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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------