From what I have seen in New Orleans following the Hurricane Katrina
Demolitions, the feature in your photos appears to be a cesspool. We
have recorded, literally hundreds. I did have an attached file from
Civic Science in Home and Community, G. Hunter and W. Whitman, American
Book Company, New York: 1923, which contained line drawings of cesspools
and the "progressive" septic system.
Of note is the description on page 104: "Most country homes nowadays
have a cesspool, or a deep hole dug in the earth, with an open bottom,
uncemented rock or brick walls and a covered top. It is usually
situated a few feet away from the house, and receives all the sewage
which drains out gradually into the surrounding soil through holes at
the sides and bottom" (Hunter and Whitman: 1923).
Hope it helps.
Jason A. Emery
SHPO Liaison to FEMA for Archaeology
Desk: (504) 762-2228
Cell: (504) 570-7292
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Pat
Garrow
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:13 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Help identifying a 19th C. subsurface feature, a dry well?
I have seen a late nineteenth to early twentieth century septic system
that is very similar to what you have. If it is a septic system there
should be another shaft adjacent to it where the clarified liquids were
diverted. The waste came into the first shaft, the solids settled out,
and the claridfied liquid fowed through a pipe in the side of the first
"tank" into the second. I saw one like that excavated in Phoenix and
observed a second one at the new Oxon Hill Manor in Maryland. It makes
no sense as a cistern because of the lack of the hydraulic cement liner.
Pat Garrow
-----Original Message-----
>From: Bob Genheimer <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Nov 17, 2010 10:44 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Help identifying a 19th C. subsurface feature, a dry well?
>
>Alex
>
>This looks very much like a domed cistern, except for the fact that
interior walls are not lime mortared. That would also explain pipe
egress/ingress. The key is where in relation to the house is it
located. Cisterns are fed from downspouts from the roof, and typically
relatively close to the structure. But, it sure looks like a cistern
orifice to me.
>
>Bob Genheimer, RPA
>George Rieveschl Curator of Archaeology
>Cincinnati Museum Center
>1301 Western Avenue
>Cincinnati, Ohio 45203
>513-455-7161 office
>513-846-4898 mobile
>513-455-7169 fax
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
>Alexander Keim
>Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 11:27 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Help identifying a 19th C. subsurface feature, a dry well?
>
>
>Hello! My name is Alex Keim, a PhD candidate in Historical Archaeology
at Boston University, and I am hoping someone can help me identify a
architectural feature I encountered while doing a on-site consultation
in Lynn, MA. A link to photos is at the bottom of this message. The
feature is located in the rear lot of a townhouse constructed in 1871.
The feature in question is the remainder of a previously partially
demolished brick dome or vault, about 1 meter below current surface
level. Based on photographs (see link) of a very similar feature
uncovered by construction crews about 30 meters away (but reburied
before I could see it firsthand) I believe the feature was originally a
dome with a circular opening at the top. This intact feature also had
metal piping entering the dome near the base, but the partial feature I
encountered had no surviving piping. The dome is roughly a meter from
top to base, and the intact portion I saw was about 2 meters in
diameter. The feature is
>
> constructed of bricks and mortar. It is set on a large circular pit,
full of cobble sized rubble and rip-rap. I partially excavated the soil
fill above the rubble and determined that it dates to after the
feature's demolition, and I removed a portion of the rubble fill to try
to determine the depth of the hole, but I encountered no sign of a
bottom after 70 cm.
> I am thinking that this is some kind of dry well, or possibly a
cesspool (but there were no cessy conditions or residue on the
interior), but I have never dug something like this before and would
welcome confirmation or other interpretations. If anyone has encountered
a similar feature I would greatly appreciate some feedback. Following is
a link to a webpage that should give you access to some photographs of
the intact feature I did not see firsthand, and the partial feature I
worked on. Thanks for your time!
>
>Sincerely,
> Alex
>
>http://img72.imageshack.us/i/intactbrickvaultfeature.jpg/
>http://img512.imageshack.us/i/afterpartialremovalofru.jpg/
>http://img204.imageshack.us/i/detailoffillremoval.jpg/
>http://img217.imageshack.us/i/featureafterexcavationb.jpg/
>http://img594.imageshack.us/i/featureafterexcavationb.jpg/
>http://img143.imageshack.us/i/featureafterexcavationb.jpg/
>http://img138.imageshack.us/i/intactbrickvaultfeature.jpg/
|
