(Apologies if this has been posted twice--I've been having a few troubles
with my server....)
 
In response to some issues previously raised by Ned Heite and other
subscribers, I would like to make a few comments regarding the contextual
differences between archaeological inquiries in the prehistoric and the
Historic records.
 
First of all, as Ned has reminded us, the theoretical and methodological
differences between Historic and prehistoric archaeology have indeed been
extensively debated in the literature (over and over) for the last thirty
years.  Much of the ongoing discussion has been particularly useful in
distinguishing between the multiple approaches used in prehistoric and
Historic analyses.  Yet, many advocate that the temporal distinction between
archaeological inquiries is merely a false dichotomy.  This contention is
held especially by archaeologists/anthropologists studying the dynamics of
Historic culture contact among Native North American societies. Indeed, one
has to have a good understanding of pre-contact cultural organization prior
to drawing conclusions about how it changed. And indeed, the methods by
which one inquires into prehistory are typically different than those used
to understand the Historical past: I'll likely use the archaeological record
alone to interpret pre-contact organization, while I can often use the
archaeological record along with a suite of ethnohistoric, ethnographic, and
historic documentation to understand post-contact cultural changes. Are
different questions being asked when I assess cultural organization in
prehistory as opposed to the Historic period?  Of course not.  As Ned has
stated (and I applaud):
 
>The kinds of questions are the same. The contexts are different.
 
Not to mention that one has the privilege of drawing upon a few more
resources/lines of evidence in the Historic period.
 
 
However, I don't think that the contextual differences between prehistoric
and Historic archaeology is simply a matter of "property lines" as Ned has
contended.  It is necessary to clarify exactly what is being spatially
distinguished.  Are we differentiating between who "owns" a particular area
of land?  Or are we distinguishing between intra-household activities?  Ned
is not so clear here (although I think he's getting at the latter).
 
>>The difference between historic and prehistoric sites is property lines.
>>Let's compare a hypothetical city block with a hypothetical Indian village
>>of similar size. Let's say there are twenty households in both the city
>>block and the prehistoric village, and both were occupied five years.
>>The first difference is the use of space....
 
 
Ned defines property lines literally as backyard fences that spatially
divide households from one-another.  I have no bone to pick here, but let's
not forget that the concept of a backyard (i.e. a well-defined space
adjacent to the residential unit) is a European construct.  I have yet to
come across a single ethnographic documentation of a Native American
"backyard".  However, sharp divisions between households (and their
associated artifact assemblages) *can* be drawn in the prehistoric material
record.  The divisions simply have to be made at the perimeter of each
residential unit/structure, and not along the boundary of an undefined space
adjacent to the house (i.e. a backyard).  There are many examples of spatial
analyses at the level of the prehistoric household in the literature, where
age-class, gender, and socioeconomic distinctions between household
activities have been made. "Property lines" are irrelevant.  It is
undeniably plausible to assess prehistoric inter/intra-household spatial
differences in subsistence processing, craft production, and other activities.
 
>>Since the prehistoric people had a much fuzzier idea of the ownership of
real estate, the prehistoric village site (in this area at least) will not
feature such sharp divisions.
 
I strongly disagree.  Many Pacific Northwest groups were very cognizant of
private property/property rights and the ownership of particular resources.
Exclusive rights to hunt, fish, procure, and process food resources were
often well-maintained among Pacific Northwest cultures, such as the Yurok.
I have little doubt that parallels can be drawn from other subscribers who
are more familiar with complex hunter-gatherers or agriculturalists from
other parts of the country.
 
I may have missed the point, but I don't think that I could reduce the
differences between prehistoric and Historic archaeological approaches to a
matter of "property lines".  I fail to see the importance of fence
boundaries as a distinguishing difference in the understanding of spatially
distinct (or individual) activities.  The same kinds of information can be
extracted from the prehistoric record when analysis is performed at the
level of the household.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Anthony P. Graesch
Doctoral Student
UCLA Department of Anthropology
405 Hilguard Avenue, Box 951553
Los Angeles,California
90095-1553
AJ53
[log in to unmask]