I too am jumping in late, and apologies if this point has already been made.

The Oxford English Dictionary gives clear evidence of the instability of the entities to which the word midden has been applied. Compare the citations in the 1989 2nd ed. of the Oxford English Dictionary with those in the current Sept 2004 internet entry. As well, the whole entry for midden has now been rewritten and reorganised. Such an amount of difference between the two editions happens rather rarely.

Nicely for us archaeologists the word is alive colloquially, applied to the enclosure in a backyard for holding dustbins or domestic refuse. A citation from 1984 reads: "For every 3 closes you have the 1 midden containing 6 dustbins."

There is now a specific section devoted to archaeological citations through the years.

Richard

>
>Subject: Midden
>   From: David Parkhill <[log in to unmask]>
>   Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:54:08 -0500
>     To: [log in to unmask]
>
>May I jump in this discussion, please.
>
>Midden, by definition is considered a dump or waste  (pit, trough, etc.)
>Specific types of middens are labeled as to their purpose (kitchen 
>midden, trash, burned rock) or what materials are the main 
>ingredients. Privy is not considered a midden, in my opinion, but a 
>privy or septic.
>
>The flume area should, again in my opinion, be considered a feature 
>or lens such as a shell lens. The discussion is interesting. I am 
>curious to see the possible conclusions.
>
>David Parkhill