 |
 |
Peter wrote that - "For better or worse the mining history community represented by NAMHO has a long standing link with mining exploration". Yes. We formed NAMHO, but it was at a time when the difference between "historians" and "explorers" had not become as polarised as it now appears to be. On the whole, in 1979, we were the same people. When I referred to cavers, I meant precisely that - people who use caves for sport. As for true speologists and NAMHO not having common interests in archaeological and environmental matters - phooey! Please do not get tied to the idea that, because the last few years have been dominated by work on the safety codes with the Mines Inspectorate etc, NAMHO has done little else but deal with issues of access for the last 23 years. In my opinion, NAMHO has been more than a little responsible for the present strength of mining history and for encouraging archæological approaches too. For example, in the 1980s it was able to make detailed representations to English Heritage on the (then) proposed Monuments Protection Programme. NAMHO even initiated proposals for Scheduling underground sites as Ancient Monuments in 1990-1991 and submitted a set of detailed reports for non-ferrous metal mines, coal mines, ironstone mines, fireclay mines and (I think) stone mines. Although this issue was never resolved, it remains on the agenda at English Heritage and there are signs that its Welsh equivalent may be taking a more progressive attitude. About ten years ago, there were even half-arsed proposals for an Institute of Mining History and Archæology, but fortunately that idea was seen off. In the days before GIS, NAMHO also supported the concept of studying 'mining landscapes' rather than individual features. Now, of course, the use of overlays (in GIS) makes that old hat and total landscapes can be studied. Martin Roe's proposals on underground archæology and a revision of the guidelines on mining artefacts sit comfortably with that earlier work. The new officers of NAMHO are both enthusiastic and skilled, but they cannot know everything. So, when the difficult ones land on their desks, I hope that they get the same positive response from the pool of expertise, within the association's members, which was available to me. I wish them well and every success. Mike Gill