 |
 |
Having attended Saturday’s seminar, at Exeter, on Mining in the South-West of England; new approaches, new history? I would like to thank Peter Claughton, for organising it, and finding the panel of speakers. Unfortunately, the time left for discussing new approaches etc was too short and it would have been better done around a table than in a theatre style lecture room – so here are some of my thoughts. Owen Baker’s brief historiography was fine, and he was right to identify 20th century mining as an area worthy of much more study, but I would question his assertion that we know enough about 19th century sites and should ignore them. What about earlier centuries? I think that his opinion was probably coloured by a strong faith in the writings of such ‘past masters’ as A.K. Hamilton-Jenkin and Jack Trounson, whereas researchers would be better advised to be sceptical about all such previous interpretations and to return to primary sources (not just the Mining Journal – which is as near as many ‘Cornish’ writers get). Up-country experience has lots of examples of old ‘self-evident truths’ being discarded. For example, most of the so-called ancient form of mining called hushing is now generally seen as being a product of the later 18th and early 19th centuries. Also, contrary to what is often said, opencuts are rarely the first phase of mining (in lead, at least). This has been proved by examining opencuts (and hushes) and finding traces of earlier mining. What the south-west needs are core-chronologies/theoretical models, against which to test new data (if the data does not fit, then either the model is wrong or the data is wrong). Burt’s mineral statistics help here, but Alasdair Neill showed a few areas where caution was needed in using them. Many of the technical advances are well known – for, example, a Cornish engine could not be on an 18th century mine! It is no good simply parroting the mantra that Cornish methods changed the world, especially if a non-Cornishman (John Taylor) is to be invoked as the messiah – Define terms. On the subject of wage systems alone, do people really think that systems of piece-work (payment by results) had not been thought of elsewhere? Fathomtale and bing/tontale equate with tutwork and tribute, and these, as well as setting work by bargains, and making contra-charges for powder, dressing costs etc, were in use by the early 18th century (at least) in up-country mines. What, therefore, was the great Cornish contribution to mining? Peter – for many amateurs, describing looking at a site, cogitating about it and measuring it as archaeology is a turn off. Why not stick to terms they are at ease with. Similarly, talking about surveying accuracies of +/- 10 mm is a nonsense for the average site survey. Martin Roe has demonstrated that mining landscapes can be rapidly mapped using a much cheaper, hand held GPS. Buildings can be measured accurately using a tape (or even an electronic measure for ‘Do it all’). What is the point (for people who are not building a bridge or a dam) in measuring to accuracies that cannot be plotted? It used to matter when theodolites and the physical measurement of distances were used, but not now. Archaeologists are attracted by the accuracy, and then plaster hatchers all over their drawings because they cannot use a dumpy level or handle the calculations needed to produce and draw contours. Instead of talking about Global Information Systems to handle the results of their surveying, why not use overlay tracings? Tracing film is much cheaper, far more forgiving of mistakes and, unless done full time, is much less devouring of time (having to learn the system etc). My own paper on “Recreating Mining Landscapes”, in British Mining No.67, 2000 (pp.44-51), describes what was achieved at Grassington (using a mix of my surveying (by triangulation in the early 1970s), mine plans, OS sheets and aerial photographs), but it could have been at Gwennap Common! Someone suggested producing surveys simply to put them into the Historical Environment Record. Though doing so is laudable, I am very sceptical about this approach. Why not do some interpretation and write the site up and publish it in one of the many mining history journals, thereby adding to our knowledge and your experience. Sadly, the HER is all too often simply a planning tool for the county/district council and a quarry for those too idle to get their butts into the field. The south-west is fortunate in that it has tackled some issues, like the role of women, and population movements before those of us in the up-country metalliferous mining areas, but more could be made of ‘people’. They, after all, are what the industry is about. Unfortunately, even Lynne Mayer’s book on Bal Maidens does not compare their lot with the pit top/brow women/lasses of the coal industry. Perhaps this reflects the mineral snobbery of many mining historians. Above all, I agree with something that was said early on it the day. Mining history is about enjoyment (whatever level you are doing it at). I am sure that others will have an ’a’peth to add and do not apologise because my submission has been longer than most entries on the list, but it is an important issue, and even an hour in the company of Roger Burt, Lynn Willies and Alan Buckley sends my rantometer off the scale. This weekend we were together for much longer! Regards, Mike Gill -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.6 - Release Date: 11/04/2005