You wrote:
>The second was to sample the "historic refuse deposit" adjacent to the
canal which had been identified by the initial survey.  Unfortunately, that
survey failed to recognize or learn that this was a municipal landfill or
that it dated to the early 20th century.<

Does that mean that you would rather not have excavated the (later)
landfill?

Stephen P. Austin


-----Original Message-----
From: SouthArc [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 2:43 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: landfills


Mike--

I don't know if it would be helpful, but we excavated three 3-meter square
units in a 1918-1940 municipal landfill in Brunswick, GA about 17 years ago.
Huge collection of bottle glass, rusty metal and some ceramics.  In fact, so
much stuff, we ended up sampling the sample due to repetitiveness and fact
that the stratigraphy demonstrated that the fill had been deposited, then
excavated when a ditch was put in and redeposited on top of existing layers.

For those who question why this was done, the project was two-fold.  One
goal was to document and investigate remains of an early 19th century canal
in the project tract.  The second was to sample the "historic refuse
deposit" adjacent to the canal which had been identified by the initial
survey.  Unfortunately, that survey failed to recognize or learn that this
was a municipal landfill or that it dated to the early 20th century.  As a
result, the state-mandated scope of work specified the three large units,
with no options to vary from that approach.

The main thing we got out of the dump excavations was that the material
seemed to have come from working class neighborhoods (inexpensive ceramics
and glassware).  It was speculated that the large proportion of soft drink
bottles might indicate a relatively young population in terms of age, while
abundance of sauce bottles suggested low-cost meat consumption.

I would be glad to provide a copy if you think it might help.  Contact me
off list.

                                        Lucy Wayne