I have looked extensively at available information on the surface signature of bell pits. Most appear to be a deep depression. In a few isolated cases (from Germany), the surface signature is a mound with a central depression.
- I don't understand why some bell pits have mounds - but most do not. Is this a question of the time available for settlement? Is this a peculiarity of the geology/mining technique?
- The old drawings appear to show round shafts. I have examples which appear to be squares. Is there any significance to a square pit - rather than round?
- can anyone point me in the direction of examples of bell pits which appear as mounds with off-centre shafts rather than big craters or mounds with central shafts?
The reason I ask is because I am an amateur archaeologist and have about 10 mounds up to 2m high and 10m across. They occur in a line about 15m OR 30m apart - i.e. quite regular. On one I can see a 1.6m square depression about a foot deep. Another has two 1.6-2m square depressions. None of these depressions are central to the mounds.
There is coal in the area - however the mounds appear to follow a layer called the "orchard" limestone.
There is NO ... and I mean NO ... record of these mounds except my own. They are not on any ordinance survey nor any mining record nor any other historical record (and I have looked high and low) and since well before 1945 the area has been wooded ... so no aerial photographs.
If you need to leave the list, send the following message to [log in to unmask] -
leave mining-history
---------
|