Mark-

Yes, I know it's referred to in the literature that way, but that is if
you define a midden as "any primary refuse deposit."  Thinking about the
differences between our definitions, I guess the difference is that I
think of the term "midden" as a type of archaeological feature, that is,
a definable deposit that can be discussed in terms of location,
temporality, intentionality and other characteristics. What I think of
as sheet refuse covers, to a greater or lesser degree, all or most of
the occupation area of a site, blending smoothly into any midden
features that are present. Because it is a mixture of numerous and often
indistinguishable mechanisms of deposition, most of them unintentional,
it has limited analytical value. It exists as a kind of background
noise. 

Of course the harder and longer you look at something the more you see,
which in archaeology means digging more. What may be described in a
reconnaissance survey as simply "sheet refuse" may on closer examination
resolve itself into several midden features connected by sheet refuse.
It's kind of like tuning a radio when the reception isn't clear. At the
preliminary level of examination, as Ron pointed out, you may not be
able to tell whether it is even a primary deposit. Thus the many
mistaken "midden" I.D.s in CRM literature.

Rich-

I guess technically it's a midden, but it's a RITUAL midden! There's a
type I hadn't thought of but now that I think of it I can think of other
examples, such as the remains of sacrificial animals interred in some
features in Britain and one site in Mexico that appears to be a dump for
pottery broken on some ritual occasion...

Ron-

Around here we have a plethora of dirtless middens: coal ash and
kitchen deposits, bottle dumps, can dumps, demolition deposits etc. My
impression is that most, if not all, soil in midden deposits is strictly
incidental to the deposit unless there was a substantial percentage of
organic material deposited in it initially. In New York, organic matter
is frequently missing even from kitchen deposits if the householder was
selling it for hog feed. In most of the middens I have seen, almost all
soil results from erosion processes, burial, bioturbation or decaying
foliage, all of which are post-depositional.

Remember, though, most of my experience is on sites less than 200 years
old. I have relatively little experience with prehistoric middens, but
the ones I have seen do all have soil as a major component.  Even so, I
would guess it comes from the same sources that contribute to historic
middens, given more time for natural processes and a larger amount of
organic material. I saw a Calusa shell midden in Florida once that had
many layers of black mangove-swamp mud in it, but that also appeared to
be the result of periods of abandonment and overgrowth followed by more
deposition.



Martin Pickands
New York State Museum

>>> [log in to unmask] 3/22/2007 5:14 PM >>>
Marty,

First you say a midden must be "intentional" yet it excludes "sheet 
middens" but somehow includes "proximate deposits" ... "within 
throwing distance from the house."  By my definition, the latter is a 
sheet midden.

Mark


>I agree that a consensus about ways of discussing middens is
important,
>and with the study of more recent periods of history it will become
>increasingly essential. For the sake of discussion, this is how I
>describe historic middens. I'm curious to see what people have to
add:
>
>My definition: a midden as defined archaeologically is an intentional
>localized deposit of refuse. This definition clearly excludes sheet
>refuse and redeposition in fill (both of which have their own stories
to
>tell). By this definition "Midden" is a  term more useful in general
>descriptions such as those found in survey reports and site
>examinations. Once the work becomes more detailed, the term is really
>too general to be very useful in discussing the specific deposits.
>
>Form: One of numerous attributes that can be used to refine the
>description of a midden is its form. Common forms of domestic midden
>include:
>        surface middens (visible heaps of trash)
>        subsurface middens (detectable only by excavation)
>        in-fill middens (refuse deposited in a disused feature such as
a
>privy, well, or cellar hole)
>        pit middens or trash-pits (deliberate excavations for burying
>refuse).
>
>Location: Another attribute that becomes increasingly important in
>post-1870 deposits is location:
>        Proximate deposits: those made near the residence (basically
>within throwing distance from the house). The location is chosen for
>ease of disposal. 
>        Remote deposits: These are far enough away from the residence
to
>require bulk disposal. The location is chosen to get dangerous or
>unsightly materials out of the living area.
>
>Purpose: As Ron points out, a more important attribute of middens is
>their purpose. I found several distinct and identifiable purposes in
the
>ones I have studied:
>        Kitchen deposits containing everday household refuse
accumulated
>over time from frequent small additions.         
>        Bulk kitchen deposits consisting of quantities of daily
refuse
>(such as empty cans and condiment bottles) that were allowed to
>accumulate for a time before being carted away from the residence to
be
>discarded in quantity elsewhere.
>        Renewal deposits, also generally discarded in bulk, most
often
>resulting from clean-up and repair episodes between tenants or
owners.
>These consist of attic and cellar cleanouts containing relatively
whole
>items discarded as unwanted or obsolete, often accompanied by
>architectural repair items such as unused brick, tile or nails, paint
>cans, etc.
>        Demolition deposits derive from architectural demolition and
>containing exclusively used materials.
>
>  This is, of course begging the issue of specialized
business-related
>middens, neighborhood ash dumps and a host of other types of midden.
>Anyone care to comment? Types to add? Different definitions?
>
>
>
>Martin Pickands
>New York State Museum
>
>>>>  [log in to unmask] 3/22/2007 1:43 PM >>>
>on 3/22/07 12:22 AM, geoff carver at [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
>>  Well: I was suggesting we include something about "purpose" in
there:
>shell
>>  midden, sheet midden, kitchen midden
>>  Otherwise, everything that has waste in it could be called
"midden"
>>  But obviously there are many ways to get lots of organic materials
>mixed
>>  with artifacts: cesspits, for example; somewhere in a pond or a
marsh
>where
>>  everything settles after getting washed in...
>>  You might have a fill with a high organic content, but it wouldn't
>>  necessarily be a midden because it's original intent was to fill
some
>space
>>  before building on it, and it only incidentally held organic
>material
>>  derived from its original source (difficult not having an
>archaeological
>>  equivalent to the geological concept of "provenance")
>>  Then again, the OED defines archaeology in terms of "excavation" &
we
>do a
>>  lot of archaeology with GPR & aerial fotos these days, so... It
>ain't
>>  exactly the right source in cases like this
>>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of
>Ron May
>>  Sent: March 22, 2007 09:09
>>  To: [log in to unmask] 
>>  Subject: Re: Midden
>>
>>
>>  In a message dated 3/21/2007 11:57:43 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
>>  [log in to unmask] writes:
>>
>>  trash/waste used as fills, or even piles of garbage
>>  ("refuse"?) that  accumulate without any purpose...
>>
>>  Now I read that decomposed trash and garbage that accumulates in a
>soil
>>  (churned or otherwise) is also not eligible for classifying as
>midden. But,
>>  if the soil turns dark from decomposed organics and  is mixed with
>other
>>  cultural waste and is associated with a human activity, how can we
>define it
>>  as something other than midden?
>Listers -  I tend to call something a midden if it is amorphous but
>contains
>artifacts and/or natural remains that have been utilized by site
>occupants.
>But that said, thin and defuse middens became sheet refuse to me.
>Anything
>with all of the above that is more contained or somehow bounded
becomes
>a
>pit.  If there are more definable artificial boundaries around it -
>brick,
>stone, &c - and it appears to have once had another function (well,
>cistern,
>privy, whatever) I tend to go with a "reused whatever."  My
definitions
>are
>probably deeply influenced by prehistoric archaeology so you can feel
>free
>to attack them (but not me).  Whatever the case, these are all things
>that
>we deal with all the time that are more than the sum of their parts,
>and I
>think the discipline benefits from attempting to define what are
>typically
>taken-for-granteds....  This has opened an interesting thread.
>
>joe dent
>American University


-- 

Mark C. Branstner
Historic Archaeologist

Illinois Transportation
Archaeological Research Program
209 Nuclear Physics Lab, MC-571
23 East Stadium Drive
Champaign, IL 61820

Phone: 217.244.0892
Fax: 217.244.7458
Cell: 517.927.4556
[log in to unmask] 


"Liebe: eine Gleichung mit zwei Unbekannten"

- Gerhard Branstner (1927- )

"There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth,
without either virtue or talents ... The artificial aristocracy is a
mischievous ingredient in government, and provisions should be made to
prevent its ascendancy."

- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)