Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:01:22 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Obviously midden has been used widely and loosely (in American archaeology
with which I am most familiar) as a term to describe any relative
concentration [whether from intentional desposal of refuse or accumulation
incidental to use] of past evidences of human activity [artifacts, features
or refuse] associated with [presumed] anthrogenic soil stains.
It might behoove us to reach agreement that midden, alone, is a very vague
and
general term that [as Geoff suggests] needs additional adjectives to be
acceptable for use in archaeological description. We should seek to develop
[and use] consistent definitions for a class of middens, and deprecate the
use of the term midden alone in any other context than describing the broad
class.
Even though new words are a dime-a-dozen, I don't think it adviseable to
follow the lead of USDA pedologists and adopt a whole formal classification
system for middens and anthrogenic soil stains (who under the present state
of CRM survey, the venue where it might matter how you classify a feature,
even if they had the expertise & training, would have the leisure to sample
enough of a presumed midden to make a determination under a formal system?).
A careful attention to the use of existing adjectives ought to suffice (viz:
trash or refuse midden, house floor midden, general village midden, shell
midden, etc.).
Bob Skiles
~~~~~~~~~~
I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. -Will
Rogers
Ron May wrote:
> 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?
|
|
|