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.
 
I have serious trouble with the statement that "prehistoric people had a
much fuzzier idea of the ownership of real estate." How do we know this?
Just because ethnohistoric records indicate this for North America does not
mean that it is true in all cases in North America far less elsewhere in the
world (like South America, Mesoamerica, Europe, the Near East, Asia, etc.).
Given the peculiar nature of culture, we need to be wary of uncritically
assuming general principles like this. Now, I do not mean to say that such
assumptions are unwarranted given specific contexts, but we *do* need to be
conscious that they are assumptions--all too often they are taken for
granted and are not seriously examined or tested.  I am reminded of a friend
who was working on comparing an assemblage from an identified house lot/site
in Colonial Williamsburg to materials from a site in Bermuda. The more she
looked at the CW assemblage, the more it became apparent that the
association of the materials with the identified house was problematic.  I
suspect the nature of the CW digs allowed her to realize that this was a
problem since they often excavate several adjacent lots/sites. I don't think
most urban archaeology projects have this luxury, so assumptions of who
deposited what cannot always be 'tested' and we should be aware that
'mixing' is a possiblility.
 
How high do we think those historic urban fences were? Do we really think
they were 'solid' as opposed to, say, split-rail? Also, what makes us think
that everyone on a block attached to the new sewer system at the same time
rather than staggered as finances permitted? I recall reading that owners of
rental property were notoriously reluctant to hook up to the new sewer
systems and resisted as long as possible...
 
I guess my real point is that we don't seem to question our (ethnocentric)
assumptions enough.  In regards to the questions asked by prehistoric and
historic archaeologists, I think that on a very general level, we are
addressing the same issues, but at the level of the actual questions,
methods, and approaches there is a very large gap (especially since such a
great deal of historical archaeology is particularistic)! Can anyone cite a
few examples where the two are asking the same questions and answering them
on similar scales of analysis?