Hi Pete Re 60 bodies in a 20ft pit etc. If the hole was 5' wide that would allow for 2 coffins side by side perhaps? Cheers, Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 4:50 PM Subject: Re: [ENG-MERSEYSIDE] Burial board inquiry 1857 > > Marged, > It is an interesting read and generates a number of thoughts. > > The first one being of how many people in those times were dying, often > from diseases much more common in those times than the present day. The > cemeteries must have been under tremendous strain at times to accomodate > the dead, especially for the many families who couldn't afford a private > grave. > > Secondly, its no mean feat, even in this day and age, to dig a hole > 5ftx7ft and 20 to 35ft deep and I feel there's an unmentioned reason as to > those dimensions. > 5ftx7ft is hole not dissimilar to one dug for a modern burial although not > 5ft wide. The attending family may have been blissfully unaware of just > how much use a 'single' plot had seen before their funeral. It may have > afforded them the apparent luxury of a single plot burial when they > couldn't afford one. > > At upto 35ft deep that's a LOT of weight on the bottom coffins. I'm > guessing a coffin might be 14inches deep and in 30ft of hole that'd be 25 > of them. I couldn't say if coffin design has changed over the years but if > they were similar to modern designs, where even something described as > 'solid oak' has a significantly thinner lid and base than its walls > (designed for eventual compaction?) then under that kind of force the > lower ones would most likely collapse. Maybe it created, at least in the > very short term, further additional capacity in one plot as the bottom > ones gave way? > > "Another pit 20ft deep was opened on the 15th March and closed on the 16th > April, contained 60 bodies" > That's only 4inches per body even if they were piled to the top and not in > coffins. > > "a sixth opened on the 7th April and closed on the 28th April contained 82 > bodies, this was 35ft deep" > This is very similar. > > Maybe it was the kindest and most efficient way to accomodate the dead in > an overcrowed system prior to cremation becoming legal? Maybe it was > profiteering? > > Pete > > > > On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:09:05 -0000, Marged <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> Inquiry into the burials at St James cemetery and the Necropolis 1857, >> gruesome reading on pit burials >> On new snippets page >> Please support free sites >> http://www.old-merseytimes.co.uk/index.html >> Jane >> >>------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without >> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >