I've risked being in the firing line before, over the question of sparkly, crystally things from mines, but I'd like to place on record the fact that back in the 70's, there were drill steels, hammers, wedges, picks etc. all over Smallclough. I collected a bunch of them and kept them in my mineral room. There isnt a thing left in there now - everything has been hoovered up. I still have these artefacts, and I can think of nothing better than a responsible organisation having custody of them - they're welcome to them - in this case - I've saved them, and with all best intentions, they'll end up back where they should be. Having been in Nent at the weekend, and hearing the latest local gossip about the Trust, I'm not at all sure that's the place for them - others have suggested, very wisely, that Kilhope would be receptive - good idea - but I'd like to think Nent could house them responsibly.

The point of this is that people often dont remove things to 'take' or 'gain' - they do it, as in my case, because they know some other ignorant twirp is going to rob them, and they do it through a sense of preservation, knowing or hoping that at some stage in the future, the time is going to be right to replace them.

I can't support any attempt to impose a blanket 'ban' on any removal - it simply isnt practical. That same attitude is what is rapidly preventing access to many of our favourite places - the almost 'civil servant' attitude of 'oh, a mine - dangerous, public health - close it immediately and ring fence it'......

I think Adrian made a similar point to myself about Snailbeach, and his activities in the 70's, and he helped write the guidelines - I think its called having a conscience..!

:flowers:

---

On a similar subject should museums, centres, etc. display items not related to the site they are on, ie, should the artefacts be relevant to that site or will anything to do with mining be ok. The far reaching effect of this, is that when all old uns with a memory have gone, future generations of onlookers will believe what they see. I know that these places have to be run under the accountants, however some of them would be better sited on Blackpool pleasure beach for the historical content they purport to show

---

Wjhats the gosip on NPHT then Skippy?
Out of the area and out of touch now but would like to know.
Until a year or so ago I lived in Nent/Alston area for a long time
PM me of you prefer rather than on an open forum

Well there's numerous museums around the place with irrelevant mineral specimens in them - I'm talking to one museum in the backwoods of Germany that has a huge collection of relevant German material displayed, along with two or three absolutely stonking Caldbeck and Alston pieces - hopefully I can repatriate them back to where they should be... Does any local German person really want to look at a calcite from Alston... or perhaps more importantly, value it the same way that Kilhope, for instance, would.. of course not.

---

back in the 70's, there were drill steels, hammers, wedges, picks etc. all over Smallclough. I collected a bunch of them and kept them in my mineral room...There isnt a thing left in there now.

I guess the fact there isn't anything left now is probably in some way connected with people like yourself collecting a bunch of artifacts and removing them...But hey I guess they're all better in your "mineral room" (No doubt full of minerals removed from caves and mines too) than left in-situ where generations of future mine-explorers can enjoy them eh!

I still have these artefacts, and I can think of nothing better than a responsible organisation having custody of them

I can think of something much better than having them mouldering away unseen and un-appreciated in the corner of some never-visited tiny regional museum - leave them in-situ so future generations of mine-explorers will be able to see and marvel at them...to be able to appreciate them in the environment they were used in, to enjoy seeing them abandoned in the place they were used many, many years ago...

The point of this is that people often dont remove things to 'take' or 'gain' - they do it, as in my case, because they know some other ignorant twirp is going to rob them...

Ah yes...of course its OKAY for you to take them...because if you don't someone else will...I don't think i need to point out the fatal flaw in that argument...

I can't support any attempt to impose a blanket 'ban' on any removal - it simply isnt practical.

By impractical...i assume you simply mean...if there were a blanket ban you wouldn't abide by it...you would continue to ignore it and carry on collecting regardless of the opinions of other Mine-Explorers

That same attitude is what is rapidly preventing access to many of our favourite places - the almost 'civil servant' attitude of 'oh, a mine - dangerous, public health - close it immediately and ring fence it'...

What on earth is the connection between mineral and artifact theft and restricting access...none whatsoever...in fact its a complete red herring! In fact the opposite applies - often access restrictions are put in place to preserve the underground environment from those that would damage it, deface it and steal from it...I know a number of places where access requires application and permits to preserve the underground environment from harm...if every explorer behaved resposibly then there would be no need for those restrictions

I'm not going to get wound up by inflammatory poking and prodding, jasonbirder - we've had similar discussions on this forum before that have gotten out of hand. There are very polarised opinions on whether to leave things underground or not.. each end of the argument have, in their opinion, cast iron reasons for what they do.

AdrianP is, I think, a very balanced chap, who happily admits to having taken things in the past, but who admits a sense of responsibility for his actions - as I do, and who has done a great deal for the mining community to help and preserve things long-term. We've had spirited conversations over many pints - recently his museum acquired a nice mineral I'd preserved over the years....
You, and I will have to accept that in your opinion, mineral collectors are probably scum, and that generations of people who have gotten involved in mining through their interest in mineral collecting really shouldnt, because you disagree with that idea. Similarly, I should get used to the idea of leaving everything where I find it, so the next idiot behind me can either remove or smash it - because the harsh reality of life is that is exactly what will happen.

I'd like to think that I could leave my barn doors unlocked, the front door open, my satnav on the dashboard of the landrover - 'tis ok, because someone decreed that nothing should be taken, and nasty mine explorers will 'come and get them' if thieves try to take anything..

Wake up to reality, and please accept the fact that other people have valid opinions and conscience - I run a company that specialises in restoration and conservation - I'm doing a Masters Degree in Conservation - I collect minerals - I donate collections to schools and children all over the place and help with geological education - I help foster an interest in those children in a fascinating branch of science that gets them off their computers and out into the field. I make no money from them, and I spend a lot of money buying back important pieces from overseas collections so they can eventually be repatriated to a proper home in this country. I give away many specimens to people and organisations who show an interest that can be fostered.

I help with preservation and conservation of mining remains all over the place - some of which are so sensitive that we simply cannot tell anyone they even exist for fear of people vandalising or robbing them - its the reality of life mate...

---

I've got to hand it to you, JB, you've managed to get totally the wrong end of the stick and run with it a considerable distance!

Can I draw your attention to something AdrianP wrote a page back:

For my sins, I wrote the original NAMHO guidelines on artefact removal.

I remember that, during the 1970s, we often hoovered up small artefacts like tools, etc wherever we happened to visit - Cornwall, Wales, Shropshire. I look back now on what we did with horror...

I can think of something much better than having them mouldering away unseen and un-appreciated in the corner of some never-visited tiny regional museum - leave them in-situ so future generations of mine-explorers will be able to see and marvel at them...to be able to appreciate them in the environment they were used in, to enjoy seeing them abandoned in the place they were used many, many years ago...

As with the example above, the problem is that items left in situ don't stay there, because someone will invariably nick them. The point of this thread was to question whether it is acceptable to remove something to safety rather than let it be removed by someone who won't ensure its survival and possible future display - or, worse still, for scrap!

...if every explorer behaved resposibly then there would be no need for those restrictions

Indeed, but that's simply not reality.

What actually prompted me to start this thread is a worry that with the increasing prices for scrap iron and particularly copper, we are witnessing some large and very important artifacts going missing and that will continue.

When, for example, there are perhaps a couple of dozen slate slab wagons in working order "in the wild" and it's possible that several of those may get carted off for scrap, it's not the bloke with the caplamp that's the problem... ::)

---

Its not the wrong end of the stick...when someone who by his own admission has his own "collections room" talks about removing artifacts and minerals with the facile justification...I take them because if i didnt...somebody else would... and to point out that it is completely wrong and against all ethical guidelines...
I guess its unfortunate and a sign of the times that artifacts and structures in easily accessible walk in type sites will probably end up removed ,destroyed or graffiti'd by day trippers and tourists...but because it happens is no reason to condone it...Indeed by condoning the preservation (a fancy word which simply means removal to a place no Mine-Explorer can enjoy or appreciate them) of these items we are simply opening up a can of worms that will lead to these self-confessed hoarders and magpies taking items from better preserved and less accessible sites...by saying No! Its not acceptable under any circumstances...we remove any justification or "grey areas" these characters can operate in...

No, I'm still not convinced you're getting the point here! :)

I think - unless I'm very much mistaken - that there is a consensus that objects should be removed to a museum or some similar facility in order to ensure their long-term survival and their continuing accessibility, not that they end up on a mantelpiece in Blackpool!

The crux of the matter is whether preservation of something in a museum should be considered more important than the possibility that it might escape theft or scrap if left where it is?

And we're not talking about somewhere you need ropes to get to, or a two hour crawl - we're talking about surface sites or somewhere that a couple of teenage kids can get to with a Maglite... ::)

---

The message is that artefacts that may be under threat of disappearing due to mine conditions or theft should be be considered for transfer to a museum or to a safer place.

Now here is the rub - the removal should not just be on spec but should be part of plan.

1) to fully record the item and its location - sketches, photos, video and any other archaelogical evidence be recorded
2) Establish if a local museum can take the item - they may already have too many artefacts of similar nature and will not want.
3) Is there another museum who would want to ake the item
4) if no museum consider relocating within the mine or an adjacent more secure mine - for instance you could place shropshire items on the 40 yard level at Snaileach anyone wanting to see the items would need to use SRT or a winch and also would need to gain access that is controlled by the SCMC
5) if none of the above then there is the moral judgement that has been discussed previously

Botom line is don't buy it on ebay or elsewhere then there is no market

Mike

When Redruth Hospital was being built in 1889 two “mortar stones” were found during digging in front of the new hospital. These stones now form part of a collection of worked stones noted by Michell (Notes on the history of Redruth); they were removed to Hamilton Jenkin’s house at Trewirgie or its grounds. This was probably the site of a blowing house. Although in this case it was known that they would be destroyed if left the principle is the same.
Similarly, although slightly off topic, there are very few pre-Reformation Celtic Crosses in situ in Cornwall. Over the years they were put to many uses, mostly as gate posts but one ended up as a cheese press. Consequently many were moved to ‘safer’ environs, churches, churchyards, estates, etc. There are two situated in the middle of Camborne.
The point I’m attempting to make is that if we wish to maintain links with the past there are no definitive answers. The secret is to find the best compromise. And this is where we came in I believe.
🙂

---

I think - unless I'm very much mistaken - that there is a consensus that objects should be removed to a museum or some similar facility in order to ensure their long-term survival and their continuing accessibility

I personally have some serious reservations about this policy…condoning (with the best possible intentions) removal of artifacts for their preservation is the thin end of the wedge…particularly removal because of lost access…who is to say that lost access can’t be regained in the future...collapses won’t be cleared…digs won’t open up new areas or in years to come changes in techniques and equipment wont make currently inaccessible sites accessible in the years ahead…
Besides once we say it is acceptable for individuals/groups/museums to remove some artifacts we instantly create a grey area for these people to operate in…Its okay to remove this artifact…so why can’t I remove this artifact as well? One thing inevitably leads to another…which is why in my opinion it is best to say nothing should be removed under any circumstances…at least that creates a black and white…right or wrong situation! I’m not convinced that there is any benefit to items being removed to museums…(probably controversial I know) but underground to for example, find a hollow quill that might have been used as a fuse is something fantastic…a real wow! Moment that causes everyone to stop and look…for cameras to come out...that for an instant creates a link between the present and the T’owd man of the distant past…in a museum its just a bit of tatty feather of no interest to the parties of bored school children that are forced to file past on their geography Field trips before they’re allowed back outside to skin up and drink cheap cider! What use are mining artifacts in a museum…who’s going to see and appreciate them there…Mining artifacs should be left where they can be seen and appreciated in their proper context…and that is down a mine!

The crux of the matter is whether preservation of something in a museum should be considered more important than the possibility that it might escape theft or scrap if left where it is?

Surely the crux of it is…is the possibility something might be lost or damaged more important than the 100% possibility it will be lost to Mine Explorers now and forever if it is removed and left to moulder in some obscure un-visited regional museum? At least if its left underground there is still the possibility that it will remain there to be seen, enjoyed and appreciated…once its been removed…that chance is lost for ever and the artifact will never be seen again…

I'm a newbie here so pardon me:
1. If I say things that have already been said
2. If I tread on anyone's toes
3. For my ignorance

I'm a bit old and stiff to be doing much mining now (although I managed Hetherington's X cut in Smallcleugh last year - and paid for it with days of aches and pains afterwards) but I was much more agile in the 60s and 70s. I agree with Skippy's remark above about polarised attitudes about taking things from mines. Leave them where they are, or rescue what you can. I do not recollect such a polarisation 30 or 40 years ago, when things seemed more relaxed and one could go dig up minerals in the Lake District, or wherever, and no-one cared. Why things have changed I know not, although I do know that the Lake District National Park Authority's ill-thought out mineral collecting permit scheme has badly aggravated the mineral collectors and provoked a militancy amongst some I had not seen before.
"Conservation" seems to be all the rage now and seems to be the "justification" for prohibiting removal of items, be they artefacts or crystals. However, I cannot help but suspect that "leave alone" conservation policies that are fine for Lady's Slipper Orchids, or rare butterflies, may not always be appropriate for mining-related remains. As has been alluded to in this thread, anything in mines is in danger of loss anyway. The argument that removing things from mines is thereby saving them does carry weight. Whilst insisting that EVERYTHING is left totally untouched (to face inevitable loss when it either decays away or the mine collapses) as Jasonbirder does strikes me as a dogmatic attitude worthy of the Taliban.
Of course the purists might object that the artefacts now safely, and no doubt lovingly, cared for in Skippy's mineral room are now effectively out of sight of those who'd like to see them (and his offer to remedy this by giving them to a public venue like the heritage center is commendable). But if they were going to end up out of sight anyway because either someone else, perhaps less caring, would have taken them, or because they'd be sealed in when the mine fell in (or just carried on rotting and rusting) then what does it matter?
A further point that merits being made is that not all of us are able to go down mines and see their remains or minerals in situ. I can still manage it, but only just. My days of dancing across the stemples, or dangling on ropes, are behind me. Even easy, and not too wet, venues, like Smallcleugh will soon be beyond me as age takes it toll. Likewise children and many others cannot, or will not, venture underground. Are they to be denied the chance to enjoy our mining and mineral heritage because some purists insist that everything stays down a muddy hole under it has decayed to nothing or been buried by collapse? Unless the mine itself can be turned into a show mine (only possible in a handful of cases), there is surely a case for removal of items to places where the public can enjoy them.
It should be obvious now which side of the debate I take, although I am not saying one should rip a mine to pieces to "rescue" every last drill rod or crystal, but, whilst acknowledging it can be fun to see them in their original home, if your home was falling in would you stay inside?

I have following this debate with interest. And I have given my oppinion. It has become similar to a debate at the 'house of commons'.
But it's conclusion is I think like asking the question;
'Why is snow white???'

---

....in a museum its just a bit of tatty feather of no interest to the parties of bored school children that are forced to file past on their geography Field trips before they’re allowed back outside to skin up and drink cheap cider! What use are mining artifacts in a museum…who’s going to see and appreciate them there…Mining artifacs should be left where they can be seen and appreciated in their proper context…and that is down a mine!

I don't agree with that. Many thousands of people visit museums every year and they play an important educational role in keeping people, especially children, in touch with their local history. Just one example, the Cleveland Ironstone Mining Museum. http://www.ironstonemuseum.co.uk/sitemap.htm 

There are many others.

Also there is a major flaw in the policy of not removing anything. How do you enforce it?

[tweak]vanoord fixed the quote[/tweak]

---

[

I personally have some serious reservations about this policy…condoning (with the best possible intentions) removal of artifacts for their preservation is the thin end of the wedge…]

The NAMHO guidelines make it quite clear that leaving artefacts where they are is by far the preferable option., and attempts to set out a very limited set of circumstances where removal should be considered. This is not a wedge, it is an attempt to draw a line, albeit a blurred one, as to what is and is not justifiable.

[particularly removal because of lost access…who is to say that lost access can’t be regained in the future...collapses won’t be cleared…digs won’t open up new areas or in years to come changes in techniques and equipment wont make currently inaccessible sites accessible in the years ahead…]

Again, the guidelines make it clear that only in cases of permanent loss of access should removal be an option - revocation of access permission from a landowner and diggable collapses are not permanent and so outside what is "good cause".

[Besides once we say it is acceptable for individuals/groups/museums to remove some artifacts we instantly create a grey area for these people to operate in…Its okay to remove this artifact…so why can’t I remove this artifact as well? One thing inevitably leads to another…which is why in my opinion it is best to say nothing should be removed under any circumstances…at least that creates a black and white…right or wrong situation!]

The world is not black and white, it is all shades of grey hence my previous comment about blurred lines. The NAMHO guidelines are trying to set out a reasoned and reasonable compromise between leaving sites as we find them and ensuring that mining remains don't get lost or destroyed. No removal whatsoever is not what I'd call a reasoned stance.

[I’m not convinced that there is any benefit to items being removed to museums…(probably controversial I know) but underground to for example, find a hollow quill that might have been used as a fuse is something fantastic…a real wow! Moment that causes everyone to stop and look…for cameras to come out...that for an instant creates a link between the present and the T’owd man of the distant past…in a museum its just a bit of tatty feather of no interest to the parties of bored school children that are forced to file past on their geography Field trips before they’re allowed back outside to skin up and drink cheap cider! What use are mining artifacts in a museum…who’s going to see and appreciate them there…Mining artifacs should be left where they can be seen and appreciated in their proper context…and that is down a mine!]

Let's consider some Peak District examples. Firstly, the Trevithick water pressure engine from Wills Founder shaft, now installed in the Matlock Bath Mining Museum. By what you're saying, it should have been left there, which would mean that only people able to abseil 300 foot down the shaft would have been able to see it. Where it is now, lots of people get to see it and even if they don't appreciate the marvel of its engineering, the sheer size of it is impressive and the scale diagram on the wall conveys just how deep down it was.

Then to turn to some artefacts left in place, consider the suryeyor's tripod in Snake mine and the miner's bradda in Wesson mine. I'm reliable informed that the tripod is now just a heap of crumbled fragments, and the felt bradda has degenerated to a pile of mush on top of a stone. So, they're now only something you can see on old photos, but had they been removed and conserved, we could still see them.

Consider also the items that have come out of places like Ladywash and Sallet Hole. The context was being destroyed in the course of modern mining, so how would a "never remove artefacts" policy deal with that? Chuck them back in the deads in case someone decided to dig them out in future?

[Surely the crux of it is…is the possibility something might be lost or damaged more important than the 100% possibility it will be lost to Mine Explorers now and forever if it is removed and left to moulder in some obscure un-visited regional museum? At least if its left underground there is still the possibility that it will remain there to be seen, enjoyed and appreciated…once its been removed…that chance is lost for ever and the artifact will never be seen again…

Hiow do you come to the conclusion that an item in a museum is somehow lost to mine explorers? Go visit the museum if you want to see it. By your line of argument, no archaeology should ever be done because that's removing things from where they were, regardless of any imminent destruction or their intrinsic value. Take it a step further and consider the whole mine as an artefact and that argument says we shouldn't dig out because that's changing it.

We may enjoy the artefact more if it's still in situ, but I don't feel any less interest in artefacts just because they've been moved, and I suspect by the general drift of this thread that a sizeable chunk of the AN membership would agress with me on that. The guidelines are explicit - they should only be removed if there is a very real possibility of permanent loss, and as Mike Moore has pointed out, they should be properly recorded, conserved and a safe location for them found.

If you're set against ever removing artefacts under any circumstances whatsoever, that's your choice - don't remove them. However, you'll just have to accept that the various NAMHO-affiliated societies will act to remove items to safety if there is a genuine and pressing case to do so.

---

I have a relative that has had a lifelong interest in mines/quarries and its machinery etc. About 10 years ago he heard of a big old engine left at a mine near Bontddu somewhere that had been standing for about 40 od years. So he went along to have a look and found the engine half beried, siezed and cracked with much parts missing.
So with the permission and help from the farmer he loaded the engine on his trailer and took it home. Apparently it is an approx 1920 Crossley marine engine. He has over the years been restoring this engine and has spent a lot of money in doing so and it is now nearly ready apart from a carburetter (anyone got one?).
Right then if that engine would have been left in the soil it would be worse that what it was, with bits of casting knocked off as souveners.
If it was taken to a museum, what would they have done with it? Nothing, only perhaps paint it. And most museums do not have the skill nor knowlage to do engine restorations.
But when it is finished my relative will welcome anyone who has an interest in the engine to see it.
What is the ethics on this then??

---

I don't agree with that. Many thousands of people visit museums every year and they play an important educational role in keeping people, especially children, in touch with their local history. Just one example, the Cleveland Ironstone Mining Museum. http://www.ironstonemuseum.co.uk/sitemap.htm 

There are many others.

That’s probably not the best example to use Carnkie; it's desperately under funded by the local authorities & only opens for half of the year. They do not have many artefacts on display as most are it seems locked away gathering dust or on loan to other local museums.

Instead of embracing the rich history of the area the local authorities have done a fine job of destroying most of the mining remains over the last 20-30 years almost to the point of denying that the Cleveland Ironstone Mines & the massively important roll they played in the historical development of the area ever existed (in what was once the largest iron producing area in the World & the cornerstone of the Victorian Industrial Revolution) 😞

I would class the Killhope museum as being a better example ;D

---

Level 1 - I feel for you.... A friend of mine recently went down Smallclough with me and we 'did' Hetheringtons... He was a few shades paler when he re-emerged back in the flats. We might have a harder time down the mine, but doesnt age at least make you a little wiser perhaps... You made some good points.. thanks

---

the Trevithick water pressure engine from Wills Founder shaft, now installed in the Matlock Bath Mining Museum. By what you're saying, it should have been left there, which would mean that only people able to abseil 300 foot down the shaft would have been able to see it

Thats exactly what i'm saying of course it would have been better left in situ...it would have been an item of wonder something people would have travelled across the country to see...something to provide pleasure to many and inspire future mine-explorers, now it is lost forever...

Judging by many of the responses on this thread perhaps we should instead be discussing under what circumstances (if any) it is acceptable for artifacts to be left in-situ for mine-explorers to enjoy ?

[tweak]JB - you need to use {quote} not {Quote} in order for the tags to work! I'm sure the webmaster will modify the code so that it ignores the vagueries of capitalisation, but if you could just use lower case for the moment, it would be appreciated 🙂 - vanoord[/tweak]