Jeanette,
I've spent a good part of the day reviewing opinions of various U.S. circuit
courts that have affected cultural resource management. Quite often, the
courts have had to determine definitions of archaeological words/terms that
are not specifically [or clearly] defined in the relevant laws or
regulations [and in some cases the whole case has devolved on such
definitions].
So, your point about the need to be "consistent" is well taken. I noticed in
several of the opinions that the courts cited definitions from the Oxford
English Dictionary. So to rather high legal authorities, OED is the
"definitive" reference. Probably useful to go back to the elementals and
look at the accepted definition(s) for midden in OED.
From an examination of historical reports and publications, it seems clear
that we American archaeologists use the term "midden" as an abbreviated form
of the traditional "kitchen midden." OED defines kitchen midden as: "a
prehistoric refuse heap marking an ancient settlement." Thus, a court might
hold that a midden may not exist at historic sites, or where there is no
definite heap or mound (as in Mallowan's's "whacking great tells!") marking
an "ancient" settlement.
OED also provides another definition for "midden," that is: "a dunghill or
refuse heap" and the OED definition of "refuse" is "matter thrown away as
worthless" ... QED, a midden is "a dunghill or heap of matter thrown away as
worthless." Which moves one into the realm of asking whether a heap of
things simply "lost" [accumulating incidental to long-term use, as in a
"whacking great tell" or the "kitchen" areas of a Scandinavian site] as
opposed to intentionally "thrown away" could be considered a midden? It
might be difficult to determine the intent of the midden-maker and
incidental/intentional boundaries in many things that I've called middens.
So, whenever you come-up with a good, consistent defintion for midden, be
sure to submit it to the OED.
Bob Skiles
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeanette Mckenna" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: Midden
>I would probably call the smoke flume area a feature, but not necessarily
> midden. My concern is that we are labelling the midden prior to any
> scientific investigations and continue to call deposits (natural or
> cultural) midden when there is no real justification. I know each site
> will be different, but shouldn't we try to be more consistent? I'm still
> working on it ...
>
> Jeanette
>
>
>> [Original Message]
>> From: Ron May <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: 3/21/2007 4:27:00 PM
>> Subject: Re: Midden
>>
>> But you have to be careful before you dismiss a deposit as non-cultural
>> simply because it lacks artifacts. A case in point, a consultant
> conducted
>> mechanical trenching and about a dozen meter square test pits in the
> lawns and
>> parking lots between the U.S. Coast Guard Station, Ballast Point, in
> 1987. He
>> found 50 centimeters of black oily soil on top of a natural cobblestone
> layer
>> and was flummoxed by the lack of artifacts. My crew revisited the area in
> 1988
>> and opened large block excavation areas. We found he dug in the smoke
> plume
>> drop area to one side of the 1868-1873 whale oil rendering tryworks
> oven. We
>> found the entire oven foundation with two firepits caked with burned
> whale
>> blubber (aka "crackling" or "whale fritters") and a floor made from
> salvaged
>> 18th century Spanish tile. Sample size led to misinterpretation of the
> sample
>> meaning.
>>
>> Ron May
>> Legacy 106, Inc.
>>
>>
>>
>> ************************************** AOL now offers free email to
> everyone.
>> Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
|