Thank you Mike,
That is exactly my view and the way I hope NAHMO will continue - it embraces
a spectrum of interests and knowledge and by working together we can educate
and inform
Mike
[log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Gill <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 11:36 PM
Subject: NAHMO
> Peter wrote that -
>
> "For better or worse the mining history community represented by NAMHO has
a
> long standing link with mining exploration".
>
> Yes. We formed NAMHO, but it was at a time when the difference between
> "historians" and "explorers" had not become as polarised as it now appears
> to be. On the whole, in 1979, we were the same people. When I referred
to
> cavers, I meant precisely that - people who use caves for sport. As for
> true speologists and NAMHO not having common interests in archaeological
and
> environmental matters - phooey!
>
> Please do not get tied to the idea that, because the last few years have
> been dominated by work on the safety codes with the Mines Inspectorate
etc,
> NAMHO has done little else but deal with issues of access for the last 23
> years. In my opinion, NAMHO has been more than a little responsible for
the
> present strength of mining history and for encouraging archæological
> approaches too. For example, in the 1980s it was able to make detailed
> representations to English Heritage on the (then) proposed Monuments
> Protection Programme. NAMHO even initiated proposals for Scheduling
> underground sites as Ancient Monuments in 1990-1991 and submitted a set of
> detailed reports for non-ferrous metal mines, coal mines, ironstone mines,
> fireclay mines and (I think) stone mines. Although this issue was never
> resolved, it remains on the agenda at English Heritage and there are signs
> that its Welsh equivalent may be taking a more progressive attitude.
About
> ten years ago, there were even half-arsed proposals for an Institute of
> Mining History and Archæology, but fortunately that idea was seen off. In
> the days before GIS, NAMHO also supported the concept of studying 'mining
> landscapes' rather than individual features. Now, of course, the use of
> overlays (in GIS) makes that old hat and total landscapes can be studied.
> Martin Roe's proposals on underground archæology and a revision of the
> guidelines on mining artefacts sit comfortably with that earlier work.
>
> The new officers of NAMHO are both enthusiastic and skilled, but they
cannot
> know everything. So, when the difficult ones land on their desks, I hope
> that they get the same positive response from the pool of expertise,
within
> the association's members, which was available to me.
>
> I wish them well and every success.
>
> Mike Gill
>
|