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