Anne, If evidence found and supported by science or other provable historical records then I would consider that "historical information." On the other hand, if the researchers were "caught with their hand in the till" as I have found with people around the TJ/Sally controversy and their reports were biased/one sided and denied and HID a Minority Report and the head researcher had been hired to complement the study with their owned preconceived outcome........THEN I would say, "it's revisionist garbage." I would hope that your own highly advertised organization on these (state/commonwealth) supported pages, is not misrepresenting real research to purchasers of your material. You do ask for proof do you not? Herb Barger Herbert, I believe I am correct in saying that most historians of the last century were in agreement that Sumer (Sumeria) was the earliest civilization. Then, if I am reading a book that dates evidence of cities with public buildings and agriculture in Peru to at least as far back as 3500 BC based on evidence discovered in this century, would you consider that new historical information, or "revisionist history"???? Anne Anne Pemberton [log in to unmask] http://www.erols.com/apembert http://www.educationalsynthesis.org ______________________________________ To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html