From: G6JPG-255@255soft.uk   
      
   In message <4rniddtfnpf77o85ch9epoacs542vhjbh3@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes   
    writes:   
   >On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 01:08:52 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >>1901 census: Class: RG13; Piece: 4835; Folio: 112; Page: 36   
   >>(search for Jane Weightman in Ashington).   
   >>...   
   >>Jane Weightman                  65   
   >>Robert "                33              Coal Hewer Miner   
   >>George "                19              Rolleywayman Miner   
   >>Isabella Sanderson              23   
   >>William         "       26              Blacksmith Striker   
   >>Modderina       "               10mo   
   >>   
   >>I _think_ the final word in the occupations was written in a different   
   >>hand, or perhaps by the same hand but on a different occasion.   
   >>   
   >>I'm wondering: is Striker likely to be a modification of Blacksmith (I   
   >>know little of smithing), or is it likely to be recording that he was   
   >>(presumably his smithing being part of the coal mine) on strike?   
      
   Thanks all for replies: it seems the general consensus is that it is   
   just a clarification of what William was actually _doing_ in the smithy.   
      
   But (only if you're interested!) do have a look at the image: I think   
   you'll see what I mean that Miner, Miner, and Striker seem to have been   
   added afterwards - though possibly by the same hand. They look a little   
   blacker and offset a little.   
   >   
   >Blacksmiths usually did a lot of hammering on iron, so I would   
   >understand that it meant that in particular. I've also found a lot of   
   >the "hewer" in connection with coal miners, and think that is somewhat   
   >similar -- what they spend most of their time doing.   
      
   Now the mining bit I have picked up some knowledge of: basically   
   everyone who worked - certainly "below", and to some extent above as   
   well - was generally described as "miner" or "coal miner", but this   
   included both the people we think of, who did indeed do the hewing, but   
   also all the others involved with getting the product back to the   
   pithead: "putter", Rolleywayman, trapper, u. v. a.. The boys sent down   
   at 12 or 13 were often trappers - they operated (opened) the trapdoors   
   or flaps to let trolleys etc. through (which otherwise had to be kept   
   shut to keep the air circulating on its planned route). [Not to in any   
   way diminish the hardship of such work! Just as vital as the hewing, and   
   probably done in the dark - and a better use of those not yet able to do   
   the hewing.]   
   >   
   >It's interesting that people still use the metaphor of being "at the   
   >coalface" (which I presume hewers were), when much of that is done by   
   >machinery nowadays.   
   >   
   Yes, from about the 1920s I think, very roughly. Probably at least in   
   part prompted by the wartime experience: about half way through WWI,   
   coal output had dropped significantly, thus imperilling both industry   
   and many warships, because so many miners were at the front, and many   
   were called back to "AR Class 'W'" - meaning they were still nominally   
   in the army reserve, but to work back in the mines. I have at least two   
   of my ancestors/cousins whose military records show this, and I suspect   
   the same will apply to anyone whose WWI ancestors worked in coal mines.   
      
   Even with machinery, there's still work to be _done_ "at the coalface" -   
   moving the machines and so on - though you are right less actual hewing.   
   Probably some hewing still in seams too narrow to get the machines in.   
   --   
   J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf   
      
   Veni, Vidi, Video (I came, I saw, I'll watch it again later) - Mik from S+AS   
   Limited (mik@saslimited.demon.co.uk), 1998   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)