At 07:52 AM 12/1/1997 -0800, Mary-Ellin wrote:
>Ned sees differences in spatial segmentation (property lines vs. no property
>lines) as a very significant, if not the most significant, distinction
>between prehistoric and historic archaeology. Maybe this is (generally) true
>in comparing a 'generic' urban North American Euro-colonial site to a
>'generic' prehistoric North American Indian village site, but isn't this a
>rather limited view of what constitutes prehistory?  I am a bit disturbed by
>the tendency to define prehistory as the sole property of North America. I
>know most of us are North Americanists, but we should really keep a broader
>picture in mind.
>
 
Well said.
Furthermore, we should be very careful when we decide precisely who "they"
are as opposed to "us", and how those distinctions affect our
interpretations.  Archaeologists, prehistoric and historic, tend to look at
Native Americans, Chinese-Americans, African-Americans, etc. as "them"
(their behaviors are different), and Europeans or European Americans as
"us" (they behave like us).  This was my point in contesting the broad
assumptions made about Irish, as if we should just naturally understand how
their culture works because some of us may come from Irish stock, or
because, as Noel Ignatiev has pointed out in his book, the Irish became
"white" over time in America.
 
Rural people of all kinds may have a lot more in common with
community-oriented societies like some Native societies were, or they may
not have.  But be very careful making even these assumptions about Native
Americans.  As you know, there were 500 tribes, mostly distinct in language
and culture, and I suspect that among those some may have leaned toward the
division of property and some may not have.  Making blanket assumptions
about one group seems very dangerous to me, much less 500 groups.
 
While I understand the need for both historians and prehistorians to use
theoretical constructions to create their interpretations or
extrapolations, we must be careful to not become blinded to the
"intellectual baggage", and I will add "cultural" baggage, that we bring
into these interpretations.  The consideration of the way that human agency
affects the use and consumption of space and artifacts, as well as how WE
think of those people using them, can be powerful tempers for runaway
theory.
 
Heather