It is gratifying to see such a rush of responses from list members who share
Peter’s and my own wish to move mining history forward, in this case in the
south-west.

 

To save people being diverted by one word - diasperic was my play on
diaspora - which means dispersion, and is usually said of the ancient Jews,
but it seemed appropriate to apply it to the undoubted spread of Cornish
miners throughout much of the world.

 

I fully agree with David Poyner that as well as being published, material
should also be sent to the HER and I did say that doing so was laudable
(precisely for the reasons David gives).  To show that I practice what I
preach, I long since put over 2800  dots on the archaeological maps in North
Yorkshire (that amounts to practically all the mining and some quarrying).

 

By focussing on 'diasperic', Peter C. has totally missed my point about the
unquestioning acceptance of self-evident truths.  I fully agree about the
importance of studying migration (and the static population) and it is one
area in which the south-west is well in advance of the rest of us.

 

Like a new convert, who has been shown the shining path, Peter is also blind
to my point on archæology.  Of course its techniques have much to add to
mining history - much of my own work is heavily influenced by archæological
approaches.  For the uninitiated, it is a matter of perception, however,
and, unfortunately, most people see the subject in terms of flouncing around
with brushes and trowels in a highly controlled environment, in which they
are minions, with some expert coming up and loftily declaring their
interpretation of what has been found.  Conversely, I've seen people listen
to Martin Roe's talks on his archæological work and go away enthused that
"they could do that".  Heck, even I nearly shouted out halleluiah! 

 

I'm intrigued by the notion of having too many studies - perhaps I've
reached my quota.  What context and what wider picture are you going to
compare this limited and, therefore, deficient data against?  Sorry Peter,
that’s pure nonsense.

 

Lynne Mayer is wrong to think in terms of a SW versus 'Northern' mining
history debate – it is all the same thing.  Yes, the study of 20th century
mining is very important, but not to the exclusion of other periods – which
is what Owen Baker appeared to be suggesting.

 

Doing the 'people' bit is hard work – Again, I agree, but so is doing most
things properly.  The information is so dilute (one sentence per document if
you are lucky!!) – that’s the joy of researching old documents.  In respect
to your 'Bal Maidens' research, I see little point in comparing underground
experience because so few women seem to have worked there outside coal
mining.  You do not have to do all the new research from scratch.  I cannot
speak to what is available on women’s employment in a world wide context,
but there is already a reservoir of sound academic material on women on
British collieries (no doubt with the accompanying heated debate).  They,
after all, became subject to the same (or not in some cases) legislation and
wider social mores.

 

You ask why did women cease to be employed so early in the northern metallic
mines cf SW?  Just because Roger Burt said it was so, I would not accept it
as a blanket truth.  Far fewer women were employed on northern metal mines,
but they generally employed fewer men too.  Some areas appear to have used
women until quite late, whilst others seemingly dropped them in the 1820s.
“Why” is a good question and I cannot answer it.  In some cases there were
cotton/worsted mills, for alternative employment of women, but not in
others.  The ‘mill option’ is an area which studies of women at Lancashire
collieries, in particular, often discuss.

 

You suggestion that many of the northern mines were remote is wrong.
Lodging shops can only ever have housed a small part of the workforce.  Most
miners lived fairly locally and walked to work.  It takes an hour (or less)
to walk three or four miles – most modern people commute for at least as
long to their work.

 

Peter’s suggestion of holding the next (but one) general research seminar in
the north of England (perhaps in Newcastle) is a good idea – why not try The
North of England Institute of Mining and Mechanical Engineers?

 

Mike


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.7 - Release Date: 12/04/2005