Mike,
I agree entirely, it’s always vital to understand the limitations of a source and the vagaries of its creation. It’s one of issue that is very apparent looking at the OS 2” drawings; although at least some of the information included/excluded appears to be a matter of OS policy, other inclusions appear at the whim of the individual surveyor. Looking at those across Leicestershire and Rutland, as you go progressively westward the maps include less and less information, a process that also correlated with their date of survey, in Rutland field boundaries appear to be pretty accurately surveyed, in the core of the Leicestershire, they are at best indicative of areas of enclosure, while to the west they aren’t shown at all …I guess that’s more to do with policy though.
Sorry, don’t have the earlier edition, so I’ve no idea. Definitely an excellent map-geek book though, if you like that kind of thing!
Richard
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mike Shaw
Sent: 02 August 2013 14:35
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Blacksmiths Workshops 'Smithy'
I guess we’re back to the old adage about absence of evidence not being evidence of absence…where a smithy is marked you would hope that you could take this as evidence of presence – although there may be the odd error - but presumably there are many smithies which were present but are not marked, especially in crowded urban areas, whether because the surveyor didn’t bother, or they were unrecognised, or they cluttered up the map, which would explain why some appear on the 1:500 plans but not the larger scale maps.
Incidentally my version of Richard Oliver is the 1st edn of 1993 – Richard - is the 2005 version much revised?
Regards,
Mike
Mike Shaw
Archaeologist, Education & Enterprise
Tel. Office: 01902 555493
Wolverhampton City Council
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Winfield, Hugh
Sent: 02 August 2013 13:48
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Blacksmiths Workshops 'Smithy'
Sarah,
In our area OS seem to have been very thorough in rural areas, but poor in urban areas. Sometimes you get the horseshoe symbol instead of an annotation, which is difficult to see on some of Landmarks scans (presumably where the original map was in poor condition, or was extensively marked); and sometimes you get no mark at all on the 1:10,560 or 1:2500 maps but the 1:500 town plans and insurance plans do show a workshop. It seems to relate to the size of the workshop, but also how many other annotations are in the area, so I strongly suspect that it was up to the individual surveyor to decide when to mark the sites.
I try not to think too much about this kind of thing, and just keep a consistent method of recording, but it's sometimes like trying not to scratch an itch!
Hugh
Hugh Winfield | Archaeologist |
North East Lincolnshire Regeneration Partnership | Origin 1, Europarc, Grimsby, DN37 9TZ
W 01472323586 | M 07825125964
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Richard Clark
Sent: 31 July 2013 15:43
To: Winfield, Hugh
Subject: Re: Blacksmiths Workshops 'Smithy'
Sarah,
‘Smithies were depicted on most County Series mapping , but were being omitted by 1937: ‘n view of the great number of garages, which appear of more importance to the public than smithies,… neither garages nor smithies will be shown’. (IPEA37, s.158) By 1952 they were not mentioned at all (cf RB52): in mid-2002 it was announced that forges and smithies would no longer be described. (OSIP02) They were shown on 1:63,360 mapping prepared between the late 1880’s and about 1914 but, as with inns, the description was intended to be indicative rather than comprehensive.’
Richard Oliver 2005 Ordnance Survey Maps a concise guide for historians, Charles Close Society, p107-8
Richard
Richard Clark MA AIFA
Principal Planning Archaeologist
Leicestershire County Council
Tel: (0116) 3058322
Email: [log in to unmask]
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Botfield Sarah
Sent: 31 July 2013 15:28
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Blacksmiths Workshops 'Smithy'
Hello All
This may sound like a stupid question and if so forgive my ignorance but does anyone know what criteria Ordnance Survey (especially on 1st edition) used when recording a smithy? I have some smithy’s that are recorded and others that are not yet they exist in the trade directory. Any advice would be appreciated. I did email OS some time ago on this and they said I had to contact the national archives as they didn’t know and that Kew would have this information (although I did not get any response from Kew on this)
Sarah Botfield
Heritage Access Officer (HER)
Planning Services
Peterborough City Council
Stuart House (East Wing) St John's Street
Peterborough
PE1 5DD
Email: [log in to unmask]
Telephone: 01733 453450
(Wednesday and Friday 8.00-4.00, Thursday 8.00-12.00)
To find out more about Peterborough City Council, please go to: www.peterborough.gov.uk
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Conditions apply to the confidentiality, copyright, legal liability and use of this email.
For full information relating to the transmission and use of this email
please visit www.peterborough.gov.uk/emaildisclaimer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any reading, printing, storage, disclosure, copying or any other action taken in respect of this e-mail is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by using the reply function and then permanently delete what you have received.
Incoming and outgoing e-mail messages are routinely monitored for compliance with Leicestershire County Council's policy on the use of electronic communications. The contents of e-mails may have to be disclosed to a request under the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The views expressed by the author may not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Leicestershire County Council.
Attachments to e-mail messages may contain viruses that may damage your system. Whilst Leicestershire County Council has taken every reasonable precaution to minimise this risk, we cannot accept any liability for any damage which you sustain as a result of these factors. You are advised to carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.