There are a few things worth addressing in this thread before crockery
starts being thrown...  The following quotes are from several different
contributors:
 
1)
>It's quite possible that the author of the Baton Rouge paper was
>seeing ethnicity when what he/she was getting was an indication of
>gender.
 
There is some confusion among historical archaeologists about the
predictive relationship between culture (by which I mean "the mental part 
of reality") and the material contents of the archaeological record.  That
many Irish immigrants to America drank, enjoyed drinking, and allowed
public consumption of alcohol to play a contructive role in mutual social 
relationships is not in question, either by historians or present-day
Irish-Americans.  Rorabaugh (1979) shows that drinking was common among
native-born American workers in the early 19th century, and that it was
often cariied to extremes.  Rosenzweig (1983) pointed out that drinking
could result in what can only be described as pathological behavior.  
Middle-class observers were often more concerned with the public aspects of
drinking, and the boisterous behavior that followed. Liquor broke down the
inhibitions and reserve that most middle class observers felt were
necessary to "civilized" life.  Drunks shared a lack of control of emotions
and passion that was often seen (by middle-class males, at least) in other
groups (children, women, the poor, the insane, as well as various racial
and ethnic groups).  Consumption of alcohol varied within as well as
between ethnic groups and genders; though there may be something to ethnic
preferences in liquor (and patent medicines) the presence of bottles of
either product in privies is not sufficient grounds to identify any
particular ethnic group.  Also, most urban dwellings contain members of
more than one gender, making it difficult to contrast assemblages according
to gender.
 
2)
>That still leaves the question
>of whether the patent medicine was being consumed for medicinal or
>alcoholic purposes.  I suppose one could equally argue the Irish were a
>bunch of hypochondriacs compared to their neighbors.
 
and
 
3)
>Obviously one must be careful about conclusions drawn from patent
>medicines. Still, even if the medicine was being taken with the idea to
>cure illnesses, the end result if consumed in any quantity at all would
>have been to get quite a buzz since many had well over 25% alcohol
>content.  And let's not forget those ubiqutous extracts!
 
Most people drank patent medecines to cure real or perceived ills.  Most
people use extracts to flavor foods.  In most cases, these products were
more expensive than liquor; they may have been consumed in situations where
liquor was simply not available (as Bill Adams ably demonstrated for
Silcott, Washingtion).  It's not hard to believe that some people drank
them.  Hell, some people (today) squeeze the juice out of Sterno, and drink
that.  But I think some archaeologists like to see a drunk in every bottle
of extract.
 
Some patent medicines did contain alcohol.  Some, such as Geritol and
Nyquil, still do.  The alcohol in Nyquil enhances the effects of the other
active ingredients.  One can only imagine what it does in geritol.  The
fact is though, that most ingredients of patent medicines were not public 
knowledge until the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 forced them onto labels,
making them highly suspect as popular substitutes for booze.
 
Patent medicines also contained other stuff. "Mother Winslow's Soothing
Syrup," which lulled infants to sleep, contained opiates.  Odd though that
we haven't seen papers presented calling patent medicine users inveterate 
hopheads. (Hmmm... There's an idea for a paper!).
 
No, most drinkers (and drunks) went for the direct route, via liquor, beer,
and wine, at least in cities and other communities where these were readily
available.  While it IS useful to know about, for most urban
archaeologists, the alcoholic content of patent medicines and extracts
probably makes for better cocktail party conversation than it does good
archaeology.
 
Rorabaugh, W.A.
1979 *The Alcoholic Republic: An American Tradition.*  Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
 
Rosenzweig, Roy
1983 *Eight Hours for What We Will: Workers and Leisure in an Industrial
City, 1870-1920.* Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
 
L. J. Cook
Cultural Resources Specialists of New England