John,

Before saying "Agreed Trevor", I would add a little caution.

As an archaeologist you need to understand that my language is one of  'it 
could be', or, 'possibly', or 'maybe', or even 'I simply do not know'. The 
results of archaeological investigations are often that we simply do not 
have the answers. In my experience archaeological investigation, even of the 
highest quality, raise more questions than answers.

At the end of the day we are looking at the waste materials that our 
predecessors left us. We are infact looking at the materials of mankind. 
There will never be anything 'absolute' from our findings, just lots of 
'maybe', 'possibly',  or it 'could be'. Nothing is certain or absolute. We 
have a jigsaw puzzle which is open to countless interpretation, and time and 
time again we realise that our initial, secondary, and countless other 
interpretations were completely wrong.

Despite our personal knowledge on a particular subject, it will only be at 
matter of time before we are proven incorrect in our assumptions once again. 
You may legitimately enquire 'what is the point of it all then'. Well, all I 
can say is that eventually the bits of the jigsaw do start to fit together. 
But this not by individuals working in isolation and protecting their 
corner. It is by archaeologists, historians, geologists, scientists and 
amateurs working together and pooling their resources and ideas.

One of the problems I see so clearly these days is that interested parties 
wish to work in isolation of each other - the academic verus the amateur, 
the historian versus the archaeologist, the geologist verus the historian - 
and so on. What an absolute load of nonsense. We should all be pooling our 
resources and learning from each other.

Sadly, due to economic pressures, this is no longer the case. Peter 
Claughton, as an historian academic is now working in the south of Devon 
(Berre Ferres) because that is where his 'bread and butter' is derived from. 
Had the same economic forces provided substantial grants for him to work in 
Combe Martin on the ore fields here, then that would be to our benefit here 
in Combe Martin as against Berre Ferres. But there we are, that at the end 
of the day it is the luck of the draw, so it is hardly surprising that 
somewhere in every email he contributes to this list Peter will ensure that 
Berre Ferres is mentioned. The only sad thing about this is that most of his 
knowledge regarding silver/lead started in Combe Martin. I wonder how all 
his informants of years past feel about that now?

But there is no axe to grind. My only plea is that we learn to cross 
discipline communicate. On this point I am so very grateful to Bastian Asmus 
(yes, I got the name correct this time without my spell checker) for the 
work he has carried out on the ores of Combe Martin.

Trevor

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Mason" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 10:08 PM
Subject: Re: Falhers or Falerz Ores.


On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:01:21 +0100, Trevor Dunkerley
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Peter,
>
>Whilst I accept that Richard Scrivener solved the problem of the venticular
>veins of ore in Combe Martin, the fact that he found little evidence of
>Falhers or Falerz ores on existing dumps does not in any way surprise me.
>The dumps are of course from 19th century mining operations, the ores being
>from a much deeper source and would cover any earlier working dumps from
>shallower deposits.
>
>I believe it to be significant that when I carried out the excavations
>around Harris's Mine in Combe Martin, and specifically into the dumps to a
>depth of 4m +, dumped waste clearly had signs of dull grey ores and
>tetrahedrites. To state that tetrahedrites are relatively rare in Combe
>Martin is complete speculation. The bottom line is of course that
>satisfactory excavation according to IFS methodology has NOT previously 
>been
>carried out in Combe Martin. I find this speculation further unqualified in
>that until the work recently carried out by Bastian Asmus, as far as I am
>aware, no ores from Combe Martin have been satisfactorily analysed (with 
>the
>latest equipment and techniques) to offer definitive results as to their
>composition.
>
>It may be that historians, and indeed geologists, have to recognise, that
>until factual results are obtained through systematic archaeological
>excavation of a high standard, it is dangerous and indeed somewhat 
>foolhardy
>to base ones premise on documentary history, or searching the surface of
>19th century dumps for evidence. I guess your work down at Bere Ferres may
>be teaching you that.
>
>Trevor

Agreed, Trevor!

This would be tantamount to trying to understand the Central Wales Orefield
on the basis of the PUBLISHED writings of O.T. Jones - good as they were. If
you are going to look at the mineralisation of a mining district properly,
you need to lift the carpet up - to use an analogy!

Furthermore, comparing Combe Martin with Bere Ferrers, without any
justification, is a bit like comparing the Dolgellau Gold-belt to the
Central Wales Orefield. It just does not work, plain and simple. In the
latter case, we now know that they have different origins: in the former, it
is entirely possible that they have. The northern limit of the Central Wales
Orefield is some 20 miles as the crow flies from the Gold-belt yet the two
are very clearly unrelated.

Cheers - John