Anthony,
 
Thanks for your very thoughtful email. I really appreciate the imput. susan
 
 
At 12:28 PM 10/12/98 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>>Can anyone recommend any references where someone has clearly defined a
>>"cache" vs. a "dump?"
>
>No, but the issue you raise is interesting.  That is, what is/are the
>archaeological distinction(s) between a cache and a trash dump.
>
>I suspect that context will play a critical role in distinguishing between
>the two types of archaeological deposit.  Undoubtedly there are many
>archaeological examples where the distinction between a cache and a dump is
>entirely unambiguous.  For instance, associated soil types (i.e. ash),
>artifacts (i.e. fragmented, burned bone), and spatial context (i.e. exterior
>of house/structure) are often clear indicators of the type of deposit being
>assessed.
>
>Yet, in cases where such data are non-existent or unrecorded, the
>distinction becomes more problematic.  Perhaps one approach would be to
>survey the literature for assemblage and depositional information associated
>with sites/areas previously identified as "dumps".  The same survey could be
>performed for assemblages identified as "caches".  A list of traits reported
>for each type of deposit could be assembled and used against to test your
>particular assemblage (artifact orientation, composition, distribution,
>etc.).  Such an approach would be predicated on the potentially flawed
>interpretations of previous investigators, yet a distinctive patterning in
>the nature of these assemblages may become apparent.  The resulting
>classification may be of use to other archaeologists working in similar
>contexts.  Who knows...maybe a typology of these types of sites will develop
>from such an approach.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Anthony P. Graesch
>Graduate Student
>-------------------------
>UCLA Department of Anthropology
>405 Hilgard Avenue, Box 951553
>Los Angeles,California
>90095-1553; AJ53
>-------------------------
>E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
>