HISTARCH Archives

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

HISTARCH@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Larry E. Buhr" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:43:29 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (24 lines)
Once again getting back to my childhood ethnology of rural privys, I
know that there would be some artifacts.  Some of the classes that come
to mind are small birds and rodents that dogs or cats would kill,
leaving near the house: throwing these in the privy was a quick and
efficient disposal if the privy was vented and lye was regularly used;
likewise for spoiled, rancid foodstuffs.  Part of this hinged on the
dog(s) who would be likely to dig up buried carcasses or rancid
foodstuffs: I can remember cases of this and the resulting 'one sick
puppy' syndrome.  Of course one didn't want to toss large items in there
because it would fill faster, so a larger size carcass or spoiled food
mass would be buried away from the farmyard area (without the dog
along).  Then there are the items tossed in that one wasn't proud of: I
think I tossed a few in my time but I can't speak for the rest of the
family, but I suspect there have been a few more.  Once down the privy
things didn't come back to haunt you.  I think as most privy digs show,
during the time of 'active' use in the original purpose the artifact
density isn't high, but once abandoned or near-abandoned, the artifact
density increases dramatically.


Larry Buhr
Dept. of Anthropology
Univ. of Nevada, Reno

ATOM RSS1 RSS2