Tony,
The framework is not as specific as your question implies and within the
assessment individual mines are not described in detail. The scale of the
project dictates that only general trends are discussed. The division of
mining evidence into separate materials has been a convenient way for us to
conduct our research and present the results, but should not inhibit those
who will wish to contribute to the agenda (ie the 2nd phase following
completion of the assessment) if it means straying outside those headings.
So, if the historical study of polymetallic mines suggests that there are
questions to be asked on this topic which archaeology may be able to help
answer - and the discussion below certainly implies that there will be -
then this can form part of the agenda.
All the best
Phil Newman (NAMHO Project Officer)
-----Original Message-----
From: mining-history [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Tony Brooks
Sent: 06 November 2011 14:20
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Copper Concentration in England
Peter
Yes - interesting problem.
How are you going to deal with the modern Wheal Jane whose primary product
from value point of view was probably tin yet produced significantly more
(6x) zinc than tin? As this mine also produced some 600 tonnes of
copper/year will it appear under all three minerals?
Tony
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Claughton" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: Copper Concentration in England
> At 17:34 05/11/2011, Tony Brooks wrote:
>>This discussion brings up the point as to how NAMHO is going to deal with
>>mines which were polymetallic - a situation that was very common here in
>>Cornwall?
>
> Tony,
>
> Yes, this has come up in discussion in connection with the assessments for
> both zinc and copper, and the later methods of ore processing,
> particularly the use of froth flotation. Unfortunately it is in this area
> that our policy of assessing the extractive industries by categories of
> minerals does rather come unstuck. Looking at lead and zinc separately
> from copper and from tin, tungsten etc. is fine when mines were
> predominantly producing just those minerals but, by the late 19th century,
> the demand for other minerals which had been regarded as waste does rather
> complicate the picture. The realisation that most mineral deposits were
> really polymetallic and the development of techniques such as froth
> flotation where some mines by the early 20th century were producing a
> suite of minerals defies categorisation by minerals.
>
> I suspect we are going to have to assess ore processing across the
> metalliferous industries a small separate section, covering the
> archaeology of techniques such as froth flotation, rather than duplicating
> the data in each of the category themes. And, in the case of flotation
> where much of the early development work was in Wales, we would not be
> confined by national boundaries.
>
> Peter
>
>
> Dr Peter Claughton,
> Blaenpant Morfil, nr. Rosebush, Clynderwen, Pembrokeshire, Wales SA66
> 7RE.
> Tel. +44 (0)1437 532578; Fax. +44 (0)1437 532921; Mobile +44 (0)7831
> 427599
>
> Hon. University Fellow - College of Humanities, University of Exeter
> http://people.exeter.ac.uk/pfclaugh/about.htm
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
> Co-owner - mining-history e-mail discussion list.
> See http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/files/mining-history/ for details.
>
> Mining History Pages - http://www.people.exeter.ac.uk/pfclaugh/mhinf/
>
> _____________________________________________
|