Dear List,
I cannot speak for the historians but from an archaeological perspective I
would suggest it may be better to think in terms of an 'archaeologically
sensitive and historically documented mine'. If there is historical
documentary evidence (and I would term 'historical' as being 'that period of
time which is past' (no matter how short)), and where there is a potential
through research and fieldwork for archaeological evidence which will
illuminate our knowledge of miners and mining, the former in sociocultural
terms and the latter in industrial terms, then I believe we have the
definition for an historic mine.
I strongly believe that 'the historical' and 'the archaeological' must go
hand in hand. One cannot be divorced from the other.
Kindest regards,
Trevor.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Martin Roe"
> It may be better to think in terms of "historically important mines". Most
> mines could claim to be historic, but mines which have a history defined
by
> documentary sources and archaeological evidence have a stronger case. This
> is a question of theoretical approaches to mining history and you could
> consider examples which define technological advancements, i.e. that first
> known example of............ or the biggest example of .............On the
> other hand sites which are well preserved examples of an average mine from
a
> particular period have a high significance as they are more
representative.
>
> This has been the main focus of the Monument Protection Programme studies
of
> extractive industries, carried out by English Heritage, which have been on
> going since 1989. In many cases due to a lack of detailed research or
> fieldwork, importance and significance is implied rather than proven and
> judgements made about significance have been the opinion of the assesor
and
> information available at the time. This has led to the scheduling of many
> sites which were considered nationally important but others have slipped
> through the net, often because there was insufficient information or
> understanding available at the time of assesment. That does not mean these
> sites have lost out, as it is possible to present case for protection to
> English Heritage and in my experience this is well worth doing.
>
> It is woth pointing out that this process only applies to surface or
burried
> features as it is currently only possible to protect underground features
if
> they are directly below a significant surface site.
>
> Martin Roe
>
>
> Conservation Officer NAMHO
> National Association of Mining History Organisations http://www.namho.org
>
> Lead Mining in the Yorkshire Dales
> http://www.mroe.freeserve.co.uk
>
> The Industrial Heritage of Calderdale
> http://www.halifaxcouriertoday.co.uk/ftpinc/calderheritage
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Tired of 56k? Get a FREE BT Broadband connection
> http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadband
>
>
|