Seems I may have committed a faux pas by recommending That Dark and Bloody River as a good source of information. I am on several other other mailing lists for the area along the Ohio River, yet today was the first time I have ever seen any criticism of Eckert or his books. While I think they are great for what they are, I certainly wasn't saying they were completely accurate as far as being "pure" history. Yet I don't think anyone can criticize Eckert's research or his citation of his sources. His amplification notes are thorough, and I have read every one of them in the book I mentioned, and I felt I got a lot out of them. Maybe it's just his interpretation that many feel is debatable. That's something everyone has to decide for himself. I felt that he did a good job of being fair, but others may argue about that. I'm sorry if my opinion upset anyone! Cherie Clark