I just wanted to revive this topic, as I've run into this again using 10.1 SP1 which I'd hoped handled this differently.
When copy/pasting between geodatabases, an archive-enabled feature class loses its history table. This seems counter to the concept of archiving - what are the chances that nothing will ever go wrong with your enterprise GDB? Or, in our case, when migrating to a new RDBMS platform? Or, what if you want to serve archive-enabled data via file GDB?
Feature attachments go along with the feature class with copy/paste operations, so why not archive classes too? Or, at the very least why doesn't an option exist toreuse existing _H tables when enabling archiving, instead of ignoring it and making a bunch of _H1 tables? Is ESRI's workaround that you should just load up all the records from your original _H tables into the new _H1 tables? Seems like there should be a better way (and if there is, please let me know!).
Nate