Refuse and the formation of middens

Needham, Stuart; Spence, Tony

doi:10.1017/s0003598x00084568

Cited by 82 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is in contrast to the large midden deposits of the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age where huge amounts of bone (animal and human), pottery and metal were deposited in sites like Potterne, East Chisenbury and All Cannings Cross (Lawson, 2000;Needham and Spence, 1997). Such large deposits were occasionally found in the Romano-British period, but much more common from the late Iron Age onwards are sites with many coins, brooches, toilet kits and other small finds.…”

Section: Genealogymentioning

confidence: 96%

What Do Objects Want?

Gosden

2005

J Archaeol Method Theory

352

144

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper develops an argument for the agency of objects, looking at the effects objects have on people. Groups of related objects, such as pots or metal ornaments, create stylistic universes which affect producers and users of new objects, bound by the canons of style. For an object to be socially powerful in a recognized manner, the form of the object lays down certain rules of use which influence the sensory and emotional impacts of the object. Formal properties of artifacts are influenced by the genealogy of the object class, including historical continuities and changes, and also its perceived source. The forms of objects, the historical trajectories of the class of objects and their perceived sources combine to have social effects on people, shaping people as socially effective entities. Britain's incorporation into the Roman Empire between 150 BC and AD 200 provides an excellent case study through which to look at the changing corpora of objects, which had continuities and changes in form, a set of subtle attributions of sources and a complex range of social effects. KEY WORDS: effects; form; Roman Britain.My attempt in this article is to explore what might be called an object-centered approach to agency. It is often assumed that society is created and reproduced through the actions of human agents who are shaped and constrained by the broader society in which they live. For the prehistorian, the active human subject is a problematical entity, but artifacts are often abundant, although not totally unproblematical as we shall see. There are a number of strands of thought within archaeology and outside which explore the effects that things have on people and I would like to use these to start thinking about the obligations objects place upon us when they are operating as a group. I shall use the incorporation of Britain into the Roman Empire as a brief case study within which to explore these ideas a little more. Periods of change are important in bringing out the relationships

show abstract

Section: Genealogymentioning

confidence: 96%

What Do Objects Want?

Gosden

2005

J Archaeol Method Theory

352

144

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Though the ''midden'' is a broad concept in archaeology, it commonly refers to formalized areas for the sequential disposal of residues (Needham and Spence, 1997;Wilson, 1994). Middens fall into the category of secondary deposits, sensu Schiffer (1987), showing high concentrations of material and low intensity of trampling.…”

Section: A Redefinition Of Wastementioning

confidence: 99%

A redefinition of waste: Deconstructing shell and fish mound formation among coastal groups of southern Brazil

Villagrán¹

2014

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, over multiple generations, the middens that develop around a site will eventually combine refuse from a cross-section of society. In situations where secondary deposits accumulate over long periods of time, their composition can reflect both the occupation span and number of people living at a site (e.g., Boone 1987;Needham and Spence 1997;Pauketat 1989;Rafferty 2001;Stein et al 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ensuing Binford-Schiffer Debate (Binford 1976Schiffer 1985) addressed the nature of data recovered from archaeological contexts and helped spur a flurry of studies that examine formation processes (Binford 1978a(Binford , 1982Hayden and Cannon 1983;Needham and Spence 1997;Scarborough 1989;Schiffer 1983Schiffer , 1987Varien and Ortman 2005; and see reviews by Shott 1998Shott , 2006. Shott (2006:2) notes that: "Formation theory emerged from the realization that the archaeological record is not a faithful, complete depiction of the cultural past but a systematically refracted one."…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Early Mesoamerican Garbage: Ceramic and Daub Discard Patterns from Cuauhtémoc, Soconusco, Mexico

Rosenswig

2009

J Archaeol Method Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Formation processes are all too infrequently addressed by archaeologists excavating in Mesoamerica. This paper examines refuse disposal patterns from the site of Cuauhtémoc on the Pacific coast of Chiapas, Mexico, to provide insight into how the site formed and how artifacts accumulated. This analysis uses materials dating between 1600-800 BCE which encompass the centuries before, during and after the late Early Formative or Early Olmec period (i.e., 1250-900 BCE). First, I employ sherds and daub from shared open-air middens and trash-filled pits to explore trash deposit formation through the 800 years that the site was occupied. Next, I use these same classes of data to make synchronic comparisons between five different depositional contexts dating to the Conchas phase (900-800 BCE). For all phases, these analyses demonstrate that pit features received more debris than openair middens and that material in the latter contexts were more broken up. Further, the low density of daub from late Early Formative period contexts suggests that distinctive architectural customs may have been practised during this time. Conchas phase refuse indicates that waste disposal locations physically separated an elite residential zone from the rest of society and that elite contexts were more intensively used. Accounting for the formation of archaeological deposits allows for more nuanced interpretations of this early Mesoamerican village.

show abstract

Refuse and the formation of middens

Cited by 82 publications

References 13 publications

What Do Objects Want?

What Do Objects Want?

A redefinition of waste: Deconstructing shell and fish mound formation among coastal groups of southern Brazil

Early Mesoamerican Garbage: Ceramic and Daub Discard Patterns from Cuauhtémoc, Soconusco, Mexico

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About