 |
 |
The recent Parys / Extreme Archaeology TV show seems to have been a recurring (beer fueled) topic of converstaion at Coniston last weekend. The consensus being that the programme did nothing to further the cause of underground archaeology nor the wider interests of the mining history community. However what the programme did acheive was to further the dialogue as to what underground archaeology should / could be. To date what work that has been done underground has either been done by enthusiastic amateurs or slightly eccentric profesionals, everybody working within their own standards and parameters. For example..... coming from a caving background all the surveying I've done is based on and influenced by the CRG /BCRA grading system. Whilst people coming from the caving side of the historical mining community seem to be happy with these standards for recording basic passage details, professional archaeologists tend to have reservations about the system. On the positive side there is a dialogue. On a personnal level the recent NAMHO Underground Archaeology meet at Grassington inspired members of the Tamar Mining Group to experiment with distos and plane tables. Likewise there has been the recent discussion on this list regarding 3d mapping software. Given the emergent, albeit embryonic, interest shown in the subject by potential funding bodies at both local and national levels, surely now is the time to develop a robust, common, multi - diciplinary methodology and set of standards acceptable to all those involved, at whatever level, in underground archaeology. Underground archaeology has the potential to become a distinct and recognised dicipline, and we, as mine historians / archaeologists / explorers, have a unique oportunity to influence the direction this takes. What we need is a methodology designed by us to meet the needs of our dicipline and the disparate parties involved, taking into account the best of past practice, current thinking and 21st century technology. End of manifesto. Rick Stewart.