Dear all,

I’ve watched this debate unfold over the past couple of days with growing
interest. It is high time that we – the mining enthusiasts of the UK –
started to understand, mutually respect and work with each other’s
differing interests with respect to old mines.

My chief interest in old mines is mineralogy and in particular the
metallogenesis of the various ore-deposits of the UK and particularly
Wales. Working with the National Museums & Galleries of Wales and the
Countryside Council for Wales, I recently completed a four-year survey
project (MINESCAN) in which I investigated the scientific merit (in terms
of mineralogy and metallogenesis alone) of the various old metal mines of
Wales, relative to one another. The reports generated are lodged with the
libraries at the regional CCW offices.

One of the more pertinent points raised by this work was the way in which
mineralogy and industrial archaeology are directly interwoven at some sites
but, on the other hand, totally unrelated at others. A good example of the
first category is the old leaching-heaps at Ystumtuen, where galena heavily
contaminated with late-stage marcasite could be recovered once the
marcasite had weathered away – as beautifully described by Lewis Morris. A
good example of the second category is a nondescript trial at Llyn Cwellyn –
 just a flooded adit and small tip which Bernard will remember visiting
with me on an exceedingly wet day in 1997. The tip is in fact rich in
massive fluorite which in turn contains magnetite and microscopic grains of
rare tellurides of lead and bismuth: the mineral assemblage is unique in
Wales. Conversely, some superb Industrial Archaeology sites feature a very
ordinary mineralogy and sites like Temple and Bryndyfi fall into this
category.

That mineralogy is an important feature of minesites is gaining increasing
recognition, but for some of the Central Wales mines it is too late as they
have now been “restored”. In some cases, it has been possible to rescue-
collect material from dumps being removed or landscaped and work at
Frongoch in the early 1990s is a case in point, where a nationally-
important mineral suite was recovered as the tips were being taken for
hardcore. The detailed mineralogy has now been written up and published and
comprehensive specimen suites are lodged with several museums.

In terms of damage done to sites by collectors, Wales has remained
relatively unscathed. The situation that arose in the Caldbeck Fells was I
am afraid quite predictable, the chief “problem” being the high market
value of good-quality Caldbeck specimens. A few years ago I wrote an
editorial for the UK Journal of Mines and Minerals suggesting that a
sensibly-formatted permit system for mineral collectors was probably going
to be inevitable and that it was up to the mineralogical fraternity to
ensure that such a system would be mutually beneficial. The editorial
annoyed some collectors, according to verbal report, who seemed to think
that they had a “right” to go anywhere and collect as much as they wanted.
Many others agreed, while a few individuals voiced the opinion that no
collecting should be the case!

It is important to reiterate Bernard’s point that many of the important
developments in mineralogy over the past two centuries have been down to
the hard work of unpaid (I veer away from “amateur”) mineralogists.
Mineralogy and metallogenesis are both specimen-based sciences and the work
of our predecessors, for example in 19th Century Cornwall, in securing
plentiful material for posterity, cannot be undervalued.

Where the crunch comes, I guess, is the issue of what constitutes
acceptable and unacceptable mineral collecting in terms of site impact. A
good example is at Cwm Einion mine, where a few years ago an enthusiastic
collector from the London area found an interesting suite of post-mining
secondary minerals in a small backfilled alcove about 20 yards inbye from
the famous wheel (which some other sightseers, it seems, cannot resist
messing about with). The collector came to me for advice about the mineral
assemblage and I helped him write it up. The fact that he didn’t put the
backfill back in the alcove afterwards was regrettable and caused annoyance
to mining historians. But shortly afterwards, the tip from the “waterwheel
adit” had several dozen lorryloads of topsoil dumped over it as part of
a “restoration” scheme, thus turning part of this old mining landscape into
a lawn! Shortly prior to this the tip had been recognised as being very
significant for its rare lichen population – yet another facet of the
importance of old minesites – and in this case, unlike the rare mineral
assemblage, destroyed for ever.

The way forward, then, has to be an integrated approach to old minesites,
which prioritises sites in terms of their historic, mineralogical or
biological importance (in some cases all three) , but then makes sure that
all interested parties know the score. Bwlchglas seems to have coped fairly
well with site usage over recent years precisely because the visitors are
made aware of what is acceptable and what is not. That way, we avoid
conflict amongst ourselves and can all concentrate together on the main
threat – the ill-conceived schemes whose main aim in many cases seems to be
to attempt to inflict a kind of suburban tidiness or order on these
peaceful old landscapes which are a delight to so many of us.  That’s how I
see it in the context of Wales, anyway.

Cheers - John