Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 13 May 2010 10:47:25 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On May 13, 2010, at 10:39 AM, Gwyn Alcock wrote:
> 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
>>
Pamela S. Soltis
Curator
Laboratory of Molecular Systematics and Evolutionary Genetics
Florida Museum of Natural History
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611-7800, USA
phone: (352) 273-1964
fax: (352) 846-2154
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
|
|
|