Hey Mark et al!
When does an horno that trash was thrown into on ceremonial ocassions become
a a midden? OR is it still an horno? That is what we have here in AZ.
By the Way, Mark, your SHA Archaeochemistry Workshop CD is FINALLY on its
way!
Rich Lundin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Branstner" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: Midden
> 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)
>
>
|
