Hi.  Indeed, there are many interpretations to data about finds of
patent medicine bottles.  We can describe the artifacts we have found,
but the interpretation depends on the context we put it in.  If that
context has more to do with stereotypes and off-hand assumptions rather
than an appreciation of the complexities of the past and the creativity
of humans in the past, then we will discover not much about the past at
all.  There has indeed been lots of important work in urban archeology
in New Orleans.  Perhaps there are diffulties in pulling conference
papers out of old work.  But then shouldn't conference papers reflect
the quality of the old work?  Particularly when there are "civilians"
(prehistorians) in the audience?  I rechecked my notes from that
particular talk, and I think my comments are accurate, for that
particular talk.  I was, again, embarrased by it, because it did not
draw on lots of the urban archeology, but was focussed on a particular
block, and the particulars of a particular privy deposit.  On the other
hand, my apparent failings have been pointed out twice today, in email
and snail mail, and I think I was mostly right both times.  I have to
deal with SHPOs who want to dismiss most historical archy, and its hard
to defend some of what I'm seeing.  Bye.
 
Leslie C. Stewart-Abernathy
Arkansas Archeological Survey
Arkansas Tech University
Russellville, AR