>
>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]