Archeological digs are done here in the US all the time, Kathy.
One major discovery is that Amerins, (American Indians), here in the North East did indeed have private land ownership. Digs have uncovered stone walls that sectioned off these privately owned areas. What we once thought was publically owned and shared land was not true for *all* Amerin people.

A great book to read on the subject is Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists and the Ecology of New England by William Cronon. In it, you will learn many insightful new things that your previous history classes never taught you. It's an amazing study.

Please understand, too, that the historian has a scientific method to follow. It's not a case of, "I think," and publish. There is co-oberation of evidence that's required in most cases. And when that's not able to be done, (due to a paucity of sources), then there must be multiple alternate evidences that point to the thesis being proffered. And there are multiple peer reviews to get through too. That is not an easy hoop to jump through, I can assure you!

Historians do not speak of "truth." They offer the best theories as any scientist does. Historians are social scientists. And while you say they only know of the culture through books, that is not always the the case, though it may be so. Many historians go to the land that they are experts in and study it in depth for years. One school of historiography requires it. However, others rely on the sociologists' study of the particular land, and make use of their knowledge. The sociologist, of course, has gone and studied a particular people first hand.

In either case, the knowledge is valid. I find it interesting that "book knowledge" be considered invalid for some reason, when, today, there is a plethera of knowledge about any and everything! A lawyer, for example, has book knowledge. A doctor has book knowledge. And as they practice their craft, they get better at it. Does anyone deny their knowledge about their profession? So, too, it is with the historian.

Historians know about nature's catastrophies too. Pompeii was destroyed by a volcano. The ash is there to tell of it, plus many written sources tell us about it. Earthquakes and hurricanes; tornadoes and tidal waves all leave tell tale signs. Plus there is the written record that's left behind from neighboring areas and any survivors. So, the record of Haiti will not be lost. It's a hard sell to say *all* the information about the destruction done by the earthquake will disappear, when the dead sea scrolls are still around today.

And, while I'm not here to argue, I respectfully disagree with you about how human remains are treated. There is a very high regard placed upon human remains found today! Of course, I am talking about standards in the USA; I cannot speak for other countries standards. And if they do not treat them with due regard, I, too, would share your distain.

But, again, the point of this post is historic revision, and the loss of history classes at a certain university. It's a shame the university is taking away an important learning opportunity for students who are already shamefully unaware. But, that doesn't make the decision to do so evil in its intent. Budget cuts in this economy are normal. I just wish they would make them at the administration level, where there's usually so much pork, and not at the teaching and learning level, where it's sorely needed.

Peace!