This was touched on a few days ago and reminded me of something that happened a couple of years ago.
I was handed a draft of what was described as a definitive work on the Cornish Engine (as if we needed another).
I began checking the draft and it soon became apparent that all was not well.
I checked the bibliography for works consulted and found a book I had never heard of
Thinking I may have missed out on something I went to the library to see if they had a copy, which they confirmed they had and would fetch it for me.
Imagine my embarressment when I was handed a copy of what can only be described as a variation of a childrens I-SPY book.
Needless to say this draft went no further and I hope it never will NUFF SED

---

This was touched on a few days ago and reminded me of something that happened a couple of years ago.
I was handed a draft of what was described as a definitive work on the Cornish Engine (as if we needed another).
I began checking the draft and it soon became apparent that all was not well.
I checked the bibliography for works consulted and found a book I had never heard of
Thinking I may have missed out on something I went to the library to see if they had a copy, which they confirmed they had and would fetch it for me.
Imagine my embarressment when I was handed a copy of what can only be described as a variation of a childrens I-SPY book.
Needless to say this draft went no further and I hope it never will NUFF SED

Janet and John do Industrial Archaeology 😮 😮 :lol:

---

Janet and John do Industrial Archaeology 😮 😮 :lol:

"Then Carenza thowed me her hole, & I thowed her what I'd wath about to expoth"
See Janet brandishing her trowel - see John run!
Sorry

---

Here's an example or misinformation that has been repeated in a few places, easily debunked by some simple research and common sense.

http://www.wcms.org.uk/pages/spence_oct2004.shtml 

Here's a good'un from the otherwise excellent book The Geology of Cornwall by Robert Westwood. Tor Mark press 2004.

Para 1 page 22;

[photo]Personal-Album-342-Image-094[/photo]

I'm suspecting this is more a typo than a proposed statement of fact..................I hope :blink:

---

I got caught out some time ago ( not by spitfire). I wrote an article and I quoted a brief ref. from Penhallurick, R.D., Tin in Antiquity, The Institute of Metals, 1986. A book and author held in high esteem. Safe ground I thought. Wrong.
The quote:
Penhallurick, although agreeing with the Phoenician myth, describing it as one of two, the other being that Stonehenge was built by the Druids, that has tenaciously maintained their hold on popular imagination, (123) later goes on to explain in fine detail prehistoric finds from ancient Cornish tin streams. (173-224). There can be little doubt that tin was worked in Cornwall 3,800 years ago although perhaps it should be noted that Camborne and Illogan had no productive streams so no archaeological remains have been found.

Allen Buckley rang me and said he had discussed this with his friend R.P. and they had agreed that R.P. was incorrect. A.B. subsequently sent me an article on the subject he wrote for the TS Journal.

Very hard to win sometimes. 🙂

---

I got caught out some time ago.........

I don't really understand your quote but believe me the late Roger Penhallerick deserves everyone's respect and his work Tin in Antiquity was a really good piece of research. It got people thinking about sources of tin and created debate that otherwise would not have taken place, even Mr Buckley isn't immune from getting things wrong. Yet neither author should be associated with the type of mining history book this thread describes.

Carnkie you are one of the most prolific posters of material on this site, the range of subject matter is astonishing. A similar desire by some authors to see their name in print without really having the knowledge to interpret even secondary sources of information is what has created some of the worst examples of mining history.

The great thing about this site is that the vast majority of posted material is original and based on first hand knowledge.

I got caught out some time ago.........

I don't really understand your quote but believe me the late Roger Penhallerick deserves everyone's respect and his work Tin in Antiquity was a really good piece of research. It got people thinking about sources of tin and created debate that otherwise would not have taken place, even Mr Buckley isn't immune from getting things wrong. Yet neither author should be associated with the type of mining history book this thread describes.

I agree entirely with those comments and I certainly wasn't attempting to suggest otherwise.

---

That was a pretty shrewed answer. Do you agree with all comments made by Geoff or are you being selective?

---

I pretty much agree with Geoff's comments except I'm not aware that I have a particular desire to see my name in print.

---

Gents... ::)

Having read this thread through from the start, I think there may be a bit of misunderstanding that's crept in here.

Carnkie's point was that even the most rock-solid source can sometimes be inaccurate - and certainly not that any particular source should be considered suspect.

As someone with a degree in a subject not at all far from the one being discussed, I'll certainly agree that there's often too much material produced from second-hand sources rather than the original sources. However, the first-hand recollections are increasingly hard to find - and I'd also suspect that some verbal sources which recount events which happened perhaps 60 years ago may not be as accurate as they could be!

Indeed, it is often difficult to use even first hand sources to establish facts - take for example the Hunter Tuneller debates: was one ever used at Llanberis? For sure, there is documentary evidence, but there is no evidence on the ground (as far as we can tell) and thus it is near-impossible to be absolutely sure where in Llanberis it was used and for how long.


(Carnkie - I can entirely empathise with not wishing to see one's name in print! 😉 )

---

In connection with this topic, I've been asked what my opinion is of David Bick's Metal mines of Wales and Old copper mines of Snowdonia.

First of all, I have to admit a personal bias in that I knew David through the Welsh Mines Society and I had a high regard for him. Also, I don't claim to know a great deal about the subjects of the books concerned, so I can only answer in general terms. That said, my opinion is that David's work, whilst somewhat out of date in a few places, is as as good a general guide/overview as can be found anywhere.

However, it's perhaps worth looking at the sources of error that can be found in any work of this sort.

Mistakes
These happen to everyone, they include misspellings, incorrect grid references and the general ability of people to get things wrong. Unfortunately, once something gets into print it tends to propagate (see below).

Bias
This does not have to be intentional. In connection with a project of my own I noticed that a previous author had given what I considered undue prominence to the narrow-gauge tramways involved in some of the operations. I discovered later that the author was an industrial railway enthusiast - which to my mind explained his emphasis. It's not that such an emphasis is incorrect, but it does mean that different authors may interpret the same operations in different ways.

Incomplete research
When working to a publishing deadline there are always more sources that could be consulted or fieldwork to be done. There may also be space limitations imposed by the publisher which prevent full information being included. Consequentially, no work can really be considered complete. (Hence my view that the great advantage of web publishing is that work can be continually updated.) Also, new discoveries are always being made, both in the field and as new records come to light.

Propagation of myths
This has already be alluded to in that once a 'fact' finds its way into print (or these days on to the web) it tends to get repeated without question. The only cure for this is to go back to the primary sources. Even 'official' sources can be suspect - I've noticed factual errors in both the Sites and Monuments records of the regional archaeological trusts and in the RCAHMW site database. (In my own work I've tried to document the differences between my own research and the above sources.)

Primary sources
Historians are always told to go back to the primary sources. Unfortunately, for a lot of mining history the major source is the Mining Journal, which is hardly unbiased. Many of the reports originated from mine owners and operators in order to impress shareholders, particularly when more money was being sought from them - 'spin' is nothing new. Consequently, accounts of work done, tonnages raised etc. need to be treated with a degree of scepticism. More reliable are the Inspectors of Mines reports and Home Office Lists of Mines, although even these are not free from error. Probably the most reliable source I've come across were the actual field notebooks of one of the HM Inspectors of Mines - however, these only covered a fairly brief period in the early 20th century.

What can be done?
Trust no one! Check everything! There is not a great deal that can be done about past mistakes other than to try not to propagate them and to correct them in your own work. However, to make life easier for the next person who wants to work on the subject, please give full details of your sources, even if they're only conversations with the current landowner. This will at least allow others to evaluate the reliability of the information you present.

Sorry to go on at such length in answer to a simple question. If you have read this far, thank you for your patience.

Dave

I've been following this with some interest. In writing an article on the Ffestiniog Railway's Dinas Branch I prefaced it with this:
"...In this regard care has to be taken with the information presented by Mr Boyd’s work. One cannot underestimate the debt of gratitude which both industrial archaeologists and railway enthusiasts owe him for his research and publications on narrow gauge railways. His original writings and depth of study have always provided an immense source of inspiration. It was his two volume history of the Ffestiniog in my school library which, many years ago, sparked my interest in things Ffestiniog and quarry. That having been said, it must be stated that subsequent research directly into quarry history and related matters has often thrown up information and dates which clearly contradict that which has been published. We all often make assumptions in our writing, but unfortunately we do not always clearly flag them up as such with the result that both actual fact and assumption can not always be clearly distinguished. One can not, in all honesty expect Mr Boyd to thoroughly research the history of every quarry connected with the FR in the hope that some new information may come to light so as to provide meat for the revision of a work of the magnitude of his FR history. Those of us whose pleasure it is to do such research can only try to publish our information, and point out in as constructive a manner as possible when it contradicts or is at a variance with that of Mr. Boyd in the hope that what inaccuracies there are can be made known and thus not detract from the work as a whole as well as preventing those inaccuracies being reproduced ad infinitum."

It has sometimes been commented that in "Cwmorthin Quarry" there seemed to be little quoted recollections of the men who worked there. I might add there will be little in "Oakeley Slate" either, apart from quotes from Caban.

I spent quite a lot of time in Blaenau in the 70's and 80's and while I knew quite a few that had worked in the old Oakeley (and elsewhere) there was, I found, little for me to quote - that is not to say that what they said was not of interest, but as a "technical" historian rather than a "social" one, their reminiscences were not particularly useful. Sadly, being good friends with one of the Ffestiniog Slate Co's management also counted against me in the days of the "streik" and some spread bad tales about me, so some opportunities for information dried up, and of course now most of those I knew have passed away.

Even when I first began in 1975 or so, and "old Oakeley" was only seven years or so in the past, it was remarkable how many repeated what had become well established myths - that Oakeley went below sea-level being the most frequent. I soon learned that reminescence from the majority was not a good source of fact. People are generally interested in people, not physicalities or technicalities. You only have to look at a lot of the local welsh language publications to see that. I suppose one major disadvantage I had was my lack of Cymraeg, but sadly there was only so much time to do things, and that was one I never managed to fit in.

There were exceptions - Twm Roberts, (Twm Mawr) the old Oakeley Securer was very interested to see my copies of the plans and occasionally discuss what he could remember of a particular location, but then he had travelled the workings much wider than most, rather than simply walking from surface to chamber and back every day. I did talk to a couple of retired managers and surveyors as well, and they had more relevant things to say....

I'm meandering, so I'll leave it there.

Grahami

---

I don't want to turn this into on of my rants. The subject of Mr Boyd annoys me. Yes, we certainly do have a great deal to be thankful for but on the other hand the errors in his books are so commonplace that you end up suspecting the all of the information contained therein. Yes, everyone makes mistakes, but his maps for instance, often show things that completly contradict what is on the ground or on old OS maps. That is more than just simple errors. I had better stop at that point!

I was trying to be tactfull.... unusually for me.... I have seen a copy of his book on Nantlle so heavily annotated by one IA that it was almost impossible to read, and as for my annotations on his quarry appendices and maps to Vol.2....

Yes, I'll shut up as well.

Grahami

---

Hmm ...

I deliberately did not mention Boyd in my posting, but I must admit I had him in mind at the time. (Although he's not the author I was writing about in the paragraph headed 'Bias'.)

It's a bit :offtopic: but I wonder if there's scope for a publication or collaborative web site companion to Boyd's books with a list of corrections, clarifications and the like. (Perhaps Ben would be interested in starting this off?)

Dave

I have just been informed of an embarrassing mistake in one of my own books. It's easily done, but fortunately the error involved a subsidiary fact rather than something which invalidated the main statement I was making. Just so you know, the medieval palace in Guildford was not an Archbishop's palace! So now you know 🙂 😞

Hmm ...

It's a bit :offtopic: but I wonder if there's scope for a publication or collaborative web site companion to Boyd's books with a list of corrections, clarifications and the like. (Perhaps Ben would be interested in starting this off?)

Dave

Well, here's my contribution:
If, like me you have studied the plan of Felin Fawr in Boyd's book on the Penrhyn Railway (page 73 in the 2001 reprint), you may have ignored the scale along the bottom of the page. Recently, I had reason to use the scale and compare the plan to satelite images and found that Boyd's scale is inaccurate. I confirmed my suspicion by comparison with two OS maps of different scales and ages. On Boyd's plan, the 100 yards graduation should be 50 yards. For example, the East/West distance (X coordinate) between the old stables, now cottages, (map reference 😎 and the waterwheel building (map reference 4) is about 110 yards or 100 metres. Boyd's scale shows it as about 220 yards.

I know nothing of the actual subject matter you are debating here gents but thought I might throw in my three penneth worth regarding the concept.......

1) Scale errors - particularly halving / doubling are very easy things to happen - since an A2 drawing at 1:500 will be at 1:1000 when reduced to A4 for publication. If it slips through like that it's the editor's fault, not the author's. In the engineering drawings I see in work it's now de rigeur to see the phrase ...."when reproduced on A3 paper" alongside any scale.

2) The most eloquent demolition of the practice of taking existing documents at face value, and republishing them, warts and all, is given by Stephen Jay Gould in his essay "The case of the creeping fox terrier clone" published in "Bully for Brontosarus - Reflections in Natural History", 1991.

This practice still goes on, as any cursory examination of the soil mechanics text books on my shelf will show - the chapter headings, many of the figures, and many of the examples quoted are virtually identical. :offtopic:

---