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
>
>
>
|