Dear Roger,
Just a couple of points that may be helpful.
Back in the 1950's I spread many thousands of tonnes of basic slag onto
agricultural land. It's rather filthy stuff and I have no recollection of it
being anything other than a fine powder. Any solid lumps above 3 or 4mm
would have caused havoc with the spreading machinery. I seem to remember
that before the advent of mechanical spreaders, it was spread off the back
of a trailer by shovel so whether they were as fussy about solids then I'm
not really sure.
Do not discount flood plain lands. I know of 3 Romano British and 1
medieval Fe smelting sites here in North Devon which are on flood plains and
adjacent to rivers.
You also need to consider Fe metal working. >>Most appears highly glazed
although a few pieces were almost fibrous.>> The latter could suggest
smithing slag. If you have substantial spreads of pottery sherds from a
lengthy period, which may or may not suggest midden spreading, you may also
have to consider settlement, especially if there is a water mill associated.
Hope this helps,
Kindest regards,
Trevor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Gelder" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 12:55 AM
Subject: Re: Basic slag - fertilizer or?
> Hi Bart,
> No, this area was almost completely agricultural.
> One can see evidence of introduction of material (limestone
> in more or less linear features)for improving cart tracks
> across previous fields [this 47 acresused to be 5 separate
> fields -ref Enclosure Map of 1803 - with two cart tracks] but
> the nearest industrial under-taking was a water mill some
> 300 m distant. The field shows what I think is a 'manuring'
> spread (in the northern half of the field) of Romano-British
> potsherds from ~100 to 300 AD and medieval up to Victorian
> potsherds (in the southern half of the field). Worked flint
> is also evident across the full extent of the field.
>
> It is in the southern half that the slag is evident, but not in
> any great concentration. We are currently walking 20% of the area
> - 10 m tracts - but as the setter-up of this grid, I get to see
> more than our walker/collectors do, but even so, this slag is
> no more than 'occasional' with negligible concentration.
> With no analytical opportunity for closer examination of the
> material, I had hoped to be able to dismiss it as 'modern'
> but would need some firm reassurance before I did that.
> The fact that this meadow was (and may still be) flood plain,
> mitigates against even occasional smelting, I would estimate?
> Regards,
> Roger Gelder
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Arch-Metals Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> On Behalf Of Bart Torbert
>> Sent: 28 February 2006 20:41
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Basic slag - fertilizer or?
>>
>>
>> Hello Roger,
>>
>> Was there any known smeltering activity in the area in the
>> past? Maybe this was used as a dump gound.
>>
>> Bart
>>
>> -------------- Original message ----------------------
>> From: Roger Gelder <[log in to unmask]>
>> > Undertaking a fieldwalking exercise of a 47 acre wheat
>> field and have
>> > encountered several items of slag.
>> >
>> > This particular section of field, however, would have been
>> flood-plain
>> > through-out the first millenium and poorly drained for most
>> of the next
>> > few centuries, which would seem to preclude any smelting work?
>> >
>> > I note that from the 1920s/30s slag is refered to as
>> 'ground' but this
>> > material is 'chunky' - sections ranging from 3 to 10 cm, some
>> > plough-worn (rounded) some plough-fractured (angular). Colour is
>> > mostly black - some grey - and one larger piece almost white with
>> > streaks of iron embedded in the matrix. Most appears highly glazed
>> > although a few pieces were almost fibrous.
>> >
>> > So, what would the first/original basic slag, used as
>> fertilizer, have
>> > looked like, please? Thanks for help,
>> > Roger Gelder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
|