Anthony Graesch is absolutely correct in his statement that there are, in
fact, prehistoric sites where individuals and households can be
distinguished, in different parts of North America, but that isn't the
point at issue.
 
There is a palpable difference, at least in these parts, between the
European sense of privacy and personal space, and the prehistoric sense of
community. A historic city block is a series of absolute divisions, and an
isolated farmstead is even more absolutely segregated and exclusive.
 
The point of the original discussion was an allusion to a privy full of
glass bottles that were extrapolated to justify blanket statements about
all Irishmen.
 
Of course, in historic sites we have the benefit of an artifact that does
not exist on most prehistoric sites, and that is the legal record. We must
treat it as an artifact, and not as a conveyor of truth. Fortunately we
frequently are able to associate it with other artifacts from the same
patch of real estate.
 
So I can find a piece of late shell-edge pearlware, which I can determine
by ceramic analysis techniques to be the newest artifact on the site, and I
can relate it to the court record of my site occupant's being evicted in
1814, and a store account that states he bought dinner plates in 1813.
Because the site is isolated, I can feel confident that this was his plate.
 
 
If this site were 400 years older, I would, in most cases hereabouts, have
no way of knowing the name, family makeup, or personal qualifications of
the occupants. Unless the site were stratified, I would have no way of
separating one household from another, or even knowing how many families,
or how many years, were represented by the collection.
 
So naturally, different approaches are called for, and different habits of
interpretation will develop, long term, among those who interpret different
types of site.  The prehistorian will be forced to generalize and look at
people in groups, while the historical archaeologist is permitted to look
at single families and individuals in great detail, over long time-spans.
 
These are, broadly stated, important parts of the differences in approach
between anthropologists and historians. When people trained in either
discipline become archaeologists, they will bring certain intellectual
baggage with them.
 
But that is another well-worn thread that we may or may not wish to follow.
 
 
Ned Heite