Hi,
  This is one of those goofy word questions that can raise a tempest in a
teapot.  I'm working on finishing up a large report.  The primary editor
is a prehistorical archaeologist, and I am trying to explain what I
believe is the correct usage of historic versus historical.
 
I use "historic" to refer to subject matter, for example; historic
Euroamerican sites, not historical Euroamerican sites.  Historic artifact
assemblage, not historical artifact assemblage.  Historic county plat
maps...
 
I also tend to view "historic" as short hand for "historic period",
meaning in our case of central Illinois post 1673.
 
I use "historical" to refer to study or interpretation of the subject
matter.  Hence; historical archaeology, Francis Parkman's historical
analysis, or "because of the potential of association with Abraham
Lincoln, this site may have historical significance."
 
The other view here is that "historic" means associated with an important
person or event, and "historical" means not prehistoric.
 
I have looked through the "Publication and Style Guide for _Historical
Archaeology_" from 1993, and I don't find a definite reference to the
usage of these words.  Is there a consensus on these terms.  Better yet,
is there a reference that will settle the matter.
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Erich Schroeder                  Phone: (217)785-5996
Research Associate               FAX:   (217)785-2857
Illinois State Museum GIS Lab    Internet: [log in to unmask]
http://www.museum.state.il.us/0h/ismdepts/anthro/staff/erich/erich
 
These are my opinions, not those of the State of Illinois.
---------------------------------------------------------------------