Dear List
If I may take a little of your valuable time… This discussion that is on-going
regarding the Dartmoor reeves seems to be getting a little tedious. I very
much appreciate Robert’s latest post, as I’m no archaeologist, nor academic,
although, I do have a very strong passion for Dartmoor, especially the tin
history. As far as I’m concerned Robert has explained the reeves system
extremely well, and it has supported evidence, whereas, the tin routes do not
have any evidence to suggest otherwise. I agree with Roger’s view that these
reeves are dissected by tin-works, but not that they were trackways from
them. Yes, stream-works were more than likely being exploited at the time the
reeves were built, which may account for some of the reeves stopping short.
Let’s think logically here… Now back in the times when the reeves were built
and times were extremely hard for almost the entire population, would the
tinners waste so much time and effort in constructing mile after mile of raised
trackways? No, I don’t think so. Yes the tinners needed to transport their
commodity to a designated place, and they would more than likely have taken
a route suitable. But remember, when the tinners pitched their bounds, how
long was it that they worked that particular sett? No-one knows for sure, but
records show that they changed hands quite a lot, so again why would a
tinner waste months, maybe years constructing these so-called trackways?
After very careful consideration, and re-reading Fleming’s book, I am of opinion
that the all the local archaeologist cannot be wrong. You cannot dismiss the
works of previous well-known writers without producing hard field or
documentary evidence to support any theory you may have come up with.
Roger I have had very good communications with you, and listened to your
argument, and read it here. But am going to be hard to move on this, unless
you produce some very hard evidence to support your theories.
Kindest regards Chris Kelland.
|