Research Assessment?s -Your Comments Please

Moorebooks
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie Topic Starter

12 years ago

I picked this up on mining history list forum and figured should draw it to your attention - Mike

Progress on the Archaeological Research Framework for the Extractive Industries (England) has taken a step forward this week with the completion of several draft assessment documents which have now been posted on the
NAMHO website for your comment and criticism. The list of draft assessments now includes the metals of IRON, LEAD/SILVER/ZINC,TIN, COPPER, GOLD, GANGUE
MINERALS and COBALT. Also, COAL, SALT and CLAY. Other assessments include. UNDERGROUND ARCHAEOLOGY, ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCIENCE and PREHISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGY.

You can find these assessment on the NAMHO website at:
http://www.namho.org.uk/research.php

Some of these are revised 2nd drafts, which have benefited from comments by various contributors but others, including gold, archaeological science, copper, clay and underground archaeology have been added in the past few
weeks. There are several more to follow. These assessment undoubtedly still have room for improvement and it is
highly likely that relevant information has escaped our attention, particularly in the case of unpublished archaeological work and 'grey' literature sitting un-noticed on library shelves, HER site folders and in personal collections.
Please send your comments, criticisms and additions by email to the Project Officer at [email protected]

If you wish to draw our attention to any material that has been overlooked, please provide as much detail as possible and if unpublished, include a note on where and if it is accessible.
Thanks and regards

Phil Newman (Project Officer

simonrail
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

12 years ago

#2

Looking at the Assessments and bibliographies for God's Own Country (Cleveland) I am suitably unimpressed. Certainly the list of books referring to our patch is limited and some of those are archaeological reports described as unpublished. Me and the boys will get our heads together and see what we can add.

Another concern to me is that there are three reports mentioned produced by professional archaeologists in which specific features are misidentified or misinterpreted. I would ask all mining historians to check their relevant Assessments and not accept that the professionals have looked at it therefore it must be right.

Send in your comments, otherwise you might get Time Team'd ...

Yes, I'll have it - what is it?

christwigg
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

12 years ago

#3

I already emailed the chap and suggested he peruse the 60 strong Cleveland Ironstone series published by Peter, which of course includes your mighty canon of works.

PeteJ
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

12 years ago

#4

We welcome any information that is about the archaeology of mines and quarries. Sometimes, there will be references to historical accounts to help with background, so they are also welcome. One of the objects of the exercise is to find out about unpublished archaeological reports that are lurking in unknown archives and references to documents of that type will also be very welcome. If we have missed any of the reports within Aditnow, please tell us about those reports.

One of the objectives of having a research framework is to identify the gaps in our collective knowledge. We therefore also welcome any feedback about the gaps. For example, you might have a strong view that hydraulic engine archaeology is neglected....(this is only a hypothetical example)....please share your opinions.

Pete Jackson
On behalf of the Framework team

PS: Alum will be available soon.

Pete Jackson
Frosterley
01388527532

christwigg
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

12 years ago

#5

"PeteJ" wrote:

PS: Alum will be available soon.

I think simonrail may have something to say about that too.

PeteJ
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

12 years ago

#6

excellent.

This is a link to the Research Pages

http://www.namho.org/research.php

Pete Jackson
Frosterley
01388527532

ICLOK
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

12 years ago

#7

Perhaps I'm still not getting the point of all this. Surely a listing of existing reports/books says lots about what we already know but does it identify the gaps in our knowledge re sites which are known by some but unrecorded?, if there is no report or record then how does this help it get recorded or assist us in researching a site?
There still needs to be an overall list of UK mine sites with any significant remains/archaeology, saying whats there and providing a record of some sort and yes links to known documentation if they exist.
I just can't seem to make the leap of how lots of books and refs to things long gone or known however important research wise and historically will identify, record and note new sites previously unrecorded. Or am I just abit dim? :confused:

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh Creeper!!!!!

spitfire
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

12 years ago

#8

"ICLOK" wrote:
Perhaps I'm still not getting the point of all this. Surely a listing of existing reports/books says lots about what we already know but does it identify the gaps in our knowledge re sites which are known by some but unrecorded?, if there is no report or record then how does this help it get recorded or assist us in researching a site?
There still needs to be an overall list of UK mine sites with any significant remains/archaeology, saying whats there and providing a record of some sort and yes links to known documentation if they exist.
I just can't seem to make the leap of how lots of books and refs to things long gone or known however important research wise and historically will identify, record and note new sites previously unrecorded. Or am I just abit dim? :confused:

You and Simonrail have hit the nail on the head. I have recently read a long and no doubt expensive mine report that couldn't be more wrong if prizes were offered for it. So what's the point?

spitfire

Moorebooks
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie Topic Starter

12 years ago

#9

"spitfire" wrote:

"ICLOK" wrote:

You and Simonrail have hit the nail on the head. I have recently read a long and no doubt expensive mine report that couldn't be more wrong if prizes were offered for it. So what's the point?

And how many you guys got of your arse went along to the NAHMO meetings to put your point of view influence the study etc. Don't criticise if you don't accept invitationsto attend meetings about this that were also held all over the country.
Whilst on AN is allowed one delegate others to NAMHO meetings no one has attended for at least 3vyears to my knowledge .

Its a case of don't shoot down in flames those trying to do their bit - I agree with you on several levels. I have not been involved haven't and therefore haven't criticised but offered information.

Mike

spitfire
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

12 years ago

#10

"Moorebooks" wrote:

"spitfire" wrote:

"ICLOK" wrote:

You and Simonrail have hit the nail on the head. I have recently read a long and no doubt expensive mine report that couldn't be more wrong if prizes were offered for it. So what's the point?

And how many you guys got of your arse went along to the NAHMO meetings to put your point of view influence the study etc. Don't criticise if you don't accept invitationsto attend meetings about this that were also held all over the country.
Whilst on AN is allowed one delegate others to NAMHO meetings no one has attended for at least 3vyears to my knowledge .

Its a case of don't shoot down in flames those trying to do their bit - I agree with you on several levels. I have not been involved haven't and therefore haven't criticised but offered information.

Mike

You've missed my point completely. I wasn't having a crack at NAMHO. I was merely pointing out the fact there are reports flying around all over the place paid for out of the public purse that aren't worth the paper they are written on. Until this sorry state of affairs can be addressed, as I said before, whats the point?
spitfire

Peter Burgess
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

12 years ago

#11

For those who "don't get it", Pete has already stated

"One of the objectives of having a research framework is to identify the gaps in our collective knowledge."

This happens when someone looks at the framework and notices that a particular interest of theirs is not represented, and gets off their backside to add something relevant to the framework. Better that, than just popping off another negative moan about how "they" are a waste of time.

As I understand it, this exercise is not to produce a massive research paper but to generated a matrix of already published or unpublished research material, to point those who need an understanding of the importance of mining archaeology in some geographic or other context in the right direction. I believe the idea is to reduce the chance of nonsensical or downright wrong decisions being made by those with influence over the protection of mining heritage, by giving them something sensible to refer to.

I am not involved in this exercise but I think the concept is simple enough to understand and I believe it to be a good thing.

PeteJ
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

12 years ago

#12

This is the first paragraph of the Project Document, available on the NAMHO internet pages:

"A Research Framework for the Archaeology of the Extractive Industries (Mining and Quarrying)

1 Summary description
1.1 No comprehensive overview has yet been carried out for the archaeology of the extractive industries; mining, quarrying and the associated infrastructure. Over a period of two years this project will assess and analyse current knowledge to determine the extent of the research already undertaken, its depth and its relevance to our understanding of the archaeology and history for a wide range of mining and quarrying activities. The results will be published as a Resources Assessment and Research Agenda for England with a view to formulating strategies for future archaeological research. The project will also assist in informing future conservation and outreach strategies, and help to raise general awareness of the significance of the extractive industries as part of our heritage".

and further on......

"4 Project Aims and Objectives

4.1 This project will address the lack of a comprehensive overview by preparing a Research Framework for the Archaeology of the Extractive Industries in England (Mining and Quarrying) which can be used to inform the course of future research. The framework will be structured in three parts –

1. Resource Assessment: providing an understanding of the current state of knowledge and the available resources, both archaeological and historical.

2. Research Agenda: to identify the strengths and weaknesses in that knowledge, the unique elements and the potential for future research.

3. Research Strategy: to establish research objectives and possible priorities".

The project is being delivered by two means, 1: Funding from English heritage, and 2: Volunteer time.

When completed, the document will help English Heritage to understand where further research may be needed. It will also help Planning Authorities to understand the significance of mine and quarry sites.

Please have a look at the documents on the NAMHO website. Any feedback and comments will be very welcome.

Thank you.

Pete Jackson
Frosterley
01388527532

lozz
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

12 years ago

#13

"When completed, the document will help English Heritage to understand where further research may be needed. It will also help Planning Authorities to understand the significance of mine and quarry sites"

Or they could join aditnow...

Lozz.

ICLOK
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

12 years ago

#14

Erm before blasting folk on here, get your facts straight first eh! :guns: .... I for one certainly did get off my arse and attend the seminar at Caphouse in Jan 2012 as I thought it important, as did another AN member (and we prepared for it properly), and an IRS member attended and other interested individuals we knew, and we did make input... lots infact which is reflected in the minutes! Many others "did not get it" either! Sadly we have never been invited to go back since, so it would have been nice to have had a discussion re this.... But given the reaction to my post I really now cannot be arsed! :glare:

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh Creeper!!!!!

AR
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

12 years ago

#15

"lozz" wrote:
"When completed, the document will help English Heritage to understand where further research may be needed. It will also help Planning Authorities to understand the significance of mine and quarry sites"

Or they could join aditnow...

Lozz.

Could you explain just how joining this site would enable someone from EH to decide where they should be targeting research on the archaeology of the extractive industries?

Follow the horses, Johnny my laddie, follow the horses canny lad-oh!

Peter Burgess
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

12 years ago

#16

Phil Newman wrote:

"If you wish to draw our attention to any material that has been overlooked, please provide as much detail as possible and if unpublished, include a note on where and if it is accessible."

If that isn't an invitation to "go back", if not in person, then what is?

lozz
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

12 years ago

#17

"AR" wrote:

"lozz" wrote:
"When completed, the document will help English Heritage to understand where further research may be needed. It will also help Planning Authorities to understand the significance of mine and quarry sites"

Or they could join aditnow...

Lozz.

Could you explain just how joining this site would enable someone from EH to decide where they should be targeting research on the archaeology of the extractive industries?

Dunno...Maybe it's because most of the mining sites can be found on here and collectively we probably know more than EH otherwise they wouldn't be putting the feelers out.

Lozz.

LeeW
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

12 years ago

#18

I wonder if this non expert info will be put on a par with the expert info. Or are they just gathering a big list of stuff they don't know then publish it and be the expert on that as well.

Is it just me, or does it sound like a project where they will gather all this info then charge you a nice fee to see it (lets call it the membership fee)? I hope not - I like all info to be free, includes mine.
Oh yes, Ian do you remember the experts wanting to destroy the rather large cupola because they had got it wrong?
This is not me 'not getting it' but my opion.

I went in a mine once.... it was dark and scary..... full of weirdos

When do I get my soapbox, I need to rant on about some b***cks

lozz
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

12 years ago

#19

Ok...Maybe I don't understand what's going on here all I was trying to say was that if EH were any good they would have listed the buildings at Robo's side at South Crofty including the more modern looking miners dry complex, if they had, those buildings would still be there.
The whole lot should have been saved in my opinion, to rubbish the site was a kick in the teeth for all those that broke blood and sweat working down there, that's how I feel about it anyway.

My dad used to say whatever you want to do you have to ask a man with a degree first.

Lozz.

ICLOK
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

12 years ago

#20

I am sure that EH and the local authorities take every approach to them regarding IA and mining seriously and that access to an overview of our mining regions/areas and documents (bibliography) etc will definately prove incredibly useful to them in their decision processes. However this assumes that all parties actually understand the terminology, context and language of mining to start with and what documents reports etc can be applied to what they are actually looking at in order to work out what to do next....

Lee - A Lime kiln and a large Iron furnace are easily mistaken in the context of a major ironworks.... 😮

Oh and you got off your arse also! :thumbup:

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh Creeper!!!!!