Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 13 May 2010 07:39:49 -0700 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
A BHPO of my acquaintance once remarked that he preferred "historic refuse deposit," because it was uphill work to get a National Register eligibility evaluation on a "trash scatter."
We mustn't forget the political arena in which we work.
Gwyn Alcock
Riverside, CA
________________________________
From: Adrian Praetzellis <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wed, May 12, 2010 8:12:44 PM
Subject: Re: terminology
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
>
|
|
|