Just visited the NAMHO website and read the document on tin, it just seams to be a document full of standard references, most of which are are already known, unless I'm missing something.

Lozz.

"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.

Phil is a member of aditnow and last time I met him was on a trip into Bedford United. He is highly regarded in what he does.

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.
Lozz.

I don't think you're understanding the purpose of the project - it may well be that the buildings you're referring to should have been protected but what bearing does that have on a project to establish the current state of knowledge, other than to reinforce the need to have a baseline that the EH staff responsible for scheduling and listing have a baseline to work from when dealing with areas that they don't have have specialist knowledge of? Likewise, many of the references in the Tin assessment may well be common knowledge to someone with a strong interest in tin mining but the point is to try and pool those references and show up what has been well studied and what hasn't. Sorry if I'm sounding testy here, but as the author of one of the other research assessment papers I know just how much hard work goes into putting these together.

Turning to some of the other comments made, this is an opportunity to flag up any previously published research that is deficient, Mike Gill did precisely that with one paper I cited in my bit. If anyone knows of something published that's inaccurate/misleading/complete bollocks, now is the time to speak up about it!

The finalised assessments will probably be available free of charge online as pdfs (possibly through EH's website as they have funded the project), although there has been discussion of putting them onto an on-demand print site for anyone wanting hard copy in future.

Finally, if anyone does have any specific concerns about the project to date please PM me and I'll be happy to take them to the next project steering group meeting in a couple of weeks time.

---

Am sure he is Stuey..... Nobody is having a go at him as far as I can see.

---

Am sure he is Stuey..... Nobody is having a go at him as far as I can see.

I'm not having a go at you either but whole point is NAMHO will actualy hold the Documents aand the research belongs to them, funding did come from EH for Phil Newman to collate. Unfortunately as ever in Mining History research , there are those who are happy to share information and resources and those who are not for many mystical reasons , either for personal gain or for some secret reason like Golum.

As for meetings AN are rarely represented at the twice yearly meeting of the NAHMO Council where the project was discussed and started from. Is anyone going to the AGM at Caphouse on 16th March for instance of the 60 + organisations who are members you will be lucky to get 15 represented?

Mike
Mike

"I don't think you're understanding the purpose of the project - it may well be that the buildings you're referring to should have been protected but what bearing does that have on a project to establish the current state of knowledge, other than to reinforce the need to have a baseline that the EH staff responsible for scheduling and listing have a baseline to work from when dealing with areas that they don't have have specialist knowledge of? Likewise, many of the references in the Tin assessment may well be common knowledge to someone with a strong interest in tin mining but the point is to try and pool those references and show up what has been well studied and what hasn't. Sorry if I'm sounding testy here, but as the author of one of the other research assessment papers I know just how much hard work goes into putting these together"

Thanks for the explanation.

If EH don't have the knowledge on mining then maybe the listing of mining related structures/funding etc could be handed over to a body that does? Just a thought.

"it may well be that the buildings you're referring to should have been protected but what bearing does that have on a project to establish the current state of knowledge"

Refering to the buildings/structures around Crofty, there was I suspect at that time a current state of knowledge, I presume the engine house at Robo's was listed, if that was the case then it must have been listed by EH yet the dry etc was pulled down. It doesn't take a genius to work out that all those buildings were linked both in historical and social/economic terms.

I am not doubting the hard work that has been put into these assesments it's just that I am a bit sceptical as to where it will all lead at the end of the day.

There is also the question of funding etc for these industrial relics, it seems to me that if you are a charity or some other quango type body then your in with a chance, that's fair enough but what about industrial relics that are in private ownership? So far as I can make out no cash available so eventually those relics will just decay and be lost.
A typical example is the Charlestown Leat, which was one of the most important water courses in Cornwall, most of it is in private ownership, it is listed as a world heritage site, it is decaying rapidly EH could list it but what good would that be if there is no funding to restore or at least conserve it?
As with all these things he who shouts loudest gets.

Lozz.

I think you may be mixing up listing and scheduling here, although they are both a form of legal protection, in practice they are very different beasts. Listing is essentially concerned with the architectural value of a structure, and grew out of planning legislation, whereas scheduling is all about historical or archaeological importance and has been around a lot longer going back to the first ancient monument protection laws over a century ago. I don't know the ins and outs of the case you've referred to but I suspect if it was listed rather than scheduled, whoever drew it up was only concerned with protecting the structures felt to be of architectural merit. As for handing over the designation process to another body for mining structures, what body is there to take it on? More to the point, you'd then have to start splitting off every special interest area to other bodies, all of whom would have competing interests and opinions.

Which brings us back to the research project and where it will lead - it will lead to at least a common baseline of where we stand in terms of research and knowledge, and crucially it will highlight the areas where knowledge is lacking. If we know this then it can be flagged up to the active researchers in the field and people will start to work on filling the gaps.

As for funding to preserve stuff, to put it quite bluntly EH have two-thirds of ****** all to distribute in grant funding for the preservation of listed/scheduled sites so you really have to make a good case to get money from them these days. If organisations are more successful than private individuals in getting funds from this ever-shrinking pot, it's because they're more adept at saying the right things on the application forms, not that they shout louder.

For that matter, why does everything have to come down to government dishing out cash? I'm a veteran of several PDMHS conservation projects, and although we did get grant funding for some of them that was for things like fencing and interpretation panels, the hard graft of the actual excavation and conservation was a voluntary thing. If you really want to try and preserve some of these sites down your end, it needs a collection of like-minded individuals to band together then get out and start both doing practical conservation and talking to the official bodies to get recognition of the importance of sites, much as the Cleveland guys have done recently.

---

Had a quick browse through last night,very interesting,

But Why the omitted Welsh Coalfields,or Scottish for that matter?

I have been looking for a better explanation of why we are producing a Research Framework - perhaps this may help....

" The Framework is designed to provide an overview of current archaeological knowledge, where the most significant gaps are, and how they may best be addressed. This is being undertaken in three stages:

Resource Assessment:  Stocktaking of current knowledge of the archaeology of Mining and Quarrying.

Resource Agenda:  Identification of the major gaps in our knowledge and how we might best address those gaps.

Strategy:  A series of statements setting out the perceived priorities, detailing proposed projects and method".

Hope this helps.

---

The work is for English Heritage. Approaches were made to Scotland and Wales with a suggestion that the work could be extended to those countries. For various reasons, the suggestion did not make progress.

---

Had a quick browse through last night,very interesting,

But Why the omitted Welsh Coalfields,or Scottish for that matter?

This Reasearch Framework is funded by English Heritage and is purely based on the English extractive industries, hence no Wales, Scotland or Ireland

---

Am sure he is Stuey..... Nobody is having a go at him as far as I can see.

I'm not having a go at you either but whole point is NAMHO will actualy hold the Documents aand the research belongs to them, funding did come from EH for Phil Newman to collate. Unfortunately as ever in Mining History research , there are those who are happy to share information and resources and those who are not for many mystical reasons , either for personal gain or for some secret reason like Golum.

As for meetings AN are rarely represented at the twice yearly meeting of the NAHMO Council where the project was discussed and started from. Is anyone going to the AGM at Caphouse on 16th March for instance of the 60 + organisations who are members you will be lucky to get 15 represented?

There are lots of us in Mordor doing lots of research and making contributions via numerous routes to the hobby (as that's all it is to most of us lesser minions), but I don't see how that makes our point of view any less relevent just because we are not involved in NAMHO proceedings or in my case I "didn't get it" (even tho I'd been) .
Lots of people spend lots of time writing up research, compiling lists, contributing surveys, pictures etc so most do appreciate the effort that will have gone into doing this document, peoples time being a very valuable thing.

As for AN, I don't own the site, and whilst I'm an Admin I have no say on who represents AN, I have done so in the past with permission at a NAMHO conference and at NAMHO Caphouse on this subject.
I suggest a suitably qualified, respected and experienced member to possibly represent the site further should be found, offers please :flowers: ?

Re the Framework I see the ambition (I really do) and hopefully it will help professionals to assess known sites properly and make decisions based on known research. I just hope though that the professionals in Councils & EH etc understand what they are looking at and its context, as I still don't see how someone who had no idea of what they were looking at before will suddenly be any different, and will know how to apply the fabulous wealth of in most cases historical data available to them if they dont have the first idea of what a mine looks like or its attendant Archaeology, just a thought! :flowers: I will be writing to Mr Newman on a number of points accordingly (As I am now more than eager to comment having got off my arse) :lol: .

---

I think you may be mixing up listing and scheduling here, although they are both a form of legal protection, in practice they are very different beasts. Listing is essentially concerned with the architectural value of a structure, and grew out of planning legislation, whereas scheduling is all about historical or archaeological importance and has been around a lot longer going back to the first ancient monument protection laws over a century ago. I don't know the ins and outs of the case you've referred to but I suspect if it was listed rather than scheduled, whoever drew it up was only concerned with protecting the structures felt to be of architectural merit. As for handing over the designation process to another body for mining structures, what body is there to take it on? More to the point, you'd then have to start splitting off every special interest area to other bodies, all of whom would have competing interests and opinions.

Which brings us back to the research project and where it will lead - it will lead to at least a common baseline of where we stand in terms of research and knowledge, and crucially it will highlight the areas where knowledge is lacking. If we know this then it can be flagged up to the active researchers in the field and people will start to work on filling the gaps.

As for funding to preserve stuff, to put it quite bluntly EH have two-thirds of ****** all to distribute in grant funding for the preservation of listed/scheduled sites so you really have to make a good case to get money from them these days. If organisations are more successful than private individuals in getting funds from this ever-shrinking pot, it's because they're more adept at saying the right things on the application forms, not that they shout louder.

For that matter, why does everything have to come down to government dishing out cash? I'm a veteran of several PDMHS conservation projects, and although we did get grant funding for some of them that was for things like fencing and interpretation panels, the hard graft of the actual excavation and conservation was a voluntary thing. If you really want to try and preserve some of these sites down your end, it needs a collection of like-minded individuals to band together then get out and start both doing practical conservation and talking to the official bodies to get recognition of the importance of sites, much as the Cleveland guys have done recently.

Thanks for the explanation, like I said it's a shame they demolished the miners dry at Robo's at Crofty, luckily I found a website of Cornish Mine Images where the photographer has done a first class job of photographing a visual record of what was there before they ripped it up.
At least they done a decent job down at Geevor as most of it was saved except for some stuff the scrappies got hold of during the mines last days.

Lozz.

There are lots of us in Mordor doing lots of research and making contributions via numerous routes to the hobby (as that's all it is to most of us lesser minions), but I don't see how that makes our point of view any less relevent just because we are not involved in NAMHO proceedings or in my case I "didn't get it" (even tho I'd been) .
Lots of people spend lots of time writing up research, compiling lists, contributing surveys, pictures etc so most do appreciate the effort that will have gone into doing this document, peoples time being a very valuable thing.

Doesn't the fact that lots of individuals and groups are caring out their own research highlight the need for such a framework? The fact that English Heritage have funded this project must be looked at as advantage, especially as NAMHO were handed the reins. Surely this opportunity must be grasped by all who have an interest in preserving what is left of our mining heritage. So check out whats been done to date and if there are glaring omissions or mistake then shout out before its too late 😞

---

Perhaps I should add something to this debate as I am project officer.

The whole project stems from the fact that English Heritage acknowledges that is possesses insufficient expertise and data about the archaeology of mines and quarries to make informed decisions regarding future policies on conservation, planning and protection in England. This is why they asked NAMHO, Britain’s main contact group for historical mining interests, to do the research rather than undertake the work themselves. It involves finding out what is already known and suggesting a strategy for expanding that knowledge. NAMHO in turn is relying on the expertise of its member groups and individuals with specialist knowledge to contribute to this work. We have been appealing to the research community for over three years now to help with this and many acknowledged experts have contributed and commented on the work to date. Unfortunately, many others in possession of valuable knowledge have remained silent, at least some of whom have done so in the mistaken belief that the whole thing is a conspiracy whereby information passed on to EH will be used in a negative way to restrict access and accelerate the rate of shaft cappings! But rest assured, this is not the sort of information we are dealing with.

This project is a fantastic opportunity for all who are interested in researching, conserving and protecting the mining heritage in England. The department which advises government on what is valuable in our cultural landscape (EH) is asking all of us what is important and why? They want to find out what is already known about mines and mining landscapes and what areas and topics need more research. The information we provide will directly inform future policy and may lead to a share of the meagre resources available being directed at mine research. What’s not to like about that?

Another aspect of this is that the only way we will ever see the physical evidence of mining and quarrying being given equal value to other historical elements of our landscape is through raising an awareness of it among decision makers. If your local council is destroying valuable mining assets without even recording them then it is through ignorance of its value by those who make the decisions. If we want planners to give equal weight to the importance of mining remains as they would for any other aspect of the historic environment then attitudes need to change and that has to be backed by knowledge. None of us are naive as to how easy that will be but this project, or its end result, will help direct future efforts in gathering of that knowledge among its other benefits.

Progress has been slow but phase one of the project is almost concluded in that we have compiled summary assessments of past archaeological and some historical work on a range of topics, published on our web site. Yes these are incomplete, yes they contain errors and yes they mention some reports that would be better forgotten, but the basis of any research is to establish what has already been done no matter how erratically. We cannot argue for anything if we don’t possess the knowledge to do so. So if you want to be critical of the assessments we would welcome your comments but most of all your observations as to what is missing. But please channel your criticisms through me; don’t let your thoughts go to waste.

The major outcome of the project will be a framework suggesting priorities in need of consideration for inclusion in the EH strategy on extractive industries. This aspect of the document is not on the NAMHO website just yet but the success of the project should be judged by what it contains rather than what is or is not included in the assessment summaries. Watch the NAMHO website for updates.

Sorry to inflict an essay on you.

All the best
Phil
[email protected]

---

The work is for English Heritage. Approaches were made to Scotland and Wales with a suggestion that the work could be extended to those countries. For various reasons, the suggestion did not make progress.

Thanks Pete,would that have been them in the Assembly or Cadw?

Many thanks for posting.... :flowers:
Further email winging its way to you.
Regs ICLOK

---