues. I think Denis would find that there are indeed plenty of liberated Europeans who are happy to embrace the idea of an archaeology of the modern world, perhaps adapting the concept to local circumstances where necessary, but nonetheless recognising that there is a distinct periodised archaeology of the modern world in tune with many of the themes Bob Schuyler has 
 outlined in this discussion, even if there's scope for being flexible about some of the specific date parameters thereof in individual countries and regions.  After all, even that venerable journal Antiquity has now, as of the last issue (see Martin Carver's editorial; pp 937-938 of volume 84), officially initiated a 'period 12' to cover '1500-2000AD'.Where perhaps a few minor hackles have been raised is in the assertion in a couple of posts that this archaeology of the modern world must, by necessity, be called 'historical archaeology' just because that's what North Americans (and Australians) call it, and they used the name first.  Which was directly stated in at least one post.   It is by no means 'American-bashing', as one perhaps slightly over-sensitive response claimed, to note that this assertion perhaps undervalues, or even ignores, vibrant and important debates taking place in Europe over how best to both conceptualise and name the archaeology of the modern world.As 
 it happens, my academic affiliation is with a British university that has a Centre for Historical Archaeology within its archaeology dept. - using the term in the American sense - and which will be hosting the 2013 conference of the Society for Historical Archaeology without any real self-conscious handwringing over what 'historical archaeology' is.  I'm personally perfectly happy with that usage, it's the term I use in almost all of my own academic work, and I have no real plans to stop doing so (except perhaps when writing a freelance artefact report for people who actively dislike the term, in which case I cynically follow the money).  But I can simultaneously recognise that although I'm personally happy calling the archaeology of the modern world 'historical archaeology' - which may have something to do with my past work in both the US and Australia - many of my British and European colleagues have perfectly legitimate theoretical and methodological objections to using th
 e term in the North American sense, even while they happily embrace the concept of an archaeology of the modern.   Telling these colleagues that they should use the term (rather than the concept of) 'historical archaeology' in a specific sense just because North Americans and Australians do is not likely to win many converts to that usage.Summed up, I think it might be worth making a distinction between the recognised existence of an archaeology of the modern world - which surely few contributing to HISTARCH would dispute, even if they might disagree about the precise date boundaries thereof - and what the best name for that archaeology of the modern world might be.   They are wholly separate issues.  Alasdair Brooks