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