Yes- both terms seem to me to convey some images but generally useless 
for analysis.
Unless you are dealing with something that was formally described as a 
"Dump" as in the City Dump of X  City I would start with

deposit then go to essential material attribute discription of objects- 
then behavioral patterning- then secondary functions (functions as 
deposite) then  artifact functions (original)-

Of course one man's trash is another mans landscaping, rock garden, 
drainage pottery,  pathway.

And one must remember that existence of deposites is not as important as 
their "flavor" within community subsets.

My  refuse for example is much greater in volume than that of my 
neighbors hence the many attempts to bring the law down upon my head 
which incedently have all failed miserably!
How many local colors do you find based upon deposits. Because simply 
having deposites is universal.....

have fun....

Sort of like my bottle tree newly constructed out back. For me it is 
visionary art and spectacular much fun and much agreement....for my next 
door neighbor "its shit"
actually its just a structured deposit.....

Conrad

Robert L. Schuyler wrote:

> Like all typologies the different types eventually blend. For example, 
> in back yards of individual households the residents dug pits (or used 
> natural pits) and dumped discrete trash (usually kitchen or sometimes 
> building items). These "dumps" were specific and created over brief 
> periods. In contrast general "fall out" of trash into the soil - 
> usually walked on and broken up - takes the form of "sheet trash." A 
> midden sort of combines the two - usually a product of some type of 
> specific activity (shell fish gathering), over a longer period of 
> time, and usually more concentrated than "sheet trash" but more 
> diffused in time and size than a "dump."
>
> Does any one have any primary sources on what people who created such 
> features originally called them, assuming they had any emic 
> terminology? The only thing I remember was as a small child being told 
> not to dig in the back yard because I would find "trash." Later 
> (1950s) we had a dump, and called it  "a dump", of non-organic 
> materials on the edge of our back yard going into the woods (on a 
> downward sloping hill).
>
> Such terminology would be different from period to period (colonial 
> vs. 19th-20th centuries), from culture to culture, and also from 
> formal settings vs. general settings. (e.g. city trash collectors vs. 
> individuals and home sites).
> I do not think there is any agreed upon terminology among 
> archaeologists and I wonder about "natives."
>
> On 5/11/2010 2:24 PM, Mark Branstner wrote:
>
>> Conrad,
>>
>> By your own definition, you appear to be separating middens and dumps
>> ... A shell midden is far more than just a dump site ... it is a
>> working area resulting from the processing of molluscs.
>>
>> I agree with Andy ... middens are accretionary deposits associated
>> with distinct activity areas, and dumps are remote refuse disposal
>> sites.  We have had the same discussion here in Illinois relative to
>> nineteenth century farmsteads.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> At 2:16 PM -0400 5/11/10, Conrad Bladey wrote:
>>   
>>
>>> I have seen middens described as containing many different types of
>>> deposit- even burials.
>>>
>>> I believe that it is the same as a dump. Refuse
>>>
>>> Most likely it is a British Term or archaic American term for a dump.
>>>
>>> Middens are often qualified by type as in Shell, bone   but so are 
>>> dumps.
>>>
>>> Shell middens were often some ways from settlements at the sites of
>>> gathering of shellfish for example lightening the load
>>>
>>> Conrad Bladey
>>> Peasant
>>>
>>> Andy Sewell wrote:
>>>
>>>     
>>>
>>>> I also tend to think of a midden as something that gradually
>>>> accumulates as a result of disposal activities over time, while a
>>>> dump may represent a discrete occurrence of disposal, often of just
>>>> a few classes of artifacts (bottles, broken dishes). A dump may
>>>> also be located at some distance from the place of residence, or
>>>> deposited in a specific landform, such as a ravine, whereas I tend
>>>> to think of a midden as something that would likely be found around
>>>> a domestic structure, such as a kitchen. I also think that using a
>>>> term that a historical occupant or producer of such a deposit would
>>>> use might be a good approach to consider.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Andrew R. Sewell, MS, RPA
>>>> Principal Investigator
>>>> Hardlines Design Company
>>>> ? Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>>>> Jeanette Mckenna
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 1:57 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: terminology
>>>>
>>>> I tend to think of "midden" and household or more organic waste, while
>>>> trash dump or refuse may include many other items - like industrial 
>>>> waste,
>>>> metals, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Jeanette McKenna
>>>> California
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>       
>>>>
>>>>> [Original Message]
>>>>> From: Chuck Carrig<[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> To:<[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Date: 5/11/2010 10:53:55 AM
>>>>> Subject: terminology
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>
>>
>>    
>
>