Sometimes it is good to say "trash", "garbage", etc. if you do not 
want the site looted by well meaning but curious people.  It depends 
on whom you are talking at the site.

I am still curious about "emic" terminology and (in America) its 
history and internal variation.

Also, when is a "historic artifact concentration" = to a "spirit 
bundle in the ground?" The latter seem to cropping up all over the 
place these days. It must be global warming.

RLS

At 11:12 PM 5/12/2010, you wrote:
>I say "historic artifact concentration."
>
>1. Ever heard a prehistorian call a lithic site "trash"?
>
>2. It's hard to keep a straight face while telling someone that digging up
>"trash" is a good use of their money.
>
>3. I don't like the term "scatter." It conjures up the image of a barefoot
>maiden broadcasting rose petals from a woven basket tra-la.
>
>Adrian Praetzellis
>
>
>
>
>On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Chuck Carrig <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
> > Is there a consensus on the proper terminology for the discussion of
> > historic refuse concentrations?
> >
> > I've always used the terminology historic midden as opposed to historic
> > trash dump.
> >
> > Chuck Carrig - RPA
> > Archaeologist
> > BLM - Dillon Field Office
> > 1005 Selway Drive
> > Dillon, MT 59725
> > (406)683-8029
> >