A session on the history of contract historical archeology at the Quebec
meeting has the potential to raise valid issues.  In many areas, historical
archeology came on the scene in contract work rather late in comparison to
prehistoric archeology.  [For that matter, hist. arch. still appears somewhat
restricted in academia: none of the three universities where I've studied
offered hist. arch. coursework.]  The companies I worked for did not record
many hist. sites routinely until about 1979-1980 and then only reluctantly at
SHPO insistence.  Now the issue questioning the value of hist. sites has come
up again; in Texas, there is a growing sense in the arch. community that
certain classes of hist. sites (such as farmsteads) dating after 1870
shouldn't be recorded.  "Cuz we've done all we can with 'em."  As I work on
railroad camps and ethnic neighborhoods, naturally I don't agree.  I tend to
be suspicious of such sweeping statements.  After all, the noted physicist
Lord Rutherford said in 1893 that there was no more to learn -- all the great
discoveries in physics had already been made!
 
Perhaps such a session could address questions of where we want to go with
hist. arch.  I keep hearing from prehistoric folks that hist. archs. don't ask
research questions where the data is actually deliverable by arch'l
excavation, that all our information is available archivally.  I don't believe
that, and it is this sort of misconception we need to discuss.