 |
 |
Hi Mike, You are quite right in thinking that hammer scale and anthracite are out of place in this excavation, the contexts for these are some 40cm above the materials that I am currently trying to identify - an this is one of the problems for me. Back in the 50's when I worked for Derbyshire Stone at Matlock, I visited the shaking table plant regularly, and if my memory serves me correctly, the waste from the tables was a very fine slurry material, the colour of which changed depending on where the ore and gangue material was coming from. I remember well the multi-layering and vividly different colours in the stratigraphy of the waste heap before it was carted away. Unfortunately I have not as yet seen such material in an archaeological setting to be able to draw any comparisons. The multi-layers and differing colours of the layers I am trying to identify have without doubt been held in suspension with water. I have trawled the usual library and archaeological report sources for any previous archaeological work carried out with mineral wastes, but as yet I have drawn a blank. Date wise I am talking about post 1728 having discovered a George II penny with a 1728 date mark - the pottery suggests a date around 1750ish. Kindest regards, Trevor. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Gill" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 12:48 PM Subject: Re: [MINING-HISTORY] Buddling Wastes > Trevor, > > Are you sure that the material in the lenses you describe came from > buddling? Whilst there would be a high proportion of country rock in the > waste, you do not mention gangue mineral. Unless it was smelting waste that > was being treated, hammer scale and anthracite look out of place. > > Mike Gill > > >