h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Romans in Britain: Minerals - A3008666
Author: Elentari - U202814

This is one of a series of entries I'm doing on Roman Britain, which in the long run, I hope to have edited as a series like Atlantic Cable's Sci fi entries (A1132057).

The complete list of my series is:
A Brief history: A2137565
Minerals: A3008666
Pottery: A3012283
Trade and Travel: A3012337
Agriculture: A3012355
Art: A3012364
Towns and Villas: A3012409
Army: A3012481
Forts and Fortresses: A3012517

in case you facy looking at the rest!

I know they may be a bit dry in parts, though I've tried to get rid of the bits that are only of interest to scholars, to make them more readable.

Let me know what you think!

This is (all) excellent. Well done!

I'll comment here, because it relates to my own field of interest.

I'd be interested to hear where they mined (presumably lead) in the West Riding. The best known silver/lead mining in the North was at Crich in Derbyshire.

As well as the locations you've mentioned, the Romans also found and mined iron ore at Thealby and Santon in North Lincolnshire. This 'Frodingham' ironstone lias was then lost for about 1500 years. Its rediscovery lead to the development of my home town, Scunthorpe.

If you're interested, I could point you to info about Roman methods for reducing these ores (iron and others). It was no mean technical feat in its time, attaining and sustaining the necessary temperatures.

Yes Interesting stuff - (for us history types)

On this footnote - "This was called salarium argentum which meant "salt money", which is where the English word "salary" comes from" Its also where the expession "Worth his salt" comes from.

Very cool . I love learning little things like where expressions and words come from

I also like the idea of maybe mentioning how the ores were processed, if it doesn't detract from the purpose of the entry too much. If it's something that can't be explained in a couple of sentences it's probably best left out. If it's rather involved, maybe it should be its own entry, Pinn

A few things I picked up while reading through:

--Don't need introduction header.
--AD 49, only four years after the invasion of Claudius. >> wouldn't 49 be six years after Claudius' invasion (in 43)?
--bronze objects, which became >> no comma: bronze objects which became
--footnote 3 should be before the full stop.
--Marble was used for inscriptions, >> marble was used to inscribe things? or things were inscribed on the marble? Thinking it's the latter, the marble would have been used in structures (buildings or monuments, etc) that would receive inscriptions; is there a better way to word this?
--Half of the material from the lead mines went directly to the Empire, and they bought much of the rest on the open market. >> should that be 'they sold much of the rest...'?

This is very accessible to the person casually interested in history, not too scholarly at all (not sure if that sounds like an insult , it certainly isn't intended to be ).

Maybe two sentences would be pushing it a bit. The text-book I'd refer to has thirteen pages on the Roman Iron Age! A complementary Entry might be , if Elentari doesn't mind.

A nice anecdote I found while looking shows just how good the Romans were at metal production (and at logistics, too). The frontier legionary fort at Inchtuthil in Scotland was defended for only about five years circa 80 AD. When excavated in the early 1960s, archaeologists found 5 tons of nails (almost 900,000 of them).

"The first miners were Roman soldiers, but before long the Romans were forced to subcontract, even in the important lead mines."

This needs correcting - the miners at Belerion (west Cornwall) had been trading with the Mediteranian long before the Romans pushed in. Also the lead mines on the Mendips were up and running, and copper mining had been going on since the Bronze age.

These minerals were one of the main reasons for the invasion, not a perk. Having read some of the other articles in this series, I have to repeat (I have posted elsewhere) that you are making the rest of the world look like dumb-arses until the Romans showed up.
Can we have some more research into the cultures the Romans destroyed?

"The first miners were Roman soldiers, but before long the Romans were forced to subcontract, even in the important lead mines."

I meant the first Roman miners, but I see that that's not very clear, I'll change it.

Ointmede, you seem very concerned about the portrayal of the other cultures. I'll repeat that I did not inttend to pput the down but you must admit that living under the Romans had benefits as well as problems.

Pinniped: Of course I have no objection, go ahead. (As long as you link to this entry... )

I've made those changes.

Pinniped: I'm afraid I don't know any more specific information than that, sorry.

Ointmede: I think you're being unfair here. I can find nothing in this entry that makes the Celts look undeveloped, in fact the Celts are hardly mentoned, it being an entry on "The Romans in Britain" after all. Also, I think you wil find that it says in the very first paragraph that access to Britain's mineral wealth was a major reason for the invasion, and I have not suggested anywhere that it was just "a perk" as you put it.

This is one is pretty good!

reused --> re-used

You might like to add the following to the section on lead:

"It is worth noting that the lead lining on the great pool at the Roman baths of Bath is still intact and waterproof nearly two thousand years after it was built."

The header "Involvement of Army..." is not really appropriate. The Army only gets half a sentence in that section. I suggest you change it to "The Miners".

I've done that, thanks Gnomon.

http://www.roman-britain.org/places/_roman_britain_layermap.htm#tic
Any use?

I still haven't found any references to silver in the West Riding.
You're presumably talking about silver recovered by the cupellation of lead; certainly there isn't any native silver. What's your source?

That's just it, I can't remember. It must be either from that site (which I used as I wrote the essays, though I don't remember that map) or from a textbook. I didn't make it up, honest!

Woah! I never meant to suggest you made it up!
These guys are pretty good resolvers of such like, if you want to try them :
http://www.iom3.org/MIS/index.htm

Everything I've read suggests that the Romans thought of Britain as a valuable source of lead, and just took advantage of the silver that came with it (very predominantly in the southern part of the country - northern lead has little silver till you get into Scotland where the Romans never reached).
They already had territory in eastern Europe that was yielding native silver with high yield. Recovering small amounts of cupellated silver wouldn't have been part of an imperial plan, though it might have been a nice earner for resident individuals.

They did get to Scotland actually, but didn't stay long and I highly doubt they mined there!

I'll tell you what, as we're unsure about the accuracy of the West Riding thing, how about I just take it out! Solves the problem.

Oh, and I know you didn't mean I made it up, I was only joking!

This is looking good

In your footnote you credit radioactiveBIGAL1 with the information about 'salary', but it was McKay that brought it up in this thread

I probably brought it up first.

Actually, I've just remembered that I did - but I posted it on the 'Conversations' thread that belongs to this Entry.

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!