NAHMO guidelines for the removal of artefacts may be found on their website - http://www.namho.org/  - by clicking on 'guidance' in the navigation bar on the left.

The introduction makes a very sensible point:

When you find artifacts in an abandoned mine, it is tempting to pick them up for a closer look but think first and LOOK WITH YOUR EYES NOT YOUR HANDS. Handling fragile finds with muddy hands will often result in damage or at the worst destruction of an object. Moving artefacts destroys their archaeological context and that limits the story that they can tell us about the life of a mine. Removing artifacts from a mine just to grace your mantelpiece deprives researchers of valuable archaeological information.

The guidance on removal of artefacts is as follows:

When is it acceptable to remove objects?

Unless the object is in danger of being damaged or lost, LEAVE IT IN SITU for others to see. LOOK DON'T TOUCH.

Objects can be removed where- the object has properties which make it worthy of preservation and:
The only access to the mine is to be filled or otherwise sealed.
The site is going to be destroyed by quarrying.
The site is going to be destroyed because mine is to be re-worked.
Decay of the mine workings will make future access dangerous.
Future access to the mine may result in damage or unrecorded removal.

Objects SHOULD NOT be removed where the mine has closely controlled access and exceptionally historic interest.
Objects SHOULD NOT be removed unless you have the legal right or permission of the owner.
Denial of future access is NOT a reason to remove items. It may be possible to re-negotiate access in the future

Artifacts can be recorded without recovery, and in many situations this may be preferable as it keeps items in context for others to see and enjoy. If they have to be removed they should be recorded before they are moved.

DO NOT handle or remove an object until the proper recording work has been done.

I would certainly suggest that the full article is worth reading, but the above gives the most useful guidance.

The question which has otherwise arisen is that artefacts are increasingly at threat of theft due to the rising value of scrap and in some more accessible sites (usually not underground) due to vandalism or petty theft. Under such circumstances, should removal or securing be the best option?

There is also a corresponding issue in that if artefacts are removed, then they are no longer accessible: thus unless they are put somewhere the public can view them, they are just as lost sitting on a mine explorer's mantlepiece as if they were used as a paperweight or sold for scrap. Thus, the potential destination of the artefacts must be considered as much as the argument for their removal.

---

The sad fact is that if we collectively decide that moving artifacts to a place of safety is acceptable within our circles then only one thing can be gauranteed-
That the vast majority will rapidly me moved to a place of safety on somebodies mantlepiece.
Perhaps the 1st step we ought to consider is the removal from the public eye of ALL photographs of easily accesable atrifacts (or identifiable locations) as we are aiding those who wish to help themselves. I'm not implying anyone here is guilty of such things but we shouldn't be helping them do it either.

Its a no win situation, leave artifacts in place and the next tosser who passes by helps himself, move it and we loose "context".
Personally I'd rather loose context than artifacts.

I also think we need to reconsider how we have collectively raised the profile of places like Maenofferen, perhaps irresponsibly.
We all like to share these places and the pictures of them but we have to recognise that at some point the impact is negative. Have we not now reached that point?
(This is not a dig at AditNow, Mine Explorer or any of those who post on either, merely an observation of fact)

jr48 wrote:

To qualify as theft a person must permenantly intend to deprive the owner of the item(s). As long as the (for want of a better word) 'rescued' items are displayed in a suitable place then no theft has occured.

---

Permanently intend has a totally different meaning to the true definition of theft, which is An intention to permanently deprive

Permanently intend is mens rea, or state of mind whereby the intention is as it says, permanent. Not an ingredient of theft.

The intention to permanently deprive means that once property has been taken with the owners chances of regaining it seriously reduced, the intention there ends once the taking is complete.

There is a lot more than this to theft, and many many test case to draw examples from

[mod]Copied from previous thread[/mod]

How about approaching the 'Governing bodies' like NAMHO they surely have the experience to negotiate things such as this. They may even have some good ideas as to where to put these artefacts. Or just have enough impact to arrange with quarry owners and museums to sort things in a permanent and safe fashion

There is no real answer to this unless Government bodies are involved to providing listing and protection.

items have been rescued in the past and taken to Museums this happened in the early days at Ironbridge - where things were "rescued" and were eventually burnt and scrapped by staff who knew nothing about the origins.

Who decides where is safe from view which means that only a limited few get to see.

The old addage applies re footprints and photos.

Unfortunately...you will just have to accept that if access is easy...then vandalism, theft and graffiti is going to occur

Certainly in my local area if access is easy for non-exploring tourists, day trippers and chavs...then all the above is going to occur

Though it sounds defeatist...i think we just have to accept that unspoiled Mines are only going to be found where access is not possible to the great unwashed!

I'm not in favour of any artifact removal...because it sets a dangerous precedent...unfortunately once it is approved of it will aways be abused by museums, trophy hunters mineral collectors and people wanting to make £s...the only way to keep anything prisitine is to say NO...ITS NOT acceptable under any circumstances!

......(edited for brevity by jr48 )

I'm not in favour of any artifact removal...because it sets a dangerous precedent...unfortunately once it is approved of it will aways be abused by museums, trophy hunters mineral collectors and people wanting to make £s...the only way to keep anything prisitine is to say NO...ITS NOT acceptable under any circumstances!

I'm sorry about this (and a point like this one may get me shouted at for being a 'troll' - believe me I'm not!).
But in the context of the ethics of removing artefacts to take your point of unacceptable in any circumstances would leave Tutankhamen's treasure in the ground. (Told you it could get me shouted at!). I accept that the illustration chosen is extreme but I use it to suggest one should not use absolute terms for issues like this. Each case must (surely ?) be judged balancing the risks of damage theft or loss (by flooding for example) on its own merits. Of course that means that rules and good intentions can be eroded over time. I just think that we could lose so much of our past by taking too rigid a view.
I'll go and lie low 'till the shooting stops! :surrender: :surrender:

---

By coincidence I was considering the exact same analogy earlier. To extend the thought further there was of course extensive looting of the tombs!

---

And if the Egyptians were around to comment im sure they'd be keen to see the artifacts left in place!

There is of course a bigger problem that hasn't been considered. Once an artefact has been removed and (for arguments sake) placed in the slate museum at Llechwedd, the method of storage and preservation is not something that can be ignored. It is not a simple case of leaving it to look after itself. There are many procedures and methods involved in order to achieve the long term objective. This is why the 'big' museums have people who are experts in this field. A good example of how items can deteriorate is what has happened at Snailbeach, although items have not been removed from the mine, Some work was done which altered water/airflow and as a result many wooden bits and pieces literally fell apart. Im hoping Wyn can explain this in more depth.

I quite agree with your comments but the point can be reversed. The Mary Rose for example. Removing it from the sea bed has in fact preserved it for posterity. I'm afraid discussions of this nature have an awful habit of ending up where they started. 🙂

---

This isn't the first time we've almost duplicated each others thoughts Carnkie. We'll have to stop or people will gossip 😮
In the meantime I'm sorry but I must disagree over the Mary Rose. She is preserved for the foreseeable future basically as long as people are prepared to pay for her ongoing preservation. "Posterity" implies a degree of permanence that has no guarantee.
On another tack I can't recall if it was on this site or on ME but there was a video of a 3D 'trip' into the CSM mine done by a robot survey using scanning lasers. Combine that with the type of technique used for this http://www.mine-explorer.co.uk/videos/cwmorthin_3d.asp  ( 10 Mb file!)
flythrough of (in this case Cwmorthin) and detailed photographs of artefacts in situ 'Joe public could access a virtual mine. In these circumstances I'd be more inclined to the view to leave them (the artefacts not Joe Public) where they are. Perhaps we need to become more scientific and record a vulnerable site using archaeological techniques?

---

Well okay, posterity may be a bit strong but the principle still applies. If an artefact is in danger of being vandalised, stolen or just simply deteriorating naturally then surely logically the best option is to remove it. There is no perfect answer to this problem; just the best option. I.A. Recordings do some very good industrial videos/dvds. The one on the Cornish Mines above and below ground is excellent.

---

Many people seem to think that if an artifact is at a museum, it is an safe and responsible hands. But I seem to find that this is not always the case. Many items are put to one side and people working there would often not know what or where artifacts have come from, nor have the interest for that matter.
My view is that most relics are better off being left where they are in mines and quarries.
I will give you an example of Gwynedd archives at Caernarfon. I will not go into details but -
The company I work for was taken over by a National company about 8 years ago. The original company was one of longest established companies in Porthmadog. When it ceased trading the office staff were burning documents and files of all kind. But I saved the manager's diaries from 1958 to 1997. These diaries had all kinds of information like transport operations, staff reports and production input etc etc.
These were kept safely by me at my workshop at work since closure. Earlier this year I contacted the archives at Caernarfon and asked them if they would like to have them. I was asked to take them in and they would have a look at them.
A couple of weeks later they informed me they did not want them, but would keep a few diaries, and asked me if they should dispose of them or would I want them back.
Well of course I have them back and am now in a predicament of what to do with them.
That is just one example. I think it just depends on what subjects interests the archivist. I am going to try the Nat library at Aberystwyth next. 😞

---

The 2 busy threads today are still very close to discussing the same issues!

There are several mines on this site that have purposely had their GR ommited, and others where no photo's have been uploaded.
Many people have their 'secret' places or ones that are shared with a few friends.
And as we all know, there are places that are well known and cosidered sensitive, everyone knows that many people visit them, but we are not allowed to discuss them openly.
Maybe its time to extend these values to anywhere where artefacts can be taken easily by any casual passer by. For example, anything beyond the first pitch could be deemed as safe.

The debate was resolved several years ago by NAMHO if the Mining Historians all follow the guidelines then there would be simply no market for stolen items on ebay and the like.

Scrappies and vandals are different and both are breaking the law and there are various legal ways of dealing with these.

Egyptian Treasures mopdern thinking would be to leave where found

Mike

And of course the Elgin Marbles.

---

Proper conservation of any artefact if it is removed from a stable environment is critical, particularly with organic remains like wood and leather, if they are to survive. As such, if an artefact does genuinely need to be removed from its location, then measures need to be put in place to properly conserve it, it is not sufficient simply to take it to another place. In the case of wood and leather, if you're going to do the job properly, you need to slowly replace the water in the cell structure with something else like Polyethylene Glycol (PEG), which is what they did with the Mary Rose and its contents. It's a slow process, but otherwise the artefact will shrink and distort as it dries out, and if it's been impregnated with mineral salts as mine artefacts often have, you also need to consider whether these need to be carefully leached out before replacing the water.

Metals also need to be properly looked after - the corrosion layers may be relatively stable in situ, but a change in humidity or oxygen levels have the potential to change that, so you need to consider how best to keep the oxidised surface layers in a stable condition.

Given this, it's not the best of ideas to just dump an artefact on a museum - they may not have the resources, both human and financial, to properly deal with it with the result that it sits in a storeroom deteriorating. The NAMHO guidelines are pretty sensible IMO and do follow general archaeological practice, which is to leave things be if at all possible. If we do hit the situation where it's a choice between remove it or lose it permanently, then I'd say we should remove _but_ the long-term location and stability of the artefact must be considered. Also, proper recording prior to removal is critical - context is generally as important as the artefact itself.

---

Fair comment and supporting the points that Barney raised in an earlier post. As you mention, artefacts in mines are generally in a pretty stable environment. I wonder whether climate change will be an issue here. I'm thinking along the lines of whether some mines will more susceptible to flooding in the future. Not knowing the actual geology of the mines, bit of a job really, it's impossible to make a definitive comment on the subject but I think it's something that will have to be factored into the equation.

---

Another issue might be the removal of an artifact for the best of intentions. And then interest is lost - and so then is the artifact.

I am thinking specifically of the ventilation system that used to be adjacent to the entrance at Croesor.

Took away for 'preservation at a museum' and then lost. I understand some think they know ehre the stonework is. But not much is know of what happened to the fan assembly.

---