At 07:50 AM 11/20/97 -0500, Ned Heite wrote:
>The bottle-filled privy illustrates one of the differences between historic
>and prehistoric archaeology. Archaeologists digging a prehistoric site
>cannot  distinguish a single individual, or a single household, in most
>cases....
 
I don't really see this as a vaild difference between historic and
prehistoric archaeology. Sites in prehistory were made by individuals just
as in the historic period.  Just because you can't point to a document and
identify a particular individual/family/household/town name doesn't mean a
whole lot as far as I am concerned.  There are many prehistoric sites (even
Neolithic!) where the actions of a single individual or particular
households can be 'seen' in the deposits.  And since a lot of historical
archaeology is done without having completed extensive documentary research
prior to excavation, the distinction between the two is even less certain!
(This is not to say that the kinds of questions addressed in historic and
prehistoric archaeology are the same).
 
>Any historical archaeologist knows that a single privy deposit reflects
>only the single household that created it, and that every household is
>different...
 
I also have to question the statement that we "know" a single privy deposit
is associated with a single household. While in many cases the context does
suggest that a deposit is associated with a particular household, this
assumption is not necessarily true.  How do you know that when it came time
to fill in a (dangerous) privy hole, they didn't invite all the neighbors to
help fill it in? And, what about carting in fill? Unless the site is out in
the countryside with no close neighbors, I would not just assume that a
deposit can be so closely tied to a single household.