I see where Martin is going with this one, but cannot accept his 'black and
white' claim that "Using these definitions it is clear that features on a
vein or other type of ore body can be classed as trials, but should not be
classed as prospection features.". It is still possible to prospect along
the line of a vein or outcrop etc without actually making any significant
trial. Any practical miner would be looking at building up enough
information to allow him to pick the most likely place to make any trial or
trials.
>It is however a complex subject and one that has often been overlooked and
ignored by historians.
Yes - and what was worse, many talked about "ages/periods of prospection"
when a little thought would have shown that major vein structures had been
well understood for centuries. General prospection, in the form of
crosscuts and trenches, continued until the end of the industry.
An even simpler form of pit was that made by moles, rabbits etc. They
sometimes turned up pieces of ore from the sub-soil.
> These small workings may have been considered economically viable at the
time that they were worked.
Yes, but a total output of a couple of tons, now matter how profitable, is
hardly El-Dorado. It should, however, remind us that miners in the 18th
century (say) often needed to produce much less to make a living than did
their fellows 100 years later.
> assumptions about the depth of workings on an outcropping orebody. ...
often look like shallow superficial excavations ... they are much deeper
opencut workings that have been backfilled.
Such features were often worked from shafts first.
Mike Gill
|