Last night I glanced at David Cranstone's article on the
classification of the surface remains of metal mines in "Mining
before powder", PDHMS Bull., vol 12, No 3. He takes same line as most
people in this discussion ie that the term "bell pit" is widely
misused (I seem to recall it was this article that first got
me thinking about the problem). He refers to bell pits around
Wakefield but suggests that these have more recently been
reinterpreted as shaft and gallery workings, as Martin suggests. He
quotes a reference which unfortunately I left at home and now cannot
remember properly; I think it was G. Eglan, Post-medieval Britain,
1993.
As Colin implies, some open-casting was done on top of the Clee Hill
in the early 1990's. The only recording is of shaft and gallery
workings. I understand the Ironbridge Institute came out to look at
this and recovered some wooden tools. The area had previously been
spoken of as containing bell pits. However, I suspect no systematic
recording was attempted and I imagine only a small fraction of what
was uncovered was reported. There may have been bone-fide bell pits
that were simply swept away.
I think Rob and Martin make important points about the relation of
the spoil tips and shaft density. I am most familiar with Shropshire
and Worcestershire, but I imagine things are no different in other
areas. Here there is usually a clear progression, from very broken
and confused ground on the outcrop (opencasting?) to shallow, dense
concentrations of shaft hollows and mounds leading finally to larger,
less frequent hollows and spoil tips.I think this reflects the
deepening of the seam; where it is shallow something like traditional
bell pits are required; at greater depths, shaft and galleries take
over.
As a final thought, how much provision for archaeological recording
is required for open-cast proposals?
David Poyner
|