ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION - Mike Griffiths and Associates

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION 

LADYBRIDGE FARM NOSTERFIELD 

NORTH YORKSHIRE 

SITE CODE: LBF 03-04 

NGR: SE 293 806 

REPORT 

March 2005 

Registered in England No. 2801722 VAT Registration No. 599 0974 69

FIELD ARCHAEOLOGY SPECIALISTS LTD 

University of York 

King's Manor 

York YO1 7EP 

TELEPHONE 

FACSIMILE 

E-MAIL 

(01904) 433952 

(01904) 433935 

arch18@york.ac.uk 

ON BEHALF OF 

MIKE GRIFFITHS AND ASSOCIATES 

Houlgate House 

128-130 Clifton 

York 

YO30 6BQ 

CLIENT 

TARMAC NORTHERN LTD 

Lingerfield 

Scotton 

Knaresborough 

North Yorkshire 

HG5 9JN 

PROJECT TEAM 

Justin Garner-Lahire BA 

Andrew Copp BA MA 

Cecily Spall BSc MA 

Richard Jackson BA 

Toby Lewis-Simpson BA 

Stephen Rowland BA MSc 

Lisa Smith BA 

Peter Glew BA 

Rebecca Pullen BSc 

REPORT PREPARED BY 



Nicola Toop BA MA 

REPORT REVIEWED BY 


REPORT AUTHORISED BY 


Registered in England No. 2801722 VAT Registration No. 599 0974 69

FAS_lbf01.wpd 

i 

LIST OF CONTENTS 

Contents 

Summary 

Acknowledgements 

Page 

viii 

viii 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 

1.1 LOCATION AND LAND USE 1 

1.2 PLANNING BACKGROUND 1 

1.3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES 3 

2.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 3 

2.1 PALAEOLITHIC AND MESOLITHIC 3 

2.2 NEOLITHIC 6 

2.3 BRONZE AGE 8 

2.4 IRON AGE 9 

2.5 ROMAN 9 

2.6 EARLY MEDIEVAL 10 

2.7 MEDIEVAL 11 

2.8 POST-MEDIEVAL AND MODERN 11 

2.9 RECENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS 12 

3.0 EVALUATION STRATEGY 19 

3.1 ZONATION 20 

3.2 INTERVENTIONS 20 

3.3 SURVEY 22 

3.4 FIELDWORK CONSTRAINTS 23 

4.0 FIELDWALKING 23 

4.1 FIELDWALKING PROCEDURE 23 

4.2 FIELDWALKING RESULTS 23 

5.0 AUGER AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY 34 

5.1 SURVEY PROCEDURE 34 

5.2 SURVEY RESULTS 34 

6.0 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY 44 

6.1 SURVEY PROCEDURE 44 

6.2 MAGNETOMETER SURVEY RESULTS 46 

6.3 SOIL RESISTANCE SURVEY RESULTS 55 

FIELD ARCHAEOLOGY SPECIALISTS

FAS_lbf01.wpd 

ii 

7.0 TEST PIT EXCAVATION 63 

7.1 FIELDWORK PROCEDURE 63 

7.2 FIELDWORK RESULTS 65 

8.0 EVALUATION EXCAVATION 69 

8.1 FIELDWORK PROCEDURE 69 

8.2 FIELDWORK RESULTS 71 

9.0 DISCUSSION 166 

9.1 CROPMARKS AND HISTORIC FIELD BOUNDARIES 166 

9.2 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY 166 

9.3 FIELDWALKING AND TEST PIT EXCAVATION 166 

9.4 EVALUATION EXCAVATION 167 

10.0 ASSESSMENT 169 

10.1 PALAEOENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 171 

11.0 ARCHIVE 179 

References 

Figures 

1 Location map 2 

2 Map of known archaeology 4 

3 Previous archaeological investigations 5 

4 Location of quarries 13 

5 Historic field boundaries within area of investigation 17 

6 Cropmarks within area of investigation 18 

7 Zones of investigatiom 21 

8 Distribution of all fieldwalking finds 25 

9 Distribution of all fieldwalking ceramic finds 26 

10 Distribution of all fieldwalking ceramic building material finds 27 

11 Distribution of all fieldwalking other finds 28 

12 Distribution of all fieldwalking lithic finds 29 

13 Distribution of all fieldwalking flint waste finds 31 

14 Distribution of all fieldwalking dateable lithic finds 32 

15 Distribution of all fieldwalking flint tool finds and 32 burnt flints 33 

16 Location of auger survey, contours at 0.20m intervals 35 

17 Depth of deposits in Zone F, contours at 0.20m intervals 37 

18 Location of peat deposits in Zone F, contours at 0.20m intervals 38 


FAS_lbf01.wpd 

iii 

19 Deposit model Zone F (north-south) 39 

20 Depth of deposits in Zone E, contours at 0.20m intervals 40 

21 Deposit model Zone E (east-west) 41 

22 Depth of deposits Zones A-C, contours at 0.20m intervals 43 

23 Location of geophysical surveys 45 

24 Results of magnetometer pilot study 47 

25 Interpretation of magnetometer pilot study 48 

26 Results of magnetometer area survey 50 

27 Interpretation of magnetometer area survey 51 

28 Results of soil resistance pilot study (0.5m) 56 

29 Results of soil resistance pilot study (1.0m) 57 

30 Interpretation of soil resistance pilot study 58 

31 Results of soil resistance area survey (0.5m) 60 

32 Results of soil resistance area survey (1.0m) 61 

33 Interpretation of soil resistance survey 62 

34 Location of test pits 64 

35 Distribution of lithic finds from test pits 66 

36 Location of evaluation trenches 70 

37 Feature map of Intervention 7 72 

38 Intervention 7, F1 and F2 post-excavation plans and sections 73 

39 Intervention 7, F3 post-excavation plan and section 75 


41 Intervention 8, F4 section 77 

42 Intervention 8, F4 post-excavation plan 78 


44 Intervention 9, F5 and F6 sections 81 




48 Intervention 10, F7 and F11 post-excavation plan and section 86 





53 Intervention 12, F9 and F10 post-excavation plans and sections 93 


55 Intervention 16, F14 post-excavation plan and profile 96 




FAS_lbf01.wpd 

iv 


59 Intervention 23, F15, F16 and F17 post-excavation plans and sections 103 







































FAS_lbf01.wpd 

v 












108 Phases of archaeological activity 168 

109 Nosterfield provisional phase map 170 

Plates 

1 Barbed and tanged arrowhead 30 

2 Circular scraper (broken) 30 

3 Thumbnail scrapers 30 

4 Test pit excavation and sieving 63 

5 Machining of an evaluation trench 69 

6 Intervention 7 looking south 71 


8 Intervention 9 looking west 79 

9 Feature 6, intervention 9, looking west 79 

10 Intervention 10 looking east 84 


12 Feature 8, Intervention 11, looking south 87 

13 Intervention 12 looking north 87 













FAS_lbf01.wpd 

vi 

25 Feature 15, Intervention 23, looking east 101 












37 Feature 31, Intervention 30, looking west 132 




41 Feature 39, Intervention 33, dog burial looking west 138 










51 New sink hole 174 

Tables 

1 Zones of investigation 20 

2 Archaeological Interventions 20 

3 Summary of lithic material from test pits and hand-excavated trenches 67 

Appendices 

A 

B 

C 

D 

Evaluation Method Statement 

Assessment of lithic material 

Geophysical data plots 

Index to field file 


FAS_lbf01.wpd 

vii 

E 

F 

G 

H 

Context and feature summaries 

Assessment of prehistoric pottery 

Assessment of soil samples 

Assessment of zooarchaeological remains 


FAS_lbf01.wpd 

viii 

Summary 

A scheme of archaeological evaluation was carried out at Ladybridge Farm, Nosterfield, North Yorkshire in 

support of a planning application for the extension of Nosterfield Quarry. The evaluation was undertaken by 

Field Archaeology Specialists (FAS) Ltd on behalf of Mike Griffiths and Associates for Tarmac Northern Ltd. 

The fieldwork was carried out between October 2003 and October 2004. 

The evaluation was phased, with the results of preceding phases informing the strategy of each further phase 

of work. The evaluation programme consisted of a variety of non-invasive and invasive techniques including 

fieldwalking, topographic survey, auger survey, geophysical survey, test pit excavation and evaluation 

excavation. This fieldwork allowed various conclusions to be drawn regarding the survival and nature of 

archaeological remains in this area. 

Topographic and auger survey allowed a contour map of the site to be produced, and also the deposit-modelling 

of subsurface strata. During this phase of work, a scarp to the west of Ladybridge Farm was identified as the 

extant edge of an in-filled lake, including deposits of marl which were identified during the auger survey. 

The geophysical survey included pilot surveys of both magnetometer and soil resistance survey, in order to 

ascertain the effectiveness of both methods on the site. The results of the pilot survey resulted in area survey 

using both techniques. Both surveys were shown to be suitable for the detection of features with high humic 

content, which were subsequently shown by excavation to include sink holes and some former boundary 

features. Those features which were found to be backfilled primarily with redeposited subsoil were not 

detectable by these means. The geophysical results were partly obscured by modern ploughing. 

Fieldwalking of the area recovered an assemblage of material, which was dominated by the presence of late postmedieval 

and modern material from manuring. The lithic material was found to be concentrated towards the 

southeastern corner of the site, with a more dispersed distribution throughout the remainder of the site. Similar 

results were produced from test pit excavation, and again, the same distribution of archaeological activity was 

identified during evaluation excavation. 

Archaeological features identified during evaluation excavation were found to be badly truncated by ploughing, 

and comprised a number of small pits, geological features, and field boundaries. The ceramic assemblages from 

some of the pits suggested a late Neolithic date; many produced no securely datable remains. Notably, it was 

demonstrated that although the same broad distributions of finds and features was identified by the various 

phases of investigation, the lithic finds identified both on and within the ploughsoil could not be directly related 

to subsurface remains. 

Acknowledgements 

Field Archaeology Specialists Ltd are grateful for the assistance and cooperation of the staff of Tarmac Northern 

Ltd, Mr Almack of Ladybridge Farm, and Neil Campling of the North Yorkshire County Council Heritage Unit, 

throughout the course of the project. 


FAS_lbf01.wpd 1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This document reports on a scheme of archaeological evaluation undertaken by Field Archaeology Specialists 

(FAS) Ltd at Ladybridge Farm, North Yorkshire, on behalf of Mike Griffiths and Associates, for Tarmac 

Northern Ltd, in support of a planning application to extend Nosterfield Quarry. The fieldwork was carried out 

between October 2003 and October 2004. 

1.1 LOCATION AND LAND USE 

The application area (NGR: SE 293 806 centred) is situated to the east of Nosterfield Quarry, and to the north 

of the village of Thornborough, occupying two separate areas of land north of Thornfield road (B6267) (Figure 

1). The larger tract of land is bounded to the south by the B6267, to the west by the road to Carthorpe, and to 

the east by a winding track leading to Upsland. The northern boundary of the site is represented by the east-west 

line of Ings Goit, and a central track runs west-east across the centre of the area, dividing a large northern field 

from three smaller fields to the south. Two further fields form a second parcel of land within the application 

area, and are situated directly to the west of Ladybridge Farm, adjacent to Nosterfield Quarry. In total, the 

application area occupies approximately 44 hectares. 

There is a known area of peat deposits on the eastern side of the application area which has been left under 

pasture in a separate field and holds surface water during wet weather conditions. A small pond to the south 

of this field is thought to be fed by a natural spring. The western half of the area to the west of Ladybridge Farm 

is also used for pasture, with the remainder of the application area given over to arable farming. 

The underlying geology of the site represents the fluvio-glacial gravels that characterise land north of the River 

Ure. Within the larger part of the application area, the ground slopes gently down from the southwestern corner 

at c.43m AOD towards the small pasture field on the centre of the eastern boundary, which lies at approximately 

40m AOD. The northern part of the area is relatively level at c.41m AOD, but slopes down in both the 

northeastern and northwestern corners to approximately 40m AOD. The smaller part of the application area to 

the west of Ladybridge Farm lies on two levels divided by a steep slope. The eastern side of this area is 

relatively flat at c.41m AOD, rising to approximately 42m AOD in the southeastern corner. The western side 

is also fairly level, lying at c.40m AOD. 

1.2 PLANNING BACKGROUND 

This archaeological investigation forms a pre-determination evaluation in support of a planning proposal to 

extend sand and gravel extraction at Nosterfield Quarry eastwards over an approximately 42 hectare area to the 

east and west of Ladybridge Farm. An archaeological desk-based assessment (FAS 2003) has also been 

prepared and submitted as part of the planning application, along with an interim report (FAS 2005) on the 

preliminary results of the on-going archaeological watching brief at Nosterfield Quarry. 

A Method Statement outlining evaluation the programme was prepared by FAS and approved by North 

Yorkshire County Council Heritage Unit (Appendix A). The details of each fieldwork phase of the evaluation 

were agreed with the Heritage Unit prior to the commencement of fieldwork. 



1.3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES 

The primary objective of the evaluation was to identify, characterise, and assess any archaeological remains 

within the proposed extension to Nosterfield Quarry, in order to establish the archaeological potential of the 

application area. The evaluation comprised a staged investigative programme, wherein the results of the early 

stages were used to inform the detailed design of subsequent stages of investigation. The scheme of evaluation 

consisted of both non-invasive and invasive investigations, which commenced with a review of existing 

information, and was followed by fieldwalking, an auger and topographic survey, geophysical survey, and 

culminated in test pitting, hand-excavated trenches and machine excavated evaluation trenches. 

The purpose of the evaluation was to gather sufficient information to enable informed planning decisions, and 

the formulation of an appropriate archaeological mitigation strategy for the proposed extension of sand and 

gravel extraction at Nosterfield Quarry. The evaluation sought to provide the necessary information, while 

minimising damage to the archaeological resource, particularly in light of the significant quantity of information 

available from the archaeological investigation at the existing quarry. 

2.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 

Ladybridge Farm is situated within a landscape known to have been intermittently occupied and exploited in 

a wide range of ways during prehistory, and in subsequent periods to the modern day (Figure 2). The site lies 

to the north of the henges and barrows of Thornborough, which have prompted study and interest in this area 

since the 19th century. Consideration of the archaeological and historical background to this project, therefore, 

focusses primarily on the prehistory of the area, and the evidence for occupation and activity from the 

Mesolithic to the Iron Age. However, there is also a need to consider the later use of the landscape, since 

medieval agriculture, post-medieval enclosure, and modern activities, have all impacted on the remains of earlier 

activity, and shaped the landscape and the archaeological resource as it exists today. 

2.1 PALAEOLITHIC AND MESOLITHIC (c.250,000BC - c.8000BC) (c.8000BC - c.4500BC) 

Typically for this period of prehistory, there is very little evidence for Palaeolithic and Mesolithic activity in 

the Nosterfield area. The finds of flints in peat samples extracted at the Nosterfield Quarry reveal the potential 

for early lithic remains (Berg 1991), and since then, programmes of fieldwalking have allowed some conclusions 

to be drawn concerning human activity in the area during this period. 

Fieldwalking undertaken as part of the Vale of York/Vale of Mowbray Neolithic Landscape Project revealed 

some limited evidence for later Mesolithic and early Neolithic activity in the landscape surrounding Ladybridge 

Farm (Harding 1994; 1998, 36-7) (Figure 3). These finds were identified throughout the area under study, and 

showed no notable concentrations that may have been indicative of occupation sites. A series of Mesolithic 

artefacts was recently recovered from excavations of a later Neolithic or Bronze Age burial monument, close 

to the Thornborough henges, including three microliths, an opposed platform blade core, a bladelet core and ten 

bladelets (Harding and Johnson 2004d, 16). This may provide stronger evidence for Mesolithic activity in the 

immediate area. 



2.2 NEOLITHIC (c.4500BC - 2500BC) 

The landscape of the area in the early Neolithic is thought to have been heavily forested, with lakes and marshes 

located in valley bottoms (Muir 1997, 30). The high humus content of material recovered during excavation 

of the cursus ditch of the Thornborough monument complex was considered to represent a ‘relatively close 

woodland under oceanic climate with plentiful rainfall’ (Thomas 1955, 432; cf Vatcher 1960). 

The Neolithic is seen as a period of transition, from the small-scale agricultural societies of the early Neolithic, 

to the development of a more complex society, and the ‘emergence of powerful groups and individuals who were 

able to mobilise labour and construct large ceremonial complexes’ (Harding 2000, 1-3). This general trend is 

evident in the chronology of monument construction in North Yorkshire. Although lying outside the Ladybridge 

Farm site, the Thornborough monument complex is likely to have dominated the area, both physically and in 

terms of investment of resources. Although investigated archaeologically since the 1950s, the evolution of this 

monument complex has not been well understood; modern excavation and dating techniques have allowed for 

further understanding of the chronology of this monument complex as it developed through the Neolithic and 

Bronze Age. 

The earliest monument identified within the Thornborough monument complex is a cursus, which runs from 

northeast to southwest for at least 2.3km. The cursus was identified initially on aerial photographs of the 1940s 

and 1950s, and was verified by excavations in subsequent decades (Thomas 1955; Vatcher 1960). From 

environmental evidence within the cursus ditches, Vatcher and Thomas suggested a late Neolithic or early 

Bronze Age date (Vatcher 1960, 179), which would compare with other cursus monuments from the area 

(Topping 1982). This has recently been disputed, however, and Harding (1998, 29) suggests an early to middle 

Neolithic date would be more appropriate. During quarrying in 1958, a crouched inhumation was identified in 

the central line of the cursus, and was used to infer the importance of this feature as a focal point for ceremony. 

However, no secure stratigraphic evidence links the features, and the chronological implications of such a 

juxtaposition are not understood. 

Although previously thought to have been an isolated monument within its contemporary landscape, recent 

studies of aerial photography detected the presence of an ‘ovate enclosure’ at the eastern end of the cursus 

(Harding 1998, 29). The site has been tentatively interpreted as a ‘long mortuary enclosure’, measuring some 

19m by 16m, and provides some indication that this area may have provided a focal point for several monuments 

(Harding 1998, 29). 

The subsequent construction of the three Thornborough henges, on a NW-SE alignment across the landscape, 

would have been a massive undertaking. Measuring 240m across, and placed at 550m intervals, the complex 

spans a distance of 1.3km across the landscape. Burl (1969) classified these monuments as Class IIA, a distinct 

regional group known to be confined to the henges of Thornborough, Hutton Moor and Cana Barn, with an 

outlier in the ‘Big Rings’ of Dorchester on Thames. 

Little was previously known of the date and chronology of henge monuments of the area, despite some 

excavations at Nunwick (Dymond 1964), Hutton Moor (Raistrick 1929) and Thornborough (Thomas 1955). 

Thomas’s investigation provided evidence that these monuments postdated the cursus, and also revealed the 



presence of gypsum within the banks (Thomas 1955, 433). It was suggested that the gypsum had previously 

been used to coat the banks of the henge, and had permeated into its core over time, although this interpretation 

remains speculative. However, more recent excavations (Harding 1997; 1998, 29-32) identified three distinct 

phases of construction, and Harding tentatively suggests a date in the later Neolithic for their construction, 

although this relies on evidence from other henges and requires further substantiation (Harding and Johnson 

2003, 19). 

Reconnaissance fieldwalking undertaken as part of the Vale of York/Mowbray Neolithic Landscape Project 

revealed a marked change in the distribution of later Neolithic finds. There appears to be a notable lack of Early 

to Middle Neolithic chert and flint (indicative of domestic occupation) in the immediate vicinity of the henges, 

corresponding with a clustering of finds at distances of over 600m away (Harding 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 

1998). The same pattern is also evident in the later Neolithic (Harding 1998, 29). This has been interpreted as 

the restructuring of activity in the landscape over a long period of time, resulting in the spatial separation of the 

sacred and the profane. The closest concentration of activity to the henges occurs on the low ridge of Chapel 

Hill. The fact that this is one of the nearby sites from which the henges are not visible was considered to be 

significant (Harding 1998, 37). 

More recent finds from Nosterfield Quarry have also been seen to reflect this division of the landscape. Finds 

of Neolithic axes, and assemblages of early Neolithic pottery (Grimston ware) and later Neolithic pottery 

(Peterborough ware, Late Neolithic Grooved ware) provide possible evidence for domestic activity. These finds 

were recovered from pit groups in the eastern half of the quarry, including an area immediately south of the 

Ladybridge Farm buildings (Dalland 1995; Gledhill and Griffiths 1995). To the west, however, evidence is 

lacking for Neolithic activity. The only material relating to domestic activity is provided by the finds recovered 

during an earlier programme of reconnaissance fieldwalking (Harding 1994), but no associated features were 

revealed during recent watching briefs (FAS 2005). The Ladybridge Farm area was identified by Harding and 

Johnson (2004b, 20) as an area worthy of further investigation, since evidence for domestic activity has been 

shown to favour gravel ridges at some distance from the major monument complex (Harding and Johnson 

2004b; 2004c). 

Pit alignments represent another feature that would have demarcated and divided the prehistoric landscape. A 

double pit alignment associated with the Thornborough henges was identified in aerial photographs during the 

dry season of 1976 (St Joseph 1977), and although it is was within a Scheduled Ancient Monument area, it was 

largely excavated (Harding 1998, 32). The monument was believed to post-date the henges and predate the 

Bronze Age barrows in the vicinity (Harding 1998, 32). Evidence for timber uprights was identified, and the 

presence of Bronze Age pottery in recuts associated with the removal of these posts has been used to suggest 

that the pit alignments were constructed in the later Neolithic or early Bronze Age, roughly contemporary with 

the development of the henges. This was further supported by radiocarbon dating of fragments of charcoal from 

the post-pipes of these features, which dates of 1750-1590 cal BC (3385 ± 38 BP: OxA-11009), 1000-825 cal 

BC (2761±35 BP: OxA-11033) and 925-800 cal BC (2716 ± 37 BP: OxA-11010) (Harding and Johnson 2003, 

23). This has been compared to a radiocarbon date from one of three double pit alignments uncovered during 

the widening of the A1 at Dishforth, which provided a date in the later Neolithic (Tavener 1996, 185-6). Two 

further double rows of posts close to the Devils Arrows, produced late Neolithic/early Bronze Age dates of 4234 

± 80 BP (RCD-1596) and 4314 ± 87 BP (RCD-1597) from their post-pipes, used to suggest a later Neolithic date 



for their construction (Harding and Johnson 2003, 23). 

During watching briefs at the nearby Nosterfield Quarry, six further pit alignments were identified and 

excavated (FAS 2005), and the desk-based assessment revealed many more in the wider landscape (FAS 2003). 

At least one of these pit alignments was similar in plan to that excavated close to the henges, being a widely 

spaced, double pit alignment (FAS 2005), and may belong to the same period. Other single pit alignments, 

however, appear from stratigraphic and radiocarbon dating to belong to the Iron Age (see Section 2.4). 

2.3 BRONZE AGE (2500BC - 700BC) 

During the Bronze Age, the henges appear to have remained significant landscape features, and formed a focal 

point for Bronze Age burials, often beneath barrows or within ring-ditches. At least ten barrows have been 

identified in the vicinity of the Thornborough henges (FAS 2003, 21), and many are known to have been subject 

to antiquarian investigations, which produced evidence for urns, cremations and inhumation (Lukis 1870a). 

More recently, a detailed survey has been undertaken of barrows in ‘Three Hills Field’ to the southwest of 

Ladybridge Farm (Harding and Johnson 2004a, 5), which revealed a previously undetected barrow, and further 

evidence for a double ring-ditch identified previously by geophysical survey (Biggins 2003 in Harding and 

Johnson 2004a, 15). Investigation of a sample of monuments was advocated, as they are gradually being 

destroyed by modern agriculture, and two barrows were selected for evaluation: the poorest surviving 

monument, and one of the better preserved examples (Harding and Johnson 2004a; 2004d). The former, one 

of the Three Hills group, had previously been excavated by Lukis (1870), who recorded heat affected clay layers 

with evidence of burnt bone. Nearby examples excavated in contemporary investigations produced evidence 

for urned cremations, presumably Bronze Age (Lukis 1870). The more recent evaluation trench across this 

monument revealed two segments of the ditch, found to measure 0.8m and 0.4m deep respectively. No finds 

were recovered, and the destruction caused by ploughing was emphasised (Harding and Johnson 2004d, 10). 

The second barrow investigated is referred to both as the ‘double ring-ditch barrow’ or the ‘triple ditched 

barrow’; aerial photographs revealed two ditches, and a possible third was identified during geophysical survey 

and excavation (Harding and Johnson 2004d, 16). The evaluation of this feature revealed segments of three 

possible surrounding ditches, and a number of internal pits, which have been used to suggest the possibility of 

three phases of construction, although stratigraphic evidence appears to have been unclear (Harding and Johnson 

2004d, 16). Excavation of the internal pits included at least three containing fragmentary human remains, 

suggested to represent at least five individuals. Finds recovered included Mesolithic and Neolithic flint 

artefacts, and although dating evidence was scarce, a later Neolithic date has been tentatively suggested for this 

monument, based on the presence of collective burials, the apparent disturbance and reburial of remains, and 

the lack of ceramic vessels (Harding and Johnson 2004d, 22, 25). A sherd of Grimston ware from surface 

collection is considered to be residual (Harding and Johnson 2004d, 25). The damage caused by ploughing was 

again noted, and full investigation of such monuments advocated (Harding and Johnson 2004d, 26). 

Recent archaeological investigations at Nosterfield Quarry have added evidence for further examples of Bronze 

Age burial in the vicinity. A large ring-ditch, 17m in diameter, was excavated, and was found to have a centrally 

located, unurned cremation (SE 2740 8067; FAS 2005). To the northeast of this ring-ditch, a scatter of ten 

further cremation burials was excavated, seemingly adhering to the edge of a second ring-ditch. Four were 



found to contain inverted urns, which have been dated to the middle Bronze Age. It is possible, therefore, that 

burial beneath barrows was a long-lived tradition in this area. 

Evidence for Bronze Age occupation is limited. Rare fragments of Bronze Age pottery identified from recent 

investigations at Nosterfield Quarry (FAS 2005a), and the ceramic assemblage from excavations at Marton-le 

Moor, indicate some occupation in the general area, though the nature and extent of activity is uncertain. Many 

of the remaining Bronze Age finds from the area are the result of chance discoveries, and are therefore poorly 

provenanced (Harding and Johnson 2003, 24). 

2.4 IRON AGE (700BC - AD43) 

Prior to recent investigations at Nosterfield Quarry, there was a notable lack of evidence for Iron Age activity 

in this area; climatic deterioration was thought to have led to intensification of farming in lowland areas, and 

an abandonment of less favourable regions. Despite Iron Age settlements having been identified on the gravel 

terraces at Scorton (FAS 1997) and Catterick (Moloney 1996), it has been suggested that the area between the 

Swale and Ure was not settled during this period, possibly due to an exhausting of the soils during the Bronze 

Age (Tavener 1996). 

At Nosterfield Quarry, evidence has started to reveal that this landscape was exploited as an area for burial and 

possibly occupation during the Iron Age. Two possible square barrows were excavated, similar in form to those 

known to be of Iron Age date elsewhere (FAS 2005). Although lacking central burials, one of the ditches was 

found to contain the skeletal remains of an adult male, which provided a radiocarbon date of 135 ± 35 BC 

(Holst 2004; SUERC-3780). An Iron Age context for these features is further supported by the presence of a 

quadruple horse burial close to the second square-ditch enclosure, which has produced a radiocarbon date of 

AD50 ± 35 (SUERC-2974). These finds suggest continued use of this area for burial, although the nature and 

location of associated settlements remains unknown. 

Two single pit alignments, which crossed the quarry site on a roughly NW-SE alignment, provided some 

evidence for an Iron Age date. One of the features was found to cut a ring-ditch, from which the central burial 

provided a radiocarbon date in the Bronze Age. Carefully arranged disarticulated remains from one pit 

alignment which also cut the ring-ditch provided an Iron Age date (AD 40±35; SUERC-3778), and suggested 

that the landscape was being actively divided and demarcated during the Iron Age. 

2.5 ROMAN (AD43 - AD409) 

During the Roman period, evidence for settlement in the area is clearer. Ladybridge Farm lies some distance 

to the west of the modern A1, which follows the route of Roman Dere Street. The road would have been a major 

north-south route, linking the area to forts such as Aldborough and Catterick. The surface of this road has 

previously been identified at Healam Bridge (YAJ 1951, 522-3) and the Baldersby Gate crossroads (YAJ 1943, 

97-9). 

Forts, as noted, exist at Aldborough and Catterick, and more recently a further example and associated vicus was 

identified at Healam Bridge (Jones 1994). The landscape surrounding these forts would have been highly 



Romanised, occupied by the villas and estates of the Roman military elite. The identification of several villas 

in the area attests to relatively high-status occupation in the area. At Well, less than 1km from Nosterfield, 

evidence for a bathhouse complex was excavated, and evidence for a tessellated pavement identified (Gilyard 

Beer 1951; Smith 1969). Another villa was recognised at Castle Dikes, probably dating to the early 2nd century, 

with mosaic floors and fine painted plaster (Berry 1953; Liversidge 1969). 

Closer to the site of Ladybridge Farm, at Nosterfield Quarry, a possible corn-drying oven was excavated which 

was dated archaeomagnetically to the 2nd century AD, providing further evidence for occupation and 

agricultural activity in the area. Though evidence of charred grain or charcoal was not produced, it has been 

suggested that this oven would have been used for drying crops. Pottery assemblages from the quarry at 

Nosterfield have provided evidence for a 2nd to 3rd century settlement in the vicinity, whose inhabitants cooked 

and ate their food in a highly Romanised manner; little evidence for ‘native’ pottery was produced (Precious 

and Vince 2004). 

The Roman assemblages also indicate the development of the palimpsest of the Nosterfield landscape. Many 

of the upper fills of pit alignments and ditches from earlier periods, including at least one ring-ditch, produced 

Roman pottery, demonstrating that these features would have been visible, although disused, during the Roman 

period. The find of a Roman brooch in excavations of the southern henge also attests to this phenomenon 

(Harding 1998, 32). 

2.6 EARLY MEDIEVAL (AD409 - AD1066) 

No archaeological evidence for settlement of early medieval date has been produced from the area, and little 

is known of the development of the landscape during the sub-Roman period. The best evidence for early 

medieval activity comes from antiquarian accounts of furnished burials, beneath a mound at Howe Hill, near 

Carthorpe (Lukis 1870b), and from accounts of finds near Camp Hill. Both sites lie to the northeast of 

Ladybridge Farm, up to 3km away. 

Lukis’ (1870b) account of the burials at Howe Hill records the identification of four burials, which had been 

interred with a variety of grave goods including beads, knives, buckles and strap ends. The description of their 

position suggests that the burials may have been in crouched positions. Lukis (1870b, 180) notes the occurrence 

of these burials on gravel ridges; this is a typical location for Anglo-Saxon burial, occupying high, prominent 

land within the landscape. The burial at Camp Hill is possibly later; Lukis stated, on the basis of the artefacts, 

that the skeleton was ‘evidently of the Danish period’ (Lukis 1870b, 180). 

Evidence for ecclesiastical activity of early medieval date is slightly more prolific. There is known to have been 

an important bishopric established at Ripon by at least the 8th century, and the influence of the church in the 

surrounding area is evidenced by finds of Anglian period sculpture from Magdalen Field and Tanfield Lodge 

(Collingwood 1907; 1911). Whellan (1859) notes an ‘alleged’ chapel near Hall Garth, but no further evidence 

has been recorded for this foundation. These sites are situated to the south of Ladybridge; although tentative, 

it may be that burial activity moved from a slightly elevated landscape towards the lower land of the river valley. 

Many of the settlements in the Nosterfield area are recorded in the Domesday book, suggesting pre-Conquest 



origins, but beyond this, little is known of the early medieval landscape. 

2.7 MEDIEVAL (AD1066 - AD1539) 

By the 12th and 13th century, historical documentation provides clearer evidence for the nature of settlement 

in the area. The landscape appears to have been occupied by dispersed settlement, agricultural land and 

woodland, held by secular and ecclesiastical landholders. Many of the churches in the vicinity have 12th 

century fabric, indicating increased investment in ecclesiastical foundations, presumably to provide pastoral care 

for the rural population. 

Much of the land in the area is thought to have been held by the church, although wealthy landowners are also 

recorded in historical documentation. The surrounding lands would have been given over to strip fields for 

farming, or as common land. The area surrounding Ladybridge Farm belongs to a large tract of common land, 

divided into Nosterfield Common, Thornborough Moor and Tanfield Common. Ladybridge Farm itself lies in 

land previously belonging to Thornborough Moor, known to have been enclosed by c.1799 (FAS 2003, Figure 

5). Strip fields are preserved on 19th century maps, and in the plans of many of the surrounding villages; such 

evidence exists for the areas of land to the south of Ladybridge Farm, west of the village of Thornborough. As 

well as farming and grazing, other resources would have been exploited in the area. For example, documents 

of the 13th century provide evidence for peat extraction, meadows as well as woodland, pasture and farmland. 

Into the 16th century, the settlement pattern appears to have shifted, and a move towards more nucleated 

settlements appears to have been made. Villages such as West Tanfield grew and survived as centres of 

population, while others, including the riverside settlement of East Tanfield, were abandoned. Many deserted 

medieval villages have been identified in the vicinity, with examples at Yarnwick Garth, Kirklington, Nunwick, 

Howgrave and Upsland (Beresford and Hurst 1971). The site at East Tanfield was described by Beresford and 

Hurst (1971, 64) as of ‘medium quality, worthy of preservation’. 

2.8 POST-MEDIEVAL AND MODERN (AD1539 - present) 

Into the post-medieval period, many of the strip fields would have been obliterated with the division and 

allocation of the land after the Enclosure Acts. This would also have resulted in the loss of considerable tracts 

of common land, previously used for grazing and collecting firewood. 

The areas of West Tanfield and Thornborough were enclosed during the 1790s, while land to the southeast, at 

Hutton Moor, remained unenclosed into the earlier years of the 19th century. The plans resulting from these 

enclosures are preserved in many contemporary documents, and have been discussed in more detail in the recent 

desk-based assessment (FAS 2003). The land appears to have remained primarily agricultural, and the 

settlement pattern remains much as it would have been in the 16th century, though from this period onwards, 

land ownership remained in the hands of a small number of wealthy families, whose seats are represented by 

a number of impressive halls in the surrounding landscape (FAS 2003, 35-6). 



Post-medieval and modern extraction 

Evidence also attests to the increasing exploitation of the mineral and aggregate resources of the land throughout 

these centuries (FAS 2003). In 1750, Bowen described the earth of North Yorkshire as ‘full of a valuable 

treasure of metals and minerals, as lead, allum, jet, copperas, marble, pit coals & c.’ (Bowen 1750). The 

underlying Magnesium limestone of the area is known to have been exploited since Roman times for building 

material, and also for cement and lime burning (Page 1914, 477-8). Few historical references relating to this 

industry survive, although cartographic evidence, and visible workings within the landscape provide an 

indication of the scale of such activities. 

Ordnance Survey editions of 1856 label ‘Old Quarries (Limestone), and the ‘Nosterfield lime kilns’ to the west 

of Nosterfield; the fact that such features are not represented on later 18th century maps is of unclear 

significance. Field boundaries are shown crossing these sites in 1792, which may have been in place prior to 

quarrying, or could represent later reclamation of land. However, field names such as ‘Lime Kiln Close’ and 

‘Kiln Close’ shown on enclosure maps suggest that such activity may date back to the post-medieval period or 

earlier. In the wider area, post-medieval quarrying has also been evidenced at Magdalen Wood, near the banks 

of the River Ure. 

The rich deposits of sand and gravel present in the Nosterfield area also attracted quarrying throughout the late 

19th and 20th century (Figure 4), with the most recent phase of mineral extraction being undertaken at 

Nosterfield Quarry, incorporating an earlier sand and gravel pit. Clay and marl may also have been extracted 

from the surrounding area for the production of brick and tile; brickworks in the much wider landscape are 

known from sites near Nunwick, and shown on the early 19th century Ordnance Survey maps. 

2.9 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS 

2.9.1 Fieldwork in the area surrounding Nosterfield Quarry 

Prior to the early 1990s, archaeological fieldwork in the area surrounding Nosterfield had been limited, and 

dominated by antiquarian activity focussed on specific monuments, although some more recent investigation 

of the henges and surrounding barrows was undertaken during the 1950s and 1960s (Thomas 1955; Vatcher 

1960). In 1994, the Vale of Mowbray Neolithic Landscape project began research in the area, which ran until 

1999. This initially took the form of a programme of reconnaissance fieldwalking, carried out between 1994 

and 1997, which led to the identification of domestic activity at some distance from the henge complex (Harding 

1994 to 1998). This project covered a wide area of the surrounding landscape, focussing predominantly in an 

area east of the central Thronborough henge, but extending north into the Nosterfield Quarry area and 

Ladybridge Farm. 

Subsequently, targeted geophysical survey and excavation has been undertaken to investigate a number of 

monuments within the Thornborough complex. An ovate enclosure, identified as cropmarks 250m from the 

eastern end of the cursus was excavated, and revealed a U-shaped section of ditch, interpreted as an early 

Neolithic mortuary enclosure. A topographic survey of the northern henge was undertaken in 1996 by Ed 

Dennison Archaeological Services Ltd. Further excavation was undertaken, with the consent of English 



Heritage, at the Thornborough monument complex itself. Sections of the outer and inner ditch of the southern 

henge were investigated in 1995 and 1997 respectively (Harding and Johnson 2003, 19); the inner ditch 

produced a radiocarbon date of 1695 to 1540 BC (Harding et al 1999), which is considered to be unreliable 

(Harding and Johnson 2003, 19). In 1998, excavation was undertaken at the central henge, where a 20m by 20m 

trench was excavated and again used to identify successive phases of monument development. A pit alignment 

within the Scheduled Ancient Monument area was largely excavated. The feature was explored using 

geophysical survey in 1995 and in 1998-9 was subject to archaeological excavation, when 82 of the 88 pits were 

investigated (Harding and Johnson 2003, 23). This work revealed evidence for post voids and packing stones 

indicative of timber uprights. 

During August and September 2003, a further programme of reconnaissance fieldwalking was carried out in the 

surrounding area, covering land to the north of the central henge, as well as a large area east and north of 

Ladybridge Farm. Total lithic collection was also undertaken in August and September 2003 (Harding 2003, 

16; Harding and Johnson 2004c). This was carried out in four locations which had previously produced flint 

artefacts during fieldwalking, and produced an assemblage of flint artefacts of Mesolithic to Bronze Age date, 

which allowed for identification of changing use of the landscape over time. Following this, forty-two test pits 

were excavated, revealing a number of field boundaries and linear features. 

Geophysical survey of five known round barrows in the vicinity of the henge monuments was undertaken in July 

2003, two of which were then subject to excavation (Harding and Johnson 2004d). Redeposited cremated bone 

was identified in soil which had been badly disturbed by ploughing (Harding 2004d, 10). Excavation of a 

double ditched barrow identified during geophysical survey revealed a number of pits containing skeletal 

remains (Harding 2004d, 16). 

2.9.2 Fieldwork at Nosterfield Quarry 

Prior to, and during research in the surrounding area, a programme of watching briefs, further evaluation and 

survey was carried out on the site of Nosterfield Quarry, to the west of Ladybridge Farm. This work began in 

1991, with a desk-based assessment of the general area, which was followed by a programme of evaluation 

trenches in areas to the south and west of the Ladybridge Farm buildings, undertaken in support of the planning 

application for the current quarry operation (Dalland 1995; FAS 2005a: Investigation 2). 

Following the commencement of gravel extraction at Nosterfield Quarry, watching briefs were carried out as 

each phase progressed, with the agreement of the County Archaeologist. In an area to the north of the 

Nosterfield road, and south of Ladybridge Farm, the watching brief encountered the remains of a number of pits 

and scoops which produced lithics and pottery of Neolithic date (FAS 2005: Investigation 3). Subsequently, 

an area to the west of pre-existing quarry workings at Nosterfield was subject to further watching brief, 

revealing evidence for further pits of likely prehistoric date (FAS 2005: Investigation 4). A watching brief over 

a small area to the east of this, carried out by the West Yorkshire Archaeology Service, revealed no further 

features (FAS 2005: Investigation 5), and a gradiometry survey over an area immediately to the north of the road 

revealed few features of archaeological significance (FAS 2005: Investigation 6). The lack of features which 

could be identified by these methods was highlighted by a watching brief in the same area, which revealed 

evidence for a pit alignment (FAS 2005: Investigation 7). However, a further watching brief to the west of this 



area again revealed no features of archaeological significance (FAS 2005: Investigation 8). In 1998, work was 

undertaken by FAS over a larger area to the northeast of Nosterfield, in the central part of the quarry site, which 

incorporated a watching brief and surface collection (FAS 2005: Investigation 9). This revealed a series of pits, 

with lithic and pottery assemblages, which represented evidence for domestic activity surrounding the site of 

an infilled lake, and which appears to have peaked in the later Neolithic. Investigation of a number of sink holes 

in the area revealed environmental evidence for five periods of woodland recession and radiocarbon dates, 

which allowed these to be placed within a chronological framework. During 1999, work was carried out in an 

area immediately to the north of this intervention, in an area of poorly drained land, known as the Flasks. A 

walkover of the site revealed a number of topographical features which were then recorded (FAS 2005: 

Investigation 10). A watching brief undertaken within the same area revealed a number of features of 

archaeological interest, including a pit alignment and a number of sink holes (FAS 2005: Intervention 11). 

Work began on a large area immediately to the north of Nosterfield in 1999, with a programme of fieldwalking 

in its northern quadrant (FAS 2005: Investigation 12). Few finds were produced, and in the following year, a 

watching brief in the same area produced evidence for a pit-ditch alignment and a number of isolated pits (FAS 

2005: Investigation 13). Further linear features and pits were identified as the work progressed westwards in 

the following year (FAS 2005: Investigation 14). To the south of this, a further phase of watching brief was 

undertaken in 2002-3, revealing a complex of funerary and linear features dating primarily from the Bronze Age 

to the Iron Age (FAS 2005: Investigation 15). Linear features attested to the division of the landscape, and 

draining of agricultural land, into the modern day. These features continued, though in less density, as the 

watching brief progressed further east into the final quadrant of this area, where two square-ditch enclosures, 

possible Iron Age square barrows, were identified (FAS 2005: Investigation 16). 

The most recent phases of work at the quarry were undertaken in its northern area, where a topographic survey 

and auger survey were undertaken in order to further investigate the peat deposits within the infilled Pleistocene 

lake, and subsequent evaluation revealed a number of topographic features to be geological in origin (FAS 2005: 

Investigations 16-18). Future archaeological investigations at Nosterfield Quarry include further evaluation and 

phases of watching brief. 

The archaeological fieldwork at Nosterfield Quarry has demonstrated not only the presence of archaeological 

remains dating from the Neolithic to the Roman period and into the modern day, but also the generally poor state 

of preservation of such material. Centuries of ploughing have damaged many of the features, and removed much 

of the stratigraphic evidence; similar observations have been made during fieldwork in much of the surrounding 

area (Harding and Johnson 2004d, 26). 

2.9.3 Desk-based Assessment 

In support of the planning application to extend mineral extraction at Nosterfield Quarry to the east into the 

Ladybridge Farm area, a desk-based assessment was undertaken in 2003 (FAS 2003). The assessment aimed 

to review existing work and present the results within the context of the wider landscape. Undertaken on two 

levels, this assessment included a comprehensive survey of a 2.5km square area surrounding the quarry site 

(Detailed Study Area), and a more general survey of information from the wider landscape (Landscape Study 

Area). Work included the mapping of archaeological features from aerial photographs and historic maps, and 



a detailed consideration of the North Yorkshire Sites and Monuments Records, which were subsequently 

databased and mapped to allow for discussion of the development of the landscape. 

Cropmarks and Historic Field Boundaries 

During the desk-based assessment of the surrounding area (FAS 2003), a comprehensive study of all available 

aerial photographs was undertaken, and visible cropmarks plotted using AutoCad. Further field boundaries were 

identified from Ordnance Survey maps, and from a number of enclosure maps held at North Yorkshire County 

Record Office, allowing a map of historic field boundaries in the area to be reconstructed (Figure 5). 

The area surrounding Ladybridge Farm formed part of Thornborough Common prior to 1799, when enclosure 

maps record the area to be enclosed. These areas would presumably have been used as common land for local 

settlements, providing pasture and resources. After 1799, the common land was divided and allocated to various 

landholders; large tracts of land were given over to the Earl of Ailesbury. Judging by the lists of field names 

and their land use in 1838, it seems that much of the land was given over to arable farming, with some pasture 

and meadow, and more limited areas recorded as woodland. 

The mapped field boundaries on the Ladybridge Farm site suggest that the southern part of the site was enclosed 

into a series of rectilinear fields aligned north-south along Thornfield Road; the northern part of the site was 

divided east-west. Boundaries shown on the later Ordnance survey maps show these fields to have been further 

subdivided, to form a more irregular pattern of division. Many of these boundaries have since been removed, 

as farming methods have changed. 

A series of linear and curvilinear features were identified as cropmarks, most of which are visible on a 

photograph held by the National Monuments Record (MAL 71178, November 1971, ©NYCC) (Figure 6). 

These features included a series of three, concentric, sub-oval features to the west of Ladybridge Farm which 

were considered to be geological in origin. A large curvilinear cropmark in the northwestern corner of the main 

area of investigation, and a further curvilinear feature in the northern part of the area were considered to be of 

archaeological interest, although it was recognised that they may simply reflect local topography. The remaining 

cropmarks were also potentially archaeological, particularly the very ephemeral circular and curvilinear features 

in the centre of the area of investigation; however, the possibility that these features reflected geological 

variation or land drainage had not been discounted. 

2.9.4 Palaeoenvironment 

The nature of the geology and sediments in the Nosterfield area are such that a number of palaeoenvironmental 

studies have been carried out, most notably concentrating on the peat which had accumulated in a relict lake in 

the north of the Nosterfield Quarry site, and also on sediments within a number of sink holes which have formed 

in the area, caused by the collapse of surface strata due the dissolution of the underlying gypsum deposits. 

Work on peat sediments from the Nosterfield area has been used to discuss the past vegetation and topography 

of the locality, and environmental change. During the earliest phases of investigation at Nosterfield, a 1.0m 

monolith was extracted from the area of the Flasks, which identified phragmites peat, formed in the edge of the 

ancient lake (Berg 1991; FAS 2005: Investigation 1). More recently, a radiocarbon date has been acquired at 



the interface between the marl that formed in this lake and the overlying peat; the resulting date was 8705-8440 

cal BC (Beta-143458; FAS 2005: Appendix F), indicating that the lake had been terrestrialised by the beginning 

of the Mesolithic. 

Analysis of sediments from three sink holes close to the edge of this lake have been subject to sediment analysis, 

with one selected for more detailed palynological study and radiocarbon dating (FAS 2005: Appendix F). This 

work has been used to describe the vegetational history from the late Neolithic to the Iron Age, identifying five 

periods of woodland recession, when the landscape appears to have been characterised by more open land, with 

some limited evidence for cereal production. The final phase of woodland recession, dated to the Iron Age, is 

considered to have been climatically instigated, but the remaining phases are considered to have been the result 

of human activity, and the opening and clearance of woodland (FAS 2005: Appendix F). 

Further environmental evidence from the wider area is represented by samples taken during quarrying adjacent 

to Ripon race course, radiocarbon-dated to 9710 ± 60 BP, which revealed pollen and macrofossils indicative 

of a marshy, damp grassland (Howard et al 2000, 31). This evidence has been used to discuss climate change 

during the Mesolithic, when there is thought to have been a change from an open, woodland environment, to 

greater forestation, with a shift from shrubs, such as juniper or willow, to trees like birch and pine; this situation 

is considered typical of the early Holocene in the British Isles (Howard et al 2000, 35; FAS 2003, 10). 

3.0 EVALUATION STRATEGY 

This programme of archaeological evaluation was designed and executed as a staged investigative programme, 

wherein the results of the early stages were used to inform the detailed design of subsequent stages. A variety 

of non-invasive and invasive investigative techniques were employed including fieldwalking, geophysical 

survey, auger survey, test pitting and evaluation excavation. In addition to the staged programme, existing 

background information consisting of plotted cropmarks derived from aerial photographs and former field 

boundaries digitised from historic maps, were also used to inform the evaluation strategy and the interpretation 

of results. Additionally, the results of previous archaeological investigations in the area also provided valuable 

background information, along with many years of relevant fieldwork experience gained at Nosterfield Quarry 

by members of the FAS Ladybridge Farm evaluation team. 

This staged programme allowed specific areas to be targeted most effectively and with the most appropriate 

technique. Where a sample of the site was investigated using a specific technique, this was undertaken on a 

selective, rather than on a random basis. Accordingly, areas deemed of higher potential, based on the results 

of preceding investigation, were targeted for more intensive study. Due to the variation in land-use, ground 

conditions and archaeological visibility, individual investigative techniques were applied only to areas of the 

site where, based on professional judgement, the technique was considered to be suitable. 

In the case of invasive intervention, a reasonable balance has been achieved between the need for information, 

and the need to minimise damage to the archaeological resource. Test pits were designed to establish whether 

the ploughsoil within the application area contained a significant vertical distribution of lithic material. The 

majority of the test pits were undertaken within the area of subsequent evaluation trenches in order to test the 



ploughsoil in advance of disturbance, and also to provide a guide during machine excavation of the evaluation 

trenches. The machine excavated evaluation trenches represent a 2% sample of the application area. While the 

position of the trenches was determined partly by areas of higher potential identified during the earlier stages 

of the evaluation, a balance was struck whereby the trenching regime also provided a reasonable coverage of 

the site. Elongated rectangular trenches were employed to improve the probability of identifying boundary 

features and defining geological variation. 

3.1 ZONATION 

Due to the size of the site and the variation in land use, the area of investigation was divided into six zones for 

the purposes of project management and recording (Figure 7, Table 1). This approach provided a means of 

assessing the likely variation in archaeological visibility, as well as predicting the relative success of individual 

investigative techniques. 

Table 1 

Zones of investigation 

Zone Land use 

A Arable, cereal crop in 2004 

B Arable, with access track to the north, cereal crop in 2004 

C Arable, cereal crop in 2004 

D Arable, beet crop in 2004 

E 

Pasture 

F 

Pasture with small pond to the south 

3.2 INTERVENTIONS 

In order to create a structured and consistent project archive from data-sets derived from the application of 

different techniques of investigation, each separate operation was assigned an intervention number (Table 2). 

An intervention was defined either by an area examined or by the application of a technique. 

Table 2 

Archaeological interventions 

Intervention Zone Activity Date 

1 A, B, C, D Fieldwalking Oct 2003, May 2004 

2 A, B, E, F Auger survey Oct 2003, Jan 2004 

3 F, E Topgraphic survey Oct 2003, Jan 2004 

4 A, B, C, E Magnetometer survey Nov-Dec 2003 

5 A, B, D Soil resistance survey Jan-Feb 2004 

6 A, B, C, D, E Test pits (x112 1m x 1m) March 2004, Aug-Oct 2004 

7 D Evaluation trench (100m x 4m) March 2004 





Intervention Zone Activity Date 





14 C Evaluation trench (3m x 3m) April 2004 









23 C Evaluation trench (100m x 4m) Aug-Oct 2004 

24 C Evaluation trench (50m x 8m) Aug-Oct 2004 

25 B Evaluation trench (100m x 4m) Aug-Oct 2004 







32 A Evaluation trench (100m x 4m) Aug-Oct 2004 










42 E Evaluation trench (100m x 4m) Oct 2004 

3.3 SURVEY 

A site grid was established for recording purposes, and all boundaries and features within and around the area 

of investigation were surveyed using a total station theodolite. The resulting map was then rectified to the 

Ordnance Survey National Grid. A series of survey stations were then set out around the site to facilitate 

accurate surveying and recording during all phases of the evaluation programme. All co-ordinates and 

alignments expressed in this report refer to the Ordnance Survey National Grid; all heights are expressed in 



metres above ordnance datum (AOD). 

3.4 FIELDWORK CONSTRAINTS 

The site is currently a working farm. In order to limit the destruction of crops and disruption to the farming 

regime, stages of the evaluation were undertaken during periods when damage and disruption could be 

minimised. This resulted in stages of the evaluation programme being undertaken at different times in different 

zones of the site, and in one instance, it was necessary to undertake stages of the investigation out of the logical 

sequence. 

Certain areas of the site became inaccessible due to the presence of surface water during wet weather (Zones 

E and F). Investigation of these areas was therefore undertaken after long spells of dry weather. 

4.0 FIELDWALKING 

The fieldwalking programme was carried out in two phases due to different crop regimes across the site. The 

first phase covered an area of approximately 30 hectares (Zones A, B, and C) and was undertaken in October 

2003. Due to the presence of a beet crop in the southeastern part of the site (Zone D), and the need to undertake 

the evaluation excavation work prior to the ploughing and re-sowing of the area, the fieldwalking was 

undertaken after the evaluation excavation had been completed. This second phase of fieldwalking covered an 

area of approximately 11 hectares and was carried out in May 2004. 

The ground conditions during the first stage of the fieldwalking resulted in moderate visibility, with a young 

relatively dense cereal crop partially obscuring the weathered and dry ground surface. Visibility during the 

walking of Zone D were considered to be good, with a recently ploughed and weathered ground surface. 

4.1 FIELDWALKING PROCEDURE 

In order to ensure complete fieldwalking coverage of ploughed areas, and to avoid any duplication of coverage, 

ranging poles were used to divide the site into smaller working areas. These areas were then further sub-divided 

into 2.0m traverses which were fieldwalked. All finds were bagged and secured to the find-spot using a 

surveying flag. Each find was then allocated a unique find number using pre-numbered tags and its 3-D position 

recorded using a total station theodolite. 

All finds were processed and catalogued. Information relating to location, material type and identity were then 

entered into an Access database. XYZ coordinate files were then exported into AutoCAD in order to generate 

distribution plots. 

4.2 FIELDWALKING RESULTS 

A total of 1,460 finds were recovered during the fieldwalking programme. The majority of the finds were 

ceramic (625) or ceramic building material (545), with a further 290 finds, of which 201 were lithics, 73 were 



modern glass and the remaining 16 modern metalwork (Figure 8). 

4.2.1 Ceramics 

With the exception of one sherd of a Roman oxidised ware jar and two sherds of glazed local medieval pottery, 

the ceramic finds were of post-medieval or modern date. This assemblage consisted of transfer printed wares 

(184 sherds), glazed earthenwares (109 sherds), English stoneware (sixty-four sherds), fragments of clay pipe 

(forty-two), white china (214 sherds) and miscellaneous glazed china (nine sherds). The assemblage is 

predominantly of 18th to 20th century date and was spread relatively evenly throughout the site (Figure 9). 

Although Zone D contained a higher density of ceramic finds, this is likely to be due to enhanced recovery as 

a result of improved visibility during fieldwalking in comparison with Zones A, B and C. Alternatively, Zone 

D may have undergone different agricultural regimes, or belonged to different owners, particularly since the 

clusters appear to be contained within historic field divisions. The date and distribution of the assemblage 

indicates that this material was derived from manuring. 

4.2.2 Ceramic Building Material 

The assemblage of ceramic building material (CBM) included 240 undiagnostic fragments, 203 fragments of 

pantile, eighty-four fragments of brick, ten fragments of field drain, seven fragments of drain pipe, and one 

fragment of white glazed wall tile. The assemblage was entirely post-medieval and modern in date. The 

distribution of the material was similar to that of the ceramic material, with concentrations reflecting the former 

field divisions (Figure 10). Two clusters of CBM were identified in the northeastern corner of the area of 

investigation (Zone A) and one in Zone D, although both are reflected in the ceramic distribution. The clusters 

are therefore more likely to represent areas of greater manuring or ploughed out rubbish dumps rather than the 

locations of the remains of small agricultural buildings. 

4.2.3 Other finds 

An assemblage of eighty-nine non-ceramic and non-lithic finds were also recovered (Figure 11). A total of 

seventy-three fragments of glass were identified as sherds from bottles and windows including metal-reinforced 

and car headlight glass. The material was entirely post-medieval and modern in date. The remaining sixteen 

finds included animal bone, metal, and plastic, which were also entirely modern in date. 

4.2.4 Lithics 

An assemblage of 215 pieces of lithic material was collected during fieldwalking. The total included 188 pieces 

of worked flint, twenty-five pieces of chert, of which seven chert pieces, as well as a piece of natural blue agate 

and a quartz pebble were identified as natural and are not discussed further; all the material has been the subject 

of a specialist assessment and is discussed in detail and catalogued in Appendix B. The distribution of all lithic 

material is presented in Figure 12. 

The majority of the assemblage (73.5%) has been identified as small flakes or angular debitage; a total of two 

blades were also identified as well as five cores. These categories of material have also been plotted and their 



distribution is presented in Figure 13. In addition, four projectiles, sixtynine 

retouched and utilised pieces, and twenty-two scrapers were identified 

within the assemblage. Projectiles included a crude leaf-shaped arrowhead 

dated broadly to the Neolithic to Bronze Age. Two transverse arrowheads 

were collected, one dateable to the early Neolithic and one from the late 

Neolithic onwards. A barbed and tanged arrowhead was recovered and is 

broadly dateable to the early Bronze Age, and often has Beaker associations 

(Plate 1). Scrapers were the most common tools found, with twenty-two 

examples; nine were fragments which were too small to be diagnostic and 

four are not diagnostic of date. A total of nine scrapers were dateable; three 

end scrapers may be early Neolithic and six small circular or thumbnail 

scrapers date to the Early Bronze Age (Plates 2 and 3). In addition, fiftythree 

flakes and blades showed evidence for retouch and use. Of these, four 

were probably Mesolithic in date, one was Neolithic and two were 

chronologically undiagnostic. A total of ninety-six flint tools were 

identified and included projectiles, scrapers, retouched flakes and an awl, 

a fabricator and burin. Dateable lithics were plotted and their distribution 

is presented in Figure 14; Figure 15 shows the distribution of tools, as well 

as and including thirty-two burnt flints. 

Plate 1 Barbed and Tanged 

arrowhead 

The overall distribution of lithic material is weighted towards the southern 

area of the investigation and most particularly towards Zone C. As a result, 

the majority of flint waste, tools, dateable pieces and burnt lithic material 

is distributed across the same area. 

The Vale of Mowbray Neolithic Landscape Project (VMNLP) has 

undertaken three phases of reconnaissance fieldwalking within the site 

(Harding 1997, Harding 2003, Harding and Johnson 2004b). The 

fieldwalking targeted lithic material and was undertaken along transects set 

out at 15m intervals. Zone C was walked in 1996 as Field 21, and produced 

a significant lithic assemblage including three possible fragments of early 

Neolithic leaf shaped arrowheads, two possible late Neolithic end scrapers, 

and a fragment of knife of early Bronze Age date. The southern half of 

Zone B was also walked in 1996 as Field 24, and yielded a much smaller 

assemblage which included a late Neolithic or early Bronze Age serrated 

blade and a possible Late Neolithic end scraper. Zone A and the northern 

half of Zone B were walked in 2003, a few months prior to the FAS 

fieldwalking programme. This area was allocated Field 50, and produced 

a very small assemblage of only fifteen lithics. The assemblage included 

two Neolithic scrapers, two possible early Neolithic cores, and a late 

Mesolithic microlith. 

Plate 2 Circular scraper (broken) 

Plate 3 Thumbnail scrapers 

Both the FAS and the VMNLP fieldwalking programmes produced similar distributions of lithic material. In 



both cases, the highest density was recovered in Zone C, with a rapid fall-off of lithic finds to the north in Zone 

B, and a gradual reduction of lithics to the east. Interestingly, the density of lithic finds from the FAS survey 

was found to increase in the southern part of Zone D, however, this may have been due to better ground 

conditions, as well as the fact that this area had not been recently walked by another team prior to surface 

collection. 

5.0 AUGER AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY 

An auger survey was carried out in order to map the subsurface ground deposits and identify areas of 

palaeoenvironmental potential. The survey was carried out on lower ground near to existing watercourses, over 

potential sink holes and adjacent to areas where peat had been found. The auger survey was undertaken during 

October 2003 in and around a small field on the eastern side of the area of investigation (Zone F), which was 

known to contain peat deposits. This survey was extended to investigate several depressions and low lying areas 

of the site during January 2004 (Zones A, B, and E) (Figure 16). In conjunction with the auger survey a 

topographic survey of Zones E and F was also undertaken. 

5.1 SURVEY PROCEDURE 

Traverses were established using ranging poles and tapes. Augers were undertaken at 20.0m intervals using a 

30mm open chamber or gouge hand-auger. The open chamber auger provided a continuous profile through 

deposits which could be cleaned, observed, measured, and recorded on proforma record sheets. Where the 

results of adjacent augers demonstrated distinct changes in the underlying deposits, intermediate augers were 

undertaken to characterise these changes more fully. The location of each auger position was recorded using 

a total station theodolite. 

The ground surface within Zones E and F was the subject of a detailed contour survey. Coded ‘strings’ of data 

were recorded to locate significant breaks of slope within the survey area. This data was then supplemented 

with an array of data points across the survey area. The resulting contour map was generated using LisCAD 

software and was produced at 0.20m intervals 

5.2 SURVEY RESULTS 

5.2.1 Zone F 

Zone F is a field of established pasture surrounded by arable land. The eastern edge the field boundary is 

marked by a deep drainage ditch with upcast thrown onto the field which has created a prominent bank along 

the edge. A small pond is situated on the southern side which is thought to be fed by a spring. A series of land 

drains run east-west, and a recent north-south water main has been installed through the middle of the field. 

Zone F represented the lowest area of ground within the area of investigation, situated approximately between 

the 39m and 40m AOD contour. The topographic survey demonstrated that the boundaries of the field occupy 

the highest areas of land within this Zone, at approximately 40m AOD. From this level, the ground slopes down 



towards a large hollow in the northeastern corner of the field, to approximately 39.20m AOD. Generally, the 

gradients from the western and southeastern edges of Zone F, were found to be steepest; the central part of the 

area formed a more gradual slope towards the northeast. 

The topsoil varied from a coarse desiccated peat on the eastern side of Zone F, to a dry thin sandy silt elsewhere, 

although a very thin topsoil covered the ditch upcast. The underlying subsoil was a sterile sandy gravel. 

Extensive areas of peat and clay were identified beneath the topsoil (Figures 17 to 19). The deepest strata were 

recorded at the southern end where the deposits were in excess of 1.50m deep (Augers 48, 53 and 59). The 

lowest levels consisted of a grey sandy alluvial clay which overlay the natural subsoil. The clay varied in 

thickness from 0.08m (Auger 41) to 0.66m (Auger 59), although there was no obvious pattern of accumulation. 

The clay produced occasional fragments of fibrous material and black flecks, possibly charcoal, were recorded 

in Auger 25. 

Peat deposits were encountered along the eastern side of the field, lying directly over the natural subsoil, but 

it also occasionally sealed the grey clay. It varied in thickness from 0.08m (Auger 9) to 0.83m (Auger 47), but 

it was generally deeper at the southern end of the field. 

5.2.2 Zone E 

Zone E consists of two fields, a lower field to the west and a higher field to the east, separated by a hedge and 

a steep slope. The lower field was under pasture and was surrounded to the west and south by quarry workings. 

The northern side was defined by a stream, beyond which were more extensive areas of pasture known as the 

Flasks. A small area of standing water covered the northwest corner of the field, between the 39.30m to 39.50m 

contours. 

The topographic survey of Zone E detected a discrete feature within this area, with a distinct north-south terrace 

being identified. In the eastern part of the site, the land is undulating, with lower lying areas in the northeastern 

corner, and at its southern edge. The ground was seen to rise gently to 42m AOD in the southeastern corner of 

the site. Where the current field boundary divides the two fields which comprise Zone E, a steep scarp was 

noted approximately 1.65m high. In the western part of the site, land was found to fall away very gently towards 

the northwest, varying by less than 0.6m. 

In Zone E the topsoil varied in depth from 0.15m to 0.50m, although 0.30m to 0.40m represented a typical depth. 

In the lower field where a wide range of topsoil depths were recorded, it consisted of a light desiccated peat with 

a loose dry crumb structure (Figures 20 to 21). This deposit overlay a substantial deposit of marl, which 

extended over all but the extreme eastern side of the field. The marl deposit was found to be up to 1.10m thick 

(Auger 76), depending upon the depth of the local subsoil. Small areas of peat may survive in this area, but only 

in buried sink holes, for which there was no evidence on the surface. In the higher field, a sandy silt topsoil 

directly overlay the natural sands and gravels. 

The presence of the terrace and extensive deposit of marl in the lower field has been equated with the edge of 

an in-filled lake, which had silted up by the Neolithic period, and has been explored through archaeological 

investigation and environmental sampling in the adjacent Nosterfield Quarry site (FAS 2005). Further west, 



the location of the lake was only demonstrable through the presence of peat deposits; the slope identified during 

topographic survey in Zone E may represent the only extant topographic evidence for the possible limits of the 

former prehistoric lake. Although the lack of peat deposits in this area may simply be due to the natural 

processes of dessication and erosion, the possibility that these deposits were extracted as a fuel source should 

not be disregarded. 

5.2.3 Zones A and B 

The survey data acquired during the auger survey and fieldwalking in Zones A-C was utilised to create a contour 

survey of the area. The topography of the larger, central area of the site, comprising Zones A to D, was found 

to be gently undulating, with the highest point of land located at the southwestern corner of Zone C, at 43m 

AOD. From this point, the land within Zones B and D slopes away in a northeasterly direction, towards the 

lower ground of Zone F. In the northern part of the site, Zone A, land was found to be more undulating. A 

roughly central, suboval hollow was identified, reaching approximately 39.60m AOD. In the northwestern part 

of Zone A, the land was found to slope sharply down towards the corner of the field, forming a curving bank 

from 41m to 40m AOD. In the northeastern corner of Zone A, the gradient is gentler, again descending towards 

a low lying area in the corner of the field. 

Zones A and B were part of a much larger arable area that included Zones C and D. The topsoil consisted of 

firm clayey silt which overlay a gravelly subsoil with local patches of sterile sand and clay. Zone A was defined 

to the north and east by a substantial drainage ditch/stream that drained water from an area to the north and west 

of the Flasks. Four separate areas were sampled during the extended auger survey. 

An array of twelve auger holes were undertaken in the northwest corner of Zone A, situated between the 39.30 

to 38.70m contour (Figure 22). The topsoil was found to vary in thickness from 0.15m to 0.40m, the deeper area 

having accumulated at the foot of a natural slope (Auger 122). No buried deposits other than the gravel and silt 

natural subsoil were identified. In the northeast corner of Zone A, another similar array encountered a deposit 

of alluvial clay, measuring between 0.03m to 0.47m thick, sealed beneath topsoil. An auger transect in Zone 

B defined a similar clay deposit, although here it was only a maximum of 0.18m thick (Auger 147). 

A fourth array targeted a slight depression near the centre of Zone A. This topographic feature appeared to be 

similar to features identified as sink holes encountered during different stages of the watching brief at 

Nosterfield Quarry (FAS 2005). All three augers (Augers 144 to 146) produced evidence for buried organic 

strata, to a depth of at least 2.40m, although the lower parts of Auger 145 were not retrieved because of wet 

conditions. The deeper deposits were characterised by a dark brown clayey silt with fibrous/organic inclusions. 

Above this, a coarse fibrous peat, 0.50m to 0.90m thick, was identified. This was sealed by a dark grey silty 

clay with macroscopic organic inclusions. Overlying this was the current topsoil, although at 0.85m thick, only 

the upper levels were in the active plough zone. The lower part of this deposit became a desiccated peat which 

in Auger 144 was found to be 0.15m thick. 

The auger survey identified several low-lying areas of the site which contained organic deposits. A full 

palaeoenvironmental assessment of the potential of these deposits is given in section 10.1. 



6.0 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY 

A targeted magnetometer pilot study was undertaken in November 2003 in order to assess the effectiveness of 

magnetometry on the site. Although the results were not wholly conclusive, a magnetometer area survey of 12 

hectares was carried out in Zones A, B, C, and D, during December 2003. Given the relatively disappointing 

results of the magnetometer area survey, a targeted soil resistance pilot study was undertaken in January 2004. 

A soil resistance area survey covering 2 hectares was then employed to investigate Zone D during February 2004 

(Figure 23). 

6.1 SURVEY PROCEDURE 

The external edges of the survey areas were set out using a total station theodolite, with intermediate points 

being positioned using tapes. This procedure ensured an internal grid point accuracy of ±0.05m for the survey. 

6.1.1 Magnetometer survey 

Magnetometry measures subtle magnetic variation against a consistent magnetic background. Metalwork creates 

significant magnetic variation, while archaeological features and deposits which contain debris from burning 

or organic decay will create more subtle variations, both of which can be mapped. 

This survey was carried out using a fluxgate gradiometer with digital storage and data transfer facilities (FM36 

with ST1 sample trigger - manufactured by Geoscan Research). Each survey grid was undertaken using the 

parallel traverse method (unidirectionally) to ensure the capture of good quality raw data. Instrument readings 

were logged at 0.25m intervals along 1.0m traverses. On the completion of four survey grids the data was 

transferred from the FM36 to a portable computer where it was checked for survey defects. 

The raw data was processed using Geoplot version 2.02. This involved the adjustment of any differences in the 

average background reading between individual survey grids as well as inconsistencies caused by instrument 

drift, which were removed to facilitate clear presentation of the data sets. The processed data was transferred 

to Surfer version 6.2 in which it was prepared for presentation and the resulting greyscale images were imported 

into AutoCAD and output on a high definition laser printer. Raw data and trace plots are provided as Appendix 

C. 

6.1.2 Soil resistance survey 

This technique involves passing an electrical current through an area of ground and measuring the ground’s 

resistance to the current. Although soil particles and stone are insulators and do not conduct electricity, the 

presence of water which is a good conductor allows these materials to conduct an electrical current. In effect, 

a soil resistance survey maps moisture content. Archaeological deposits vary in character and composition and 

have different moisture retention qualities which can often be mapped by a soil resistance meter. 

This survey was carried out using a soil resistance meter with digital storage and data transfer facilities (RM15 

Advanced - manufactured by Geoscan Research). The RM15 was used with a MPX15 multiplexer connected 



to a PA5 probe array fitted with three probes. The use of a multiplexer and multiple probe array allows a series 

of different readings to be taken at the same point. In this case, two readings at 0.5m probe separation and one 

at 1.0m probe separation were logged at each point. This method produces two data-sets: firstly, a higher 

resolution data set with readings at 0.5m x 1.0m intervals (0.5m probe spacing), and secondly, a lower resolution 

data set with readings at 1.0m x 1.0m intervals (1.0m probe spacing). The first data-set produces a higher 

definition image of soil resistance anomalies, while the second, with wider probe spacing, provides a coarser 

image of soil resistance at greater depth. 

The raw data was processed using Geoplot version 2.02. This involved the adjustment of any differences in the 

average background reading between individual survey grids, as well as inconsistencies caused by changing 

climatic conditions, which were removed to facilitate clear presentation of the data-sets. The processed data 

was transferred to Surfer version 6.2, in which it was prepared for presentation, and the resulting greyscale 

images were imported into AutoCAD and output on a laser printer. Raw data plots are provided as Appendix 

C. 

6.2 MAGNETOMETER SURVEY RESULTS 

6.2.1 Magnetometer Pilot Study 

Two areas were selected for the magnetometer pilot study, a 50.0m x 100.0m area in the northern part of Zone 

B (B1) and a 60.0m x 90.0m area within Zone C (C1). B1 was designed to investigate weak circular and 

curvilinear cropmark features (see Figure 6) and C1 was positioned in an area where fieldwalking had identified 

a concentration of lithic material. The results of the magnetometer pilot study are presented as Figure 24 and 

the interpretation of the results as Figure 25. 

A total of four anomalies were identified within area B1 and allocated F1 to F4. These have been interpreted 

as follows: 

F1 

This is a positive curvilinear anomaly forming an irregular ‘u’-shape in plan and measuring 

approximately 21.00m x 1.00m. The feature roughly corresponds with the plotted position of a weak 

circular cropmark feature. 

F2 

This is a positive anomaly measuring 2.60m in diameter. The anomaly may represent a pit or sink hole. 

F3 

This is a positive anomaly measuring 3.00m in diameter located 6.00m to the south of F2. The anomaly 

may represent a pit or sink hole. 

F4 

This is a relatively large positive anomaly measuring 4.00m in diameter located in the southwestern 

corner of area B1. The anomaly may represent a pit or sink hole. 

Within C1, the magnetometer pilot results consist of a series of linear positive and negative north-south 

anomalies, which are likely to be the result of modern ploughing. There are also some possible positive and 

negative anomalies, but these are too weak and obscure to interpret confidently. 



The magnetometer pilot study demonstrated that magnetometry was capable of defining sub-surface features 

which may represent archaeological remains. The identification of the four positive anomalies, one of which 

had also been identified as a cropmark from aerial photography, resulted in a magnetometer area survey of 

approximately 25% of the site being undertaken. 

6.2.2 Magnetometer Area Survey 

The results of the magnetometer pilot study indicated that magnetometry would potentially identify 

archaeological features, and resulted in an initial 25% sample of the area of investigation being the subject of 

a magnetometer area survey. The sample was distributed across the site as follows (see Figure 23): three areas 

were positioned within Zone A (A1, A2 and A3). A1 and A2 both measured 100.0m x 200.0m and were 

orientated north-south and A3 measured 300.0m x 50.0m and was orientated east-west. These areas were 

selected in order to ensure a reasonable coverage of Zone A, but also to target curvilinear and linear cropmarks 

previously located in the zone. Two areas were defined for Zone B, B1 and B2, both of which measured 100.0m 

x 250.0m; B1 was orientated east-west and subsumed the area of the pilot study, and B2 was orientated northsouth. 

B1 was designed to explore further the cropmark features within the zone and to investigate a larger area 

around the pilot area due to the presence of circular anomalies. B2, along with C1, were designed to further 

explore the lithic concentration identified by the fieldwalking. C1 measured 60.0m x 180.0m and subsumed the 

area of the pilot study. Zone D was not available for survey due to the presence of a beet crop. A single area 

was designed for best coverage within Zone E, E1, which measured 100.0m x 100.0m. The results of the 

magnetometer survey are presented in Figure 26; the interpretation of the results is presented in Figure 27. 

Area A 

A total of seventeen anomalies were identified within Zone A, ten in A1 and seven in A2; no anomalies were 

identified within A3. 

The ten anomalies within A1 were allocated F5 to F14 inclusive. Modern east-west ploughing, with some 

indication of north-south ploughing, was visible within the area. 

F5 

This is a weak magnetic anomaly consisting of two curvilinear elements. The westernmost element 

appears as a tight curvilinear anomaly measuring approximately 5.0m long x 3.30m across and 0.70m 

in width. Approximately 4.70m to the east a broader curvilinear anomaly has been identified 14.80m 

long x 0.70m wide. This anomaly may represent small enclosures. 

F6 

This is a sub-circular weak magnetic anomaly measuring approximately 5.35m in diameter. The 

anomaly may represent a pit or sink hole. 

F7 

This is a series of six sub-circular strong magnetic anomalies which are arranged in an approximate 

right angle with an outlier to the west. They measure between 2.60 and 3.90m in diameter. The 

anomalies may represent a series of pits or sink holes or could indicate linear features. 

F8 

This is a weak magnetic anomaly consisting of two curvilinear elements. The northernmost element 



appears as a tight curvilinear anomaly measuring approximately 9.70m long x 6.20m across and 0.80m 

in width. Approximately 3.95m to the south a curvilinear anomaly orientated approximately east-west 

and turning 90 degrees at the east has been identified and measures 20.80m long x 0.80m wide. This 

anomaly may represent small enclosures. 

F9 

This is a strong magnetic linear anomaly visible for a length of 98.00m and measuring approximately 

1.00m wide. The anomaly is orientated NNE-SSW and may represent a field drain or enclosure. 

F10 

This is a weak sub-circular anomaly measuring approximately 6.00m in diameter. This anomaly may 

represent a pit or sink hole. 

F11 

This is a weak magnetic anomaly consisting of a curvilinear and a possibly rectilinear element. The 

westernmost element appears as an almost crescentic anomaly measuring approximately 14.00m long 

x 0.60m wide. Immediately to the east a possibly rectilinear anomaly orientated approximately northsouth 

and turning 90 degrees at the south has been identified and measures 19.50m long before 

disappearing beyond the eastern limit of A1; the anomaly measures x 0.60m wide. This anomaly may 

represent small enclosures. 

F12 

This is a strong linear, possibly rectilinear magnetic anomaly measuring approximately 18.50 long x 

1.00m wide. The anomaly is orientated north-south and turns 90 degrees at the north where it 

disappears beyond the western limit of A1. The anomaly may represent a field enclosure or field drain. 

F13 

This is a weak magnetic anomaly consisting of a curvilinear and a short linear element. The 

westernmost element appears as an almost slightly irregular curvilinear anomaly measuring 

approximately 15.20m long x 0.50m wide. Immediately to the east a possibly short linear anomaly 

orientated approximately NW-SE has been identified and measures 7.60m long x 0.50m wide. This 

anomaly may represent small enclosures. 

F14 



The seven anomalies identified within A2 were allocated F15 to F21. Modern east-west ploughing, with some 

indication of north-south ploughing, was also clearly defined within the area. 

F15 

This anomaly is a series of three curvilinear elements. To the north, a curvilinear element has been 

identified and covers an area measuring 16.80m x 12.0m. To the south, two smaller ‘u’-shaped 

curvilinear elements have been identified and measure 8.90m x 5.90m and 9.10m x 5.5m respectively. 

The anomaly may represent small enclosures. 

F16 

This is a strong amorphous anomaly measuring approximately 9.50m x 5.60m. This anomaly may 


F17 

This is a small strong circular magnetic anomaly measuring approximately 3.60m in diameter. This 




F18 

This anomaly consists of two strong magnetic anomalies orientated east-west parallel to one another. 

The northern anomaly measures 33.20m x 1.10m; the southern is slightly more irregular but measures 

29.80m x 1.00m. The anomaly may represent modern ploughing, field enclosure or field drains. 

F19 

This anomaly consists of two linear strong magnetic anomalies. The northern anomaly is orientated 

north-south and measures 13.15m x 1.00m; the southern anomaly is orientated east-west and measures 

18.20m x 1.00m. The anomaly may represent modern ploughing and could be part of the same anomaly 

allocated F18. 

F20 

This is a strong magnetic circular anomaly measuring approximately 5.20m in diameter. This anomaly 


F21 



With the exception of modern east-west ploughing, no convincing anomalies were identified within A3. 

Area B 

Only a single additional anomaly was identified within B1 and was allocated F22. The large, weak positive and 

negative amorphous areas located in the eastern part of B1 were interpreted as geological variations. Modern 

east-west ploughing was also clearly visible within the area. 

F22 

This is a strong magnetic circular anomaly measuring approximately 2.60m in diameter. This anomaly 


A total of five anomalies have been identified within B2 and allocated F23 to F27. Modern north-south 

ploughing was also well defined within the area. 

F23 

This is a strong magnetic sub-oval anomaly measuring approximately 6.30m x 3.60m. This anomaly 


F24 



F25 

This anomaly consists of three weak magnetic elements, two curvilinear elements and a short linear 

element. The linear element is orientated approximately north-south and measures 4.20m long x 0.70m 

wide. To its west a small possibly curvilinear element has been identified and is orientated 

approximately north-south and curves in a westward direction at the southern end. The anomaly 

measures 6.90m long x 0.60m wide. To the south of both a broader curvilinear element has been 

identified and measures approximately 18.00m x 0.60m. The anomaly may represent small enclosures. 



F26 

The anomaly consists of a group of four weak magnetic anomalies, a cluster of three anomalies to the 

south and a single irregular but broadly linear anomaly to the north. The clustered curvilinear anomalies 

consist of two opposing anomalies measuring approximately 11.10m x 0.70m and 9.00m x 0.70m 

respectively. Within these anomalies, a small curvilinear anomaly is situated and is orientated 

approximately NNW-SSE and measures 4.00m in length x 0.50m in width. The northernmost anomaly 

of F26 consists of an irregular but linear anomaly measuring 10.0m x 0.50m wide, orientated 

approximately NE-SW, and turns 90 degrees at the northeastern end. At the southwestern end the 

feature disappears beyond the western limit of B2. The anomaly may represent small enclosures. 

F27 

This is a strong magnetic large sub-circular anomaly measuring approximately 8.90m in diameter. This 


Area C 

A total of three features have been identified within C1 and allocated F28 to F30, along with clearly defined 

north-south modern ploughing. 

F28 



F29 

This is a strong magnetic large sub-circular anomaly measuring approximately 9.50m in diameter. This 

anomaly may represent a large pit or sink hole. 

F30 

This is a strong magnetic slightly irregular sub-circular anomaly measuring approximately 5.30m x 

3.70m. This anomaly may represent a pit or sink hole. 

Area E 

A single very weak positive anomaly (F31) was defined within Area E1, along with east-west, and possibly 

north-south, modern ploughing. F31 may represent an archaeological feature, although regular curvilinear swirls 

within the data suggests that F31 may simply be the result of local ground conditions or variation in the local 

geology. 

Although the magnetometer area survey clearly defined the results of modern ploughing and several possible 

sink holes, the results were considered to be fairly disappointing. Many of the possible archaeological features 

defined by the survey were very weak magnetic anomalies which are often found to result from geological 

variation, or magnetic variations in the topsoil. Based upon experience gained at Nosterfield Quarry, many 

archaeological features in the area, particularly boundary features, often contain fairly sterile fills which are 

unlikely to exhibit any significant magnetic variation in comparison to the surrounding subsoil. With this 

limitation in mind, it was decided to test the effectiveness of soil resistance on the site, rather than extending 

the inconclusive magnetometer area survey. 



6.3 SOIL RESISTANCE SURVEY RESULTS 

6.3.1 Soil Resistance Pilot Study 

Due to the relatively inconclusive results of the magnetometer area survey, a pilot soil resistance survey was 

undertaken. Two areas were targeted, a 60.0m x 90.0m area in Zone A (A1) and a 60.0m x 90.0m area in Zone 

B (B1). Both of these areas were targeted due to the presence of cropmark features; within Zone A these 

appeared as linear features and within Zone B the curvilinear features noted prior to the magnetometry were 

targeted again. The results of the pilot soil resistance survey are presented in Figures 28 and 29 and the 

interpretation of the results in Figure 30. 

A total of seven anomalies were identified within A1, six low resistance and one high resistance. In addition, 

an area of high resistance and an area of low resistance were identified and interpreted as variation in the 

underlying subsoil. 

F32 

This is a circular low resistance anomaly measuring approximately 4.30m in diameter. The anomaly 


F33 This is a circular low resistance anomaly measuring approximately 3.20m in diameter situated 9.80m 

to the south of F32. The anomaly may represent a pit or sink hole. 

F34 

This is a linear low resistance anomaly orientated NNW-SSE with a western spur orientated 

approximately east-west. The anomalies are visible for a length of 94.50m and 12.20m respectively. 

The weaker response on the 1.0m probe spacing results suggests that this anomaly may be fairly 

shallow. These anomalies may represent field enclosure or field drains. 

F35 

This is a circular low resistance anomaly measuring 3.50m in diameter. The anomaly may represent 

a pit or sink hole. 

F36 

This is a circular low resistance anomaly measuring 2.35m in diameter situated 4.80m to the southwest 

of F35. The anomaly may represent a pit or sink hole. 

F37 

This is a high resistance curvilinear possibly sub-oval anomaly situated in the southern part of A1. The 

anomaly is orientated approximately east-west and measures c.33.0m across x 18.50m in width. The 

anomaly may represent a small enclosure or geological variation. 

F38 

This is a high resistance curvilinear anomaly consisting of a north-south length extending for a distance 

of 34.40m before turning approximately 90 degrees to the west and continuing for a length of 22.0m. 

The second element consists of an east-west length measuring 30.70m before it disappears beyond the 

western limit of A1. 

A total of six anomalies have been identified within B1 and allocated F39 to F44. In addition, a high resistance 

anomaly located in the southeastern corner has been interpreted as geological variation. Two areas of low soil 



resistance and one of high resistance were identified and interpreted as variation in the natural subsoil. 

F39 

This is an amorphous low resistance anomaly measuring approximately 5.20m x 4.0m. The anomaly 


F40 

This is a possible rectilinear low resistance anomaly orientated NNE-SSW and NNW-SSE measuring 

34.80m and 16.50m respectively. The anomaly may represent a field enclosure or field drain. 

F41 

This is a sub-oval high resistance anomaly measuring approximately 34.80m x 16.5m in diameter. The 

anomaly may represent local variation in the underlying natural subsoil. 

F42 

This is an amorphous low resistance anomaly measuring approximately 12.50m x 5.60m. The anomaly 

may represent a pit, sink hole, or variation in the local geology. 

F43 

This is a group of three small circular low resistance anomalies orientated NW-SE measuring 1.50m, 

2.00m, and 1.75m in diameter. The anomalies may represent pits or sink holes. 

F44 

This is a group of two large circular low resistance anomalies measuring 4.00m and 5.50m in diameter 

situated 4.30m to the southwest of F43. The anomalies may represent pits or sink holes. 

The soil resistance pilot study detected possible field enclosures, isolated anomalies and other possible features. 

The results of the pilot study indicated that soil resistance may prove to be a more reliable method of detecting 

a broader range of sub-surface features. As such, a soil resistance area survey was employed to investigate 

Zone D, which had become available for study, having not been accessible during the magnetometer area survey. 

6.3.2 Soil Resistance Area Survey 

A cruciform-shaped sample area was designed to target possible linear features in the zone. The survey area 

consisted of two linear areas which crossed one another. These measured 30.0m x 330.0m north-south and 

30.0m x 300.0m east-west. The results from the 0.5m and the 1.0m probe separation survey results are presented 

in Figures 31 and 32, and the interpretation of the survey results is presented in Figure 33. 

Only two potentially archaeological anomalies were identified within area D1 and were allocated F45 and F46. 

Several high resistance anomalies have been identified, as well as broader areas of high and low resistance 

throughout D1; all of these areas are considered to relate to variation in the local geology. 

F45 

This is a circular low resistance anomaly measuring approximately 7.50m in diameter and disappears 

beyond the northern limit of D1. The anomaly may represent a pit or sink hole. 

F46 

This is a possibly linear ‘Y’-shaped low resistance anomaly visible for the width of area D1 at this point 

(30.0m), orientated approximately east-west and measures no more than 4.20m wide. The linear 

anomaly splays towards the east to form two spurs. The feature may represent a field boundary or field 

drains, or possibly geological variation. The improved definition of this feature on the 1.0m probe 



spacing data set suggests that this anomaly is not superficial. 

The soil resistance area survey did not detect any anomalies which could be interpreted as boundary features. 

The results of the survey were dominated by large low and high soil resistance anomalies considered to represent 

variation in the underlying sand and gravel subsoil. As was found with the magnetometer area survey, the soil 

resistance survey identified few potential features of archaeological origin. The relatively poor results of the 

geophysical surveys either indicated that few archaeological features were present on the site, or that the two 

techniques applied do not provide a reliable means of remotely mapping and characterising a full range of 

archaeological feature types on the site. 

7.0 TEST PIT EXCAVATION 

A series of 112 hand-excavated trenches (1m x 1m, Intervention 6 ) was undertaken in Zones A, B, D and E 

(Figure 34). These were designed to investigate possible flint scatters identified during the fieldwalking 

programme in other zones, as well a potential vertical distribution of that material within the ploughsoil. More 

particularly, these test pits were positioned within the footprint of evaluation trenches prior to their machineexcavation 

to test for the presence of meaningful lithic distributions in advance of disturbance of large areas of 

ploughsoil. 

As well as the test pits, a series of nine hand-excavated evaluation trenches (3m x 3m) were excavated within 

Zone C and allocated Interventions 14 to 22. These evaluation trenches were designed to investigate a relative 

density of lithic material recovered during fieldwalking within Zone C, which was also detected by the VMNLP 

in 1996 (Field 21). Once ploughsoil had been excavated, the natural subsoil surface in the base of both the 

hand-excavated test pits and evaluation trenches was cleaned by hand to identify any underlying archaeological 

features, which may have been the source of the lithic material. The first phase of test pit excavation and the 

hand-excavated evaluation trenches were undertaken during March 2004, and the second phase of test pits 

between August and October 2004. 

7.1 FIELDWORK PROCEDURE 

The location of each test pit was positioned and marked out 

using a total station theodolite. Ploughsoil was then excavated 

in 0.10m spits and each spit allocated a context number. The 

excavated material was dry sieved through a table sieve fitted 

with a 10mm mesh (Plate 4). A 10% sample of the excavated 

material was then passed through a finer hand-held sieve with 

a 5mm mesh. As it was often difficult to sieve material through 

the finer mesh, on occasions it was necessary to carefully hand 

sort the sample. All finds were retained and bagged by context. 

Plate 4 Test pit excavation and sieving 

Each hand-excavated evaluation trench measured 3.0m x 3.0m and was set-out using a total station theodolite. 

Each trench was then divided into nine 1.0m squares numbered A to J (I was omitted because of its similarity 



to the number 1). The northwestern square, Square ‘A’, and the southeastern square, Square ‘J’, of each 

intervention were then hand-excavated in 0.10m spits. The excavated material was then sieved using the same 

methodology as that adopted for the test pits spits in order to detect concentrations and vertical distributions of 

lithic material. If Squares A and J produced lithic material, the central square of each intervention Square E was 

also hand-excavated in spits. All hand-excavation thereafter was not sieved, but lithic material was hand 

collected and located by metre square. 

7.2 FIELDWORK RESULTS 

A total of 181 finds were recovered from test pit excavation and hand-excavated evaluation trenches. Fifty-one 

were ceramic, forty-five CBM, seventy-four lithic, eight glass, three metal finds and three bone. In addition, 

ten items were identified as natural pebbles. With the exception of the lithics and three sherds of pottery, the 

material can be dated to the post-medieval period and represents background noise from manuring regimes at 

the site and is not discussed further. The three sherds of pottery were identified as two sherds of Roman 

oxidised ware pottery from Test Pit 15 and Test Pit 37, and one sherd of very abraded medieval local glazed 

pottery from Test Pit 4. 

Of the lithic material, twenty-seven pieces were recovered from twenty of the 1m x 1m test pits and forty-seven 

from the 3m x 3m evaluation trenches; ninety-two test pits yielded no lithic material. This material is 

summarised by location, vertical distribution and identity in Table 3 and by horizontal distribution in Figure 35. 

In Intervention 6, eleven lithic pieces were recovered from Spit 1, with eight each from Spit 2 and Spit 3. In 

Interventions 16 to 22, nine lithics were recovered from Spit 1, twenty-eight from Spit 2 and ten from Spit 3. 

Overall, the vertical distribution appeared to be weighted towards the second spit, although there is no obvious 

site formation process which might explain this pattern. In addition, the flint collected from the surface, i.e. part 

of Spit 1, in 1996, and in two fieldwalking campaigns in 2003, will have distorted the vertical distribution of 

lithics in Spit 1. 

There were no examples of lithic concentrations which overlay archaeological features in test pits. Three of the 

nine hand-excavated evaluation trenches contained features, Intervention 16 to 18 inclusive being F14, F12 and 

F13 respectively. The distribution of lithics in each square for these interventions was plotted to detect whether 

the underlying feature may have been the source of the lithic material. Two squares, Square J in both 

Intervention 16 and Intervention 18, contained four lithic pieces and overlay features. In Intervention 16, the 

underlying feature also yielded a flint flake during excavation. However, none of these lithics were recovered 

from Spit 3, i.e. the interface between the feature and ploughsoil, and the feature in Intervention 18 is of 

suspected geological origin. In addition, Square A in Intervention 16 contained three lithics and did not overlie 

a feature. The number of lithics recovered is too low for the distribution to be interpreted confidently. 

The horizontal distribution was unsurprisingly weighted towards Zone C, where many more lithics were 

recovered from this area, which has already established lithic concentrations and where a greater amount of 

ploughsoil was sieved. Nonetheless, when the numbers of lithics recovered from test pits were plotted there 

were more instances of single pieces being recovered in Zones B, C and D than in A (see Figure 35); no lithic 

material was recovered from Zone E. In addition, only Zones B, C and D had examples of two lithics recovered 

from a test pit; Test Pit 19 in Zone D yielded three pieces. The only dateable lithics were two early Bronze Age 



thumbnail scrapers, both from Zone C. 

Table 3 

Summary of lithic material from test pits and hand-excavated evaluation trenches 

Int. No. Test Pit No. Square Spit Find No. Context No. Identity 

6 1 - 3 1582 1002 Flint flake 

6 4 - 3 1583 1011 Flint debitage 

6 4 - 3 1583 1011 Chert flake 

6 5 - 1 1577 1012 Used flint flake 


6 10 - 2 1579 1028 Flint flake 

6 12 - 1 1585 1032 Chert debitage 

6 19 - 3 1587 1055 Flint blade 

6 19 - 3 1588 1055 Chert debitage 


6 21 - 1 1580 1059 Burnt irregular flint 

6 21 - 3 1578 1061 Possibly used flint debitage 






6 51 - 1 1604 1288 Pressure flaked chert 


6 62 - 1 1603 1321 Pressure flaked flint 

6 62 - 1 1603 1321 Pressure flaked chert 


6 80 - 2 1600 1376 Flint flake 

6 84 - 1 1598 1387 Flint flake 


6 100 - 1 1593 1437 Flint core 

6 101 - 2 1594 1441 Chert flake 

14 - A 2 1554 1126 Pressure flaked flint 

14 - A 2 1554 1126 Retouched flint debitage 

14 - F 1 1553 1131 Used flint flake 

14 - G 2 1565 1132 Flint debitage 

14 - J 3 1551 1130 Used flint flake 

14 - J 3 1551 1130 Chert debitage 

14 - J 2 1566 1129 Burnt irregular flint 

15 - A 2 1555 1134 Used flint flake 

15 - J 1 1565 1135 Chert flake 

16 - A 2 1563 1138 Flint debitage 



Int. No. Test Pit No. Square Spit Find No. Context No. Identity 

16 - A 2 1563 1138 Retouched flint flake 

16 - A 1 1568 1137 Early Bronze Age flint thumbnail scraper 

16 - E 2 1564 1143 Irregular flint flake 

16 - J 2 1567 1141 Flint debitage 

16 - J 2 1567 1141 Flint scraper 


16 - J 2 1567 1141 Flint flake 

17 - E 3 1552 1150 Flint flake 

17 - J 2 1549 1157 Flint blade 



18 - J 2 1569 1156 Used flint flake 



19 - A 2 1550 1159 Flint core 

19 - J 2 1548 1148 Early Bronze Age flint thumbnail scraper 



20 - D 2 1546 1170 Flint blade 

20 - E 1 1574 1171 Used flint flake 

20 - J 3 1547 1169 Flint blade 





21 - A 2 1561 1173 Flint flake 

21 - A 2 1561 1173 Used chert debitage 


21 - A 1 1562 1172 Flint flake 

21 - E 2 1557 1178 Used flint debitage 

21 - E 2 1572 1178 Used flint flake 



22 - J 2 1556 1183 Chert debitage 

22 - J 1 1558 1182 Flint flake 





8.0 EVALUATION EXCAVATION 

The trial trench excavation programme was carried out in three phases. The first phase consisted of four 100m 

x 4m trenches and three 50m x 4m trenches, and was undertaken in Zone D during March 2004. The second 

phase involved the hand-excavation of nine trenches in Zone C during April 2004. The final phase comprised 

ten 100m x 4m trenches, two 50m x 8m trenches and seven 50m x 4m trenches in Zones A, B, and E. This 

fieldwork was carried out between August 2004 and October 2004 (Figure 36). 

While the trenching regime was designed to provide an adequate coverage of the area of investigation, cropmark 

features, lithic concentrations and anomalies identified by the geophysical surveys were targeted with trenches 

for further investigation. The evaluation excavation programme provides a 2% excavation sample of the 

application area. The use of long rectangular trenches on mixed orientations was adopted to improve the 

probability of intersecting boundary features. 

8.1 FIELDWORK PROCEDURE 

The corners of the trenches were set out using a total station 

theodolite. The edges of the trenches were then marked. 

Ploughsoil and topsoil deposits were excavated using a tracked 

mechanical excavator fitted with a broad toothless ditching 

bucket under strict archaeological supervision (Plate 5). Areas 

which were considered to contain possible features were handcleaned 

to improve definition. 

Nine hand-excavated trenches (Interventions 14 to 22) were 

Plate 5 Machining of an evaluation trench 

positioned to investigate the lithic concentration defined by 

fieldwalking in Zone C, in order to test for the presence of a lithic assemblage within the ploughsoil and whether 

any such distribution related to plough-damaged features. In each trench, a series of test pits were initially 

excavated (see section 7.1), and the remaining ploughsoil was then removed by hand down to the top of the 

natural subsoil. The entire trench was then hand-cleaned. This was undertaken to ensure that the significance 

of any lithic distribution within the ploughsoil was fully appreciated prior to the disturbance of larger areas of 

ploughsoil by machine excavated evaluation trenches (see section 7.2). 

All features were hand cleaned to improve definition and facilitate recording. An appropriate sample of the 

feature was then established and excavated. In most cases, small isolated features were half-sectioned; however, 

when these features were considered to be significant and would not survive backfilling, the entire feature was 

excavated. Written, drawn and photographic records were made of all archaeological deposits. 

The recording system followed Field Research Procedure (Carver 1999), the standard operating system 

employed by FAS. A single index was maintained for contexts and for features, which continued from those 

context and feature numbers allocated during Phase 1 evaluation. A checklist of records created during 

excavation, which form the content of the archive, is given below (Appendix D); context and feature record 

summaries form Appendix E. 



A systematic environmental sampling method was employed. Deposits which were clearly of a mixed or 

secondary origin such as make-up layers or deposits which displayed a high degree of residual or intrusive 

artefactual material were not the subject of environmental sampling unless a specific question relating to 

function or social status could be addressed. Where deposits were thought to be of primary origin and had 

potential to contain biological remains, an appropriate sampling regime was established. 

8.2 FIELDWORK RESULTS 

8.2.1 Intervention 7 

Intervention 7 was situated in Zone D, adjacent to the southern 

boundary of the site (see Figure 36). This machine excavated 

trench measured 100m x 4m, and was orientated north-south 

(Plate 6). The ground level within southern half of the trench 

area was fairly level at c.42.20m AOD, sloping down to 

c.41.70m AOD at the northern end. The dark yellowish-brown 

gravel and clayey silt ploughsoil (C1123) was found to be 

c.0.30m deep, revealing an orangish-brown, gravel and silt 

natural subsoil. Some banding in the subsoil was evident, with 

an area of predominately gravel at the southern end of the 

Plate 6 Intervention 7 looking south (scale 

2m) 

trench and a broad band of slightly darker subsoil containing a lower proportion of gravel throughout the centre 

of the trench. The surface of the natural subsoil reflected the ground-level topography. 

Three features were defined within Intervention 7 (F1, F2, F3)(Figure 37). F1 was situated close to the centre 

of the trench, continuing beneath the western edge of excavation. This possibly sub-circular feature was welldefined 

in plan; the visible extent of F1 was excavated, revealing a shallow cut measuring min.0.30m x 0.45m, 

and 0.25m deep, with gently sloping edges and an irregular concave base (Figure 38). The feature contained 

a single backfill (C1111) of dark greyish-brown fine clayey-silt with frequent flecks of charcoal, lenses of dark 

grey clayey-silt, and moderate inclusions of gravel and pebbles. Late Neolithic Grooved Ware type pottery was 

recovered from C1111 (Appendix F). Assessment of the pottery identified the sherds as belonging to two, 

possibly three vessels, one plain vessel and one, perhaps two, thick walled vessels with grooved decoration. Six 

flakes of flint were also recovered during excavation (see Appendix B). A few grams of very abraded 

unidentifiable calcined bone was recovered from F1 and is likely to be burnt animal bone. The edges of F1 

revealed no evidence for in situ burning; the feature was therefore interpreted as a small pit containing flint 

debitage, broken pottery and ash. Environmental samples were retained from F1 to assess the potential of a 

well-dated Neolithic feature, and flotation recovered charcoal, sixty-three small pieces of knapping debris, and 

a few pieces of undiagnostic calcined bone. The charcoal included small abraded fragments of hazelnut shell 

and occasional small fragments of oak and non-oak charcoal (Appendix G). 

The location of F1 within the long trench section provided a rare opportunity to examine the interface between 

ploughsoil and the remains of a Neolithic feature. F1 had clearly been plough-damaged, since the interface in 

section between ploughsoil and feature was extremely turbulent, with bands of subsoil having been dragged 

across and redeposited into the feature by the plough (see Figure 38). In addition, some root disturbance was 



also evident. 

F2 was defined approximately 13.0m to the north of F1, and shared several characteristics. F2 had poorly 

defined edges but was visible as a sub-circular feature measuring 0.20m in diameter (see Figure 38). Upon 

excavation, this feature was found to contain a single backfill deposit (C1112) which consisted of a dark 

yellowish-brown fine clayey-silt with frequent flecks of charcoal and moderate inclusions of gravel and pebbles. 

A single fire-cracked pebble and a flint flake with edge use were recovered from C1112. F2 proved to be no 

more than 0.05m deep, with gently sloping sides and concave base, and was interpreted as a small heavily 

truncated pit. 

A large irregular feature was identified at the northern end of Intervention 7 (F3). This feature continued 

beyond both the eastern and western edges of excavation and where visible varied in width between 1.40m and 

5.35m. A 1.0m sample of F3 was excavated at its widest point against the eastern edge of excavation. F3 was 

found to contain a yellowish-brown silt with frequent gravel inclusions which became gradually darker with a 

greater clay component at depth (C1113). C1113 shared a fairly clear interface with the surrounding gravel 

subsoil, but was very sterile containing only mixed gravel inclusions. The sample excavation of F3 revealed 

a shallow ‘v’-shaped profile with a maximum depth of c.0.70m (Figure 39). F3 was interpreted as a geological 

anomaly, possibly a sink hole. 


Intervention 8 was located next to the northern edge of Zone D 

in the southeastern part of the site and was positioned in order 

to contact an anomaly identified during the soil resistance area 

survey (Intervention 5, F45) (see Figure 36). This machine 

excavated trench measured 50m x 4m and was orientated northsouth 

(Plate 7). The ground surface within the area of the 

trench was fairly level at c.41.10m AOD. The dark yellowishbrown 

gravel and clayey silt ploughsoil (C1123) was found to 

be c.0.35m deep overlying an orangish-brown gravel and silt 

natural subsoil. The subsoil contained bands and areas of clean 

grey mixed gravel. 


2m) 

A single feature was defined at the northern end of the trench (F4) (Figure 40). This feature was initially 

defined as an amorphous deposit of brown silt which continued beneath the western edge of the intervention. 

Upon excavation, F4 was found to be possibly sub-oval, containing a sterile deposit of light grey clayey silt with 

lenses of oxidised silt immediately under the ploughsoil interface, and moderate inclusions of gravel and pebbles 

throughout the deposit. F4 was approximately 0.35m deep with gently sloping sides and a fairly flat base 

(Figures 41 and 42). F4 was interpreted as a possible sink hole and corresponds with the geophysical anomaly 

F45. Areas of subsoil variation in the base of the trench also coincided with those suggested by the soil 

resistance survey (including Intervention 5, F46). 




Intervention 9 was situated near to the centre of Zone D in 

the southeastern part of the site (see Figure 36). The trench 

was located in order to intersect a linear cropmark feature, 

and to investigate an area of low resistance encountered 

during the soil resistance area survey (see Figure 6). This 

machine-excavated trench measured 100m x 4m and was 

orientated east-west (Plate 8). The ground surface sloped 

down from 41.85m AOD at the eastern end of the trench to 

40.95m AOD at the western end. The dark yellowish-brown 

gravel and clayey silt ploughsoil (C1123) was found to be Plate 8 Intervention 9 looking west (scale 2m) 

c.0.30m deep at the eastern end of the trench, becoming 

increasingly deep to the west, up to 0.50m. The underlying natural subsoil consisted of light brown silt and 

gravel with several broad bands of gravel. At the western end of the trench, the subsoil became a grey clay with 

lenses of mineralisation, and displayed a degree of merging with archaeological deposits. 

Two linear features were identified within Intervention 9 (F5 and F6) (Figure 43). F5 was clearly defined with 

the exception of the western end of the trench where post-depositional merging appeared to have obscured the 

feature. This feature was orientated on a roughly east-west alignment and was visible for c.30.0m before 

continuing beyond the northern and southern edges of excavation. Three 2.0m long samples of F5 were 

excavated revealing a shallow ditch, 0.5m wide and up to 0.25m deep, with a ‘u’-shaped profile, containing a 

sterile dark yellowish-brown silt with very frequent inclusions of gravel and pebbles (Figures 44 and 45). 

F6 was located approximately at the mid-point of Intervention 

9 and was defined as a linear deposit of dark brown clayey-silt 

orientated roughly north-south (Plate 9). The feature was 

visible for a length of 4.15m before it disappeared beyond the 

southern and northern limits of the intervention. A 2.0m 

section of the feature was excavated and it proved to be a ditch 

with 45° sides and a concave base forming an almost ‘v’- 

shaped profile (Figure 46). The feature had been backfilled 

once with C1116 which consisted of a deposit of light 

yellowish-brown clayey-silt and contained occasional mixed 

gravel; only a tiny fragment of abraded undiagnostic CBM was 

Plate 9 F6, Intervention 9, looking west 

(scale 1m) 

recovered from C1116. The feature backfill was almost indistinguishable from the overlying ploughsoil and 

an overlying deposit interpreted as sinkage from ploughsoil was identified in section and allocated C1122. The 

sinkage consisted of a shallow ‘u’-shaped deposit consisting of a light yellowish-brown clayey-silt which 

contained occasional mixed gravel (see Figure 44). 

When projected, ditches F5 and F6 formed a right-angle and are likely to belong to the same field boundary 

system. The features are situated within 3.0-6.0m of the location of historic field boundaries plotted as part of 

the desk-based assessment for Ladybridge Farm (see Figure 5), but reflect their alignments perfectly. Given the 



inherent inaccuracies of plotting from aerial photographs and historic maps, there can be little doubt that F5 and 

F6 represent the remains of these post-medieval field boundaries. The fact that any possible continuation of F5 

was not defined within Intervention 25 supports this conclusion. F5 and F6 do not appear to relate to the 

cropmark identified from aerial photography. It seems likely that this cropmark relates to a band of natural 

subsoil which has created an area of differential drainage. 


Intervention 10 was located in Zone D adjacent to the southern 

boundary of the site (see Figure 36), and was also located to 

intersect a cropmark feature (see Figure 6). This machine 

excavated trench measured 50m x 4m and was orientated eastwest 

(Plate 10). The ground surface sloped down from 42.25m 

AOD at eastern end of the trench to 41.25m AOD at the western 

end. The dark yellowish-brown gravel and clayey silt 

ploughsoil (C1123) was found to be c.0.30-0.40m deep 

overlying a light brown silt and gravel natural subsoil. The 

surface of subsoil reflected the ground level topography. 

Plate 10 Intervention 10 looking east (scale 

2m) 

F7 was first identified as an amorphous deposit of very dark brown clayey silt visible against subsoil 9.6m from 

the western end of, and positioned centrally within, Intervention 10 (Figure 47). The feature measured c.2.00m 

in length by 0.85m in width and was orientated approximately NW-SE. Upon excavation, it became clear that 

two distinct features were represented; F7 was defined as a large amorphous scoop and was cut by a small pit 

or posthole at the southeastern end (F11). 

F7 proved to be a sub-oval truncated pit or scoop backfilled once with C1117 which consisted of a clean 

homogenous brown clayey-silt with frequent gravel and occasional charcoal flecks (Figure 48). A small 

assemblage of prehistoric pottery was recovered during excavation. Assessment identified the pottery as plain 

ware which is broadly dateable to the late Neolithic and is often found in association with Grooved ware pottery. 

The sherds were thought to represent two, possibly three vessels. Environmental samples were recovered from 

F7 and flotation produced small fragments of oak and non-oak charcoal and eight knapping chips. F11 was 

defined as a circular deposit of brown clayey-silt measuring 0.30m in diameter. Upon excavation the small 

feature proved to be well-defined against the surrounding backfill of F7 and only 0.12m deep. It had been 

backfilled once with C1121, a brown clayey-silt which contained frequent mixed gravel and rare charcoal flecks. 

F11 was interpreted as a possible truncated posthole or small pit. 

No evidence was found to explain the cropmark feature identified from aerial photography which Intervention 

10 was located to investigate. 


Intervention 11 was situated in the southeastern corner of Zone D (see Figure 36). This machine excavated 

trench measured 100m x 4m and was orientated east-west (Plate 11). The ground surface within the area of the 



trench was fairly level at c.41.40m AOD. The dark yellowishbrown 

gravel and clayey silt ploughsoil (C1123) was found to 

be c.0.35m deep, overlying an orangish-brown gravel and silt 

natural subsoil. At the eastern end of the intervention, several 

alternate bands of clean gravel and clean brown silt were 

observed within the natural subsoil. 

A single feature (F8) was defined within Intervention 8, located 

24.50m from the eastern end of the trench (Figure 49). F8 was 

defined as a curvilinear deposit of brown clayey silt visible 

against subsoil (Plate 12). The feature was visible for the width 

of the intervention and measured a uniform 0.60m in width. 

The entire area of the visible feature was excavated and proved 

to be a ‘u’-shaped gully with gently sloping sides and a concave 

base (Figures 50 and 51). The gully had been backfilled once 

with C1118, a dark yellowish-brown clayey-silt with frequent 

gravel inclusions; no dateable material was recovered from the 

feature. A sediment sample was retained for environmental 

assessment, but flotation produced only modern rootlets and 

sterile gravel. 


2m) 

Plate 12 F8, Intervention 11, looking south 

(scale 1m) 

When projected, the diameter of a circle formed by gully F8 measured c.10.70m. This indicates that had F8 

been part of a ring-ditch, the eastern side of the feature would have been identified within the eastern end of 

Intervention 11. However, the possibility that F8 forms part of a larger non-circular enclosure cannot be ruled 

out. 


Intervention 12 was located adjacent to the eastern boundary of 

the site (see Figure 36). This machine excavated trench 

measured 50m x 4m and was orientated north-south (Plate 13). 

The ground surface within the area of the trench sloped down 

from 41.45m AOD at northern end of the trench to 41.20m 

AOD at the western end. The dark yellowish-brown gravel and 

clayey silt ploughsoil (C1123) was found to be c.0.30-0.40m 

deep. The underlying natural subsoil consisted of orangishbrown 

gravel and silt becoming cleaner with less gravel towards 

the southern end of the trench. The surface of subsoil reflected 

the ground-level topography. 

Plate 13 Intervention 12 looking north (scale 

2m) 

Two features were identified within Intervention 12 (F9 and F10) and were positioned 26.60m from the southern 

limit of the intervention (Figure 52). F9 was a well-defined circular deposit of greyish-brown clayey-silt 

measuring c.0.60m in diameter. The feature was half-sectioned approximately east-west and proved to be 



c.0.30m deep, backfilled once with C1119 (Figure 53). This deposit consisted of a dark greyish-brown clayeysilt 

with frequent mixed gravel inclusions which became more frequent towards the base of the feature. The 

feature was sampled for environmental assessment, which identified the deposit as sterile. F10 was situated 

1.15m to the east of F9 and was defined as a circular deposit of greyish-brown clayey silt defined against subsoil 

measuring c.0.50m in diameter. Upon excavation, the feature proved to be well-defined but truncated, being 

only 0.16m deep. The feature contained one backfill allocated C1120, which consisted of a greyish-brown 

clayey silt with frequent mixed gravel inclusions. F10 was interpreted as a possible posthole or small pit; no 

dateable material was recovered from F10. 

No direct evidence for posts was encountered in either feature, but their size, form and position suggest that they 

held posts and are associated with one another. Although they do not correspond with plots of known historic 

field boundaries, they were considered to be relatively recent features due to the nature of their fills, and may 

represent part of a fence line forming a field boundary. 


Intervention 13 was situated adjacent to the eastern boundary of 

the site (see Figure 36). This machine excavated trench 

measured 100m x 4m and was orientated east-west (Plate 14). 

The ground surface was fairly level at c.41.30m AOD. The 

dark yellowish-brown gravel and clayey silt ploughsoil (C1123) 

was found to be c.0.40m deep, the excavation of which revealed 

an orangish-brown gravel and silt natural subsoil with a broad 

band of light brown silt gravel at the western end of the trench. 

No archaeological features were identified within Intervention 

13, but two areas of modern disturbance were identified towards 

Plate 14 Intervention 13 looking west 

(scale 2m) 

the eastern end of the trench (Figure 54). These were defined as large amorphous features one of which 

contained a tree stump and frequent voids. Both of these features are likely to be large modern agricultural pits. 


Intervention 14 was situated close to the northern boundary of 

Zone C and was a 3.0m x 3.0m hand-excavated trench (Plate 15, 

see Figure 36). The ground surface was level at c.42.30m AOD. 

The dark yellowish-brown gravel and clayey silt ploughsoil 

(C1123) was found to be c.0.30m deep, and overlay an 

orangish-brown gravel and silt natural subsoil over the base of 

the intervention. 

No archaeological features were encountered within 

Intervention 14. 

Plate 15 Intervention 14 looking south 

(scale 2m) 




Intervention 15 was situated close to the western boundary of 

Zone C and was a 3.0m x 3.0m hand-excavated trench (Plate16, 



(C1123) was found to be c.0.30m deep, and overlay an 

orangish-brown gravel and silt natural subsoil over the base of 

the intervention. 

No archaeological features were encountered within 

Intervention 15. 


2m) 


Intervention 16 was situated close to the eastern boundary of 

Zone C and was a 3.0m x 3.0m hand-excavated trench (Plate 17, 



(C1123) was found to be c.0.30m deep. The underlying natural 

subsoil consisted of an orangish-brown gravel and silt natural 

subsoil visible over the base of the intervention (C1124). 

A single feature (F14) was identified within Intervention 16 and 

was located at the southern limit of intervention and 

disappearing beneath it (Figure 55). F14 was defined as a 

possibly sub-oval feature measuring 0.45m wide and was visible for a length of 0.32m. Upon excavation, the 

feature proved to be 0.23m at its deepest point and a possible post-setting was identified in the northern part of 

the feature. F14 was backfilled once with a deposit of a dark brown clayey silt which contained rare charcoal 

flecks and fine gravel (C1188). Definition against underlying subsoil was poor. F14 was interpreted as a 

possible posthole; no dateable material was recovered from C1188 but the proximal end of a flint blade was 

recovered during excavation. Environmental assessment identified a quantity of oak charcoal within C1188, 

both in the light and dense fractions. 


2m) 


Intervention 17 was situated 26.20m from the eastern, and 

98.6m from the northern limit of Zone C (see Figure 36). This 

trench was positioned to investigate a large isolated anomaly 

defined by the magnetometer area survey (Intervention 4, F28). 

The intervention measured 3.0m x 3.0m and was handexcavated 

(Plate 18). The dark yellowish-brown gravel and 

clayey silt ploughsoil (C1123) measured 0.30m in depth and 


2m) 



overlay a uniform orangish-brown gravel and silt natural subsoil (C1124). The ground surface was level at 

c.42.15m AOD. 

A single feature (F12) was identified within Intervention 17 and was situated at the western limit of the trench, 

disappearing beneath the northern and western sections (Figure 56). Where visible, F12 appeared to be a linear 

feature which butt-ended within the intervention. The feature was defined as a possibly linear deposit of dark 

brown clayey silt which measured 2.30m long by 0.35m maximum visible width. Upon excavation, F12 proved 

to be a possibly ‘u’-shaped feature measuring 0.20m in depth and backfilled once with C1186. The single 

backfill consisted of a dark brown clayey silt which contained frequent mixed gravel inclusions but was 

otherwise sterile. Within the confines of Intervention 17, F12 appeared to represent part of a gully, but a much 

larger, possibly geological anomaly was later encountered in Intervention 23 (F19), and it is likely that F12 

represents the western edge of this larger feature which was also defined as an isolated anomaly during the 

magnetometer area survey (Intervention 4, F28). 


Intervention 18 was located 21.0m from the eastern limit of 

Zone C and c.20.0m from Intervention 17 (see Figure 36). This 

trench was also positioned to contact a large isolated anomaly 

defined by the magnetometer area survey (Intervention 4, F29). 

The intervention measured 3.0m x 3.0m and was handexcavated 

(Plate 19). The dark yellowish-brown ploughsoil was 

found to be a uniform 0.30m deep and ground level was level at 

c.42.00m AOD (C1123). The ploughsoil overlay a homogenous 

orangish-brown gravel and clayey silt subsoil (C1124). 


(scale 2m) 

A single feature (F13) was identified within Intervention 18, and was located at the southern limit of the 

intervention disappearing beyond the western, eastern and southern sections (Figure 57). The visible dimensions 

of F13 were 3.0m x 1.4m x 0.60m deep, although a larger area of the same feature was later encountered in 

Intervention 23 where it proved to be a large sink hole (F19). The excavated sample of F13/F19 within 

Intervention 18 encountered a single deposit, a sterile dark brown sandy silt with occasional mixed gravel 

inclusions (C1187). Another possible deposit was defined during excavation, which was thought to represent 

subsoil; within the confines of Intervention 18 it was not clear, although excavation of the feature within 

Intervention 23 confirmed the deposit to be filling the sinkhole 

(=C1206). No dateable material was recovered from the 

feature. 


Intervention 19 was situated 162.0m from the northern and 

45.0m from the eastern boundary of Zone C (see Figure 36). 

The trench measured 3.0m x 3.0m and was hand-excavated 

(Plate 20). The sequence encountered consisted of a 


2m) 



homogenous dark yellowish-brown ploughsoil (C1123) measuring 0.30m deep; ground level was level at 

c.42.10m AOD. This overlay a homogenous orangish-brown gravel and clayey silt subsoil visible over the base 

of the trench (C1124). 

No features were identified within Intervention 19. 


Intervention 20 was situated 199.0m from the northern 

boundary of Zone C and 33.0m south of Intervention 19 (see 

Figure 36). The trench measured 3.0m x 3.0m and was handexcavated 

(Plate 21). The sequence encountered consisted of 

a homogenous dark yellowish-brown ploughsoil (C1123) 

measuring 0.30m deep; ground level was level at c.42.30m 

AOD. This overlay a homogenous orangish-brown gravel and 

clayey silt subsoil visible over the base of the trench (C1124). 



(scale 2m) 


Intervention 21 was situated 45.0m from the southern and 



(Plate 22). The sequence encountered consisted of a 

homogenous dark yellowish-brown ploughsoil (C1123) 

measuring 0.30m deep; ground level was level at c.42.70m 

AOD. This overlay a homogenous orangish-brown gravel and 

clayey silt subsoil visible over the base of the trench (C1124). 



(scale 2m) 


Intervention 22 was situated 20.0m from the southern and 



(Plate 23). The ground surface was level at c.42.35m AOD. 

The sequence encountered consisted of a homogenous dark 

yellowish-brown ploughsoil (C1123) measuring 0.30m deep. 

This overlay a homogenous orangish-brown gravel and clayey 

silt subsoil visible over the base of the trench (C1124). 


2m) 





Intervention 23 was located in Zone C in the southwestern 

corner of the site. The trench was positioned to investigate two 

anomalies identified by the magnetometry survey, which had 

been partially excavated within Interventions 17 and 18 ( being 

Intervention 4, F28 and 29=Intervention 17, F12 and 

Intervention 18, F13) (see Figure 36). This machine-excavated 

trench measured 100m x 4m and was orientated north-south 

(Plate 24). The ground surface in the area of the trench was 

fairly level at c.42.50m AOD. The dark yellowish-brown gravel 

and clayey silt ploughsoil (C1123) was found to be c.0.30m 

deep. The underlying natural subsoil consisted of an 


2m) 

homogenous orangish-brown gravel and clayey silt subsoil with small areas of cleaner clay towards the southern 

end of the trench (C1124). 

Six features were identified within Intervention 23 (F15, F16, 

F17, F18, F19, F22) (Figure 58). F15 was situated 45.60m from 

the northern end of the intervention and was defined as a suboval 

deposit of friable dark brown sandy-silt (Plate 25). The 

feature measured 0.50m long by 0.30m wide and upon 

excavation proved to be 0.10m deep, backfilled with C1197 

(Figure 59). C1197 consisted of a sterile dark brown sandy silt 

with occasional pea gravel inclusions and rare charcoal flecks. 

No dateable material was recovered from F15. F15 was 

interpreted as a possible small truncated scoop or pit. 

Plate 25 F15, Intervention 23, looking east 

(scale 0.3m) 

F16 was situated 4.80m to the south of F15 and was defined as a small sub-circular deposit of dark yellowishbrown 

sandy silt. The feature measured c.0.56m in diameter and upon excavation proved to have near vertical 

sides and a flat base, being 0.40m deep. The feature was half-sectioned approximately east-west and was found 

to contain Neolithic pottery and lithic material and following recording the remaining half was excavated to 

recover all material and the full form of the feature. The feature contained two backfills allocated C1190 and 

C1191. C1191 was the earliest backfill and consisted of a dark greyish-brown silty sand with occasional fine 

gravel and charcoal flecks throughout. A small assemblage of pottery was recovered from C1191 and 

assessment identified three vessels. A deep bag-shaped vessel with carination was represented and thought to 

be Grimston ware. A thin-walled flat-based and flared sided vessel made of a quartz-gritted fabric was also 

identified. A third vessel was also represented but was weathered and appeared to be a thick-walled vessel made 

in a calcite-gritted fabric. A total of eleven flint flakes and one chert flake were recovered from C1191 during 

excavation, some of which appeared to have been utilised. An end scraper and a leaf-shaped arrowhead assigned 

to Green’s type series 3A were also recovered. Overlying C1191 was a second backfill which consisted of a 

dark yellowish-brown silty sand and contained occasional fine gravel inclusions. No ceramic was recovered 



from this deposit but a flint flake as well as a small piece of Langdale greenstone were found. The flint 

fragment displays a small area of polishing and may represent a knapped piece from a polished stone axe. F16 

was interpreted as a small pit. 

F17 was situated c.0.40 to the east of F16 and appeared as a small sub-circular deposit of mid-greyish-brown 

silty sand measuring c.0.48m in diameter. The feature was half-sectioned approximately east-west, where it 

proved to be 0.15m deep and backfilled with a single deposit (C1196). A flint flake and Neolithic pottery were 

recovered from C1196 during excavation and following recording, the remaining half was excavated to recover 

any further material and the full form of the feature. C1196 consisted of a silty sand and contained rare mixed 

moderate gravel and charcoal flecks. A small assemblage of poorly preserved ceramic was recovered during 

excavation, and assessment identified two vessels of probable later Neolithic date. In addition, two flint flakes 

were recovered. F17 was interpreted as a small truncated pit. 

F18 was situated c.48.00m from the southern end of the 

intervention and appeared as a large possible circular pit located 

against the eastern limit of excavation and continuing beyond it 

(Plate 26). The feature measured c.4.40m in diameter and was 

half-sectioned where it proved to have gently sloping sides to a 

depth of c.0.80m, whereafter the sides became near vertical 

(Figure 60). The feature was excavated to a depth of 1.20m 

below the top of ploughsoil; excavation was not taken beyond 

this depth for health and safety reasons. 


(scale 1m) 

F18 proved to be filled with at least four distinct deposits up to a depth of 0.90m. The earliest excavated fill 

of F18 consisted of a coarse sandy clayey silt with high percentages of mixed gravel (70%) (C1195). The 

deposit was excavated to reveal a minimum thickness of 0.20m, but the base was not found. This fill was 

overlain by C1194 made of a clayey sandy silt with rare mixed gravel (4%), which measured 0.35m thick and 

was ‘u’-shaped in profile. C1194 was overlain by C1193, an unusual deposit of marl which was pale brown in 

colour and contained only traces of fine gravel and pebbles but was otherwise sterile. The deposit was welldefined 

against underlying C1194, measured 0.30m thick and was ‘u’-shaped in profile, overlying C1192. 

C1192 represented the latest fill of F18 and consisted of a stiff dark brown sandy silt containing rare mixed 

gravel and pebbles (4%) measuring up to 0.45m thick. Modern glass and china were recovered from C1192 

during excavation as well as a sherd of North Yorkshire Gritty ware and a flint end scraper, a fragment of flint 

core, a chert flake which had been utilised, and four flint flakes. F18 has been interpreted as a sink hole and 

corresponds with F13 (Intervention 17) and F28 (Intervention 4). 

F19 was situated 19.20m from the southern limit of the intervention and appeared as a sub-circular feature 

positioned against the western limit of intervention and disappearing beneath it. Where visible, the feature 

measured 5.60m long x 3.20m wide. The southeastern quadrant of the feature was excavated where it proved 

to be a steep-sided feature filled with three distinct deposits, C1205, C1206 and C1227 (Figure 61). C1227 was 

the basal fill of the feature and consisted of a deposit of gravel-rich sterile brown silt. This deposit was overlain 

by C1206 which was an homogenous brown sterile clayey-silt with frequent mixed gravel and pebble inclusions. 

The final fill of F19 was allocated C1205 which was a deposit of brown sterile clayey silt with frequent mixed 



gravel and pebble inclusions. F19 is a continuation of F13, which was identified in Intervention 18 and was 

interpreted as a sink hole and was encountered during the magnetometer survey (Intervention 4, F29). 

F22 was situated c.1.5m from the southern end of Intervention 

23 and was situated against, and continued beyond, the eastern 

edge of excavation (Plate 27). It appeared as a possibly circular 

deposit of gravel-rich brown clayey silt measuring 1.5m long x 

0.89m wide. The available area of the feature was excavated, 

and it proved to be a shallow scoop with gently sloping sides 

and a concave base (Figure 62). The feature had been 

backfilled once with C1200, which consisted of a sterile brown 

clayey-silt with high percentages of gravel inclusions (80%). 

The feature was no greater than 0.22m in depth, appeared as a 

truncated pit or posthole and no dateable material was 

recovered. 


(scale 0.5m) 


Intervention 24 was located towards the southern boundary of 

Zone C (see Figure 36) and measured 50m x 8m, orientated 

east-west (Plate 28). Ground level sloped down slightly from 

c.42.80m AOD at eastern end of the trench to c.42.60m AOD at 

the western end. The dark yellowish-brown ploughsoil (C1123) 

was found to be c.0.30m in depth throughout the trench and 

overlay an homogenous orangish-brown gravel and clayey silt 

subsoil (C1124). 

A single feature (F23) was identified within Intervention 24 and 

was located c.7.00m from the eastern end of the trench (Figure 

63). F23 was situated against the southern limit of the intervention and continued beyond it. Where visible, 

the feature appeared to be a possible sub-circular feature measuring c.0.50m in diameter. The entire available 

area of the feature was excavated, where it proved to be 0.31m deep with steep sides and a flat base backfilled 

once with C1201 (Figure 64). C1201 consisted of a friable dark yellowish-brown sandy clay with frequent 

gravel and pebble inclusions. The feature appeared to be a 

small pit, but no dateable material was recovered from C1201. 

Plate 28 Intervention 24 looking west (scale 

2m) 


Intervention 25 was situated in the southern area of Zone B (see 

Figure 36) and measured 100m x 4m, being orientated northsouth 

(Plate 29). Ground surface was fairly level throughout the 

trench at c.42.20m AOD, sloping down at the southern end to 

c.41.95m AOD. The dark yellowish-brown ploughsoil (C1123) 


(scale 2m) 



was found to measure between c.0.30-0.35m in depth. The ploughsoil overlay an homogenous orangish-brown 

gravel and clayey-silt natural subsoil (C1124) which was consistent throughout the trench. 

A single feature was identified cut into C1124, F24, and was located 24.80m from the southern limit of the 

intervention (Figure 65). The entire feature was defined within Intervention 25 and appeared as a slightly 

irregular sub-circular feature measuring 0.75m x 0.72m in plan. Upon excavation the feature proved to be an 

irregular feature, only 0.14m deep and backfilled twice with C1203 and then C1202 (Figure 66). C1203 

consisted of a fine pale brown silty sand with lenses of dark brown silt and rare charcoal flecks. The deposit 

measured c.0.10m deep and was overlain by C1202, a sub-circular deposit of fine dark greyish-brown silt with 

lenses of yellowish-brown sandy clay and charcoal flecks. F24 was interpreted as a small pit; no dateable 

material was recovered. 


Intervention 26 was situated c.36.00m to the north of 

Intervention 25 (see Figure 36) and measured 100m x 4m, 

orientated east-west (Plate 30). Ground surface sloped down 

from c.41.80m AOD at the western end to c.41.95 at the eastern 

end of the trench. The dark yellowish-brown ploughsoil 

(C1123) was found to be a consistent 0.30 to 0.35m in depth 

and overlay a clean orangish-brown gravel and clayey-silt 

natural subsoil with areas of cleaner clay towards the western 

end of the intervention (C1124). 


2m) 

A single feature was defined cut into C1124, F25, which appeared as a small circular deposit of mid-brown 

sandy clay (Figure 67). The feature measured c.1.50m in diameter and was sectioned approximately north-south 

where it proved to be a small steep-sided pit with a concave base backfilled once with C1204 (Figure 68). 

C1204 consisted of a friable sandy clay which contained frequent fine gravel and pebbles and rare charcoal 

flecks. F25 was interpreted as a small pit; no dateable material was recovered from this feature. 


Intervention 27 was located centrally within Zone B (see Figure 

36) and measured 100m x 4m, orientated north-south (Plate 31). 

The trench was positioned to contact an anomaly identified by 

magnetometer survey (Intervention 4, F24). Ground surface 

sloped down from c.41.60m AOD at the southern end of the 

trench to c.41.20m AOD at the northern end. The dark 

yellowish-brown ploughsoil (C1123) was found to be c.0.40m 

in depth throughout the trench and overlay a well-drained 

homogenous orangish-brown gravel and clayey silt natural 

subsoil (C1124) which was consistent throughout the trench. 

Plate 31 Intervention 27 looking north 

(scale 2m) 



Five features were defined within Intervention 27 (Figure 69). A cluster of features, F20, F27, F28 and F29 

were situated close to the northern end of the intervention and an isolated feature, F30, was situated at the 

southern end of the intervention and continued beyond the edge of excavation. F20 was defined initially as a 

large amorphous deposit of sterile clayey silt measuring 6.50m long by 2.90m minimum width, and disappeared 

beyond the eastern edge of the trench. The southwestern quadrant was excavated where it proved to be a poorly 

defined shallow gently sloping feature with an ill-defined base filled with a sterile gravelly clayey silt C1198 

(Figure 70). A single chert flake was recovered from C1198, although this is likely to be a surface find and 

inspection of the surrounding natural subsoil system suggested that C1198 represented a pocket of gravel within 

the natural subsoil of the area. This interpretation was confirmed by F27, which was identified on the western 

side of the intervention, and cut into the natural system represented by F20. 

F27 was defined as a possibly sub-oval feature measuring 1.10m in width by a minimum 0.70m in length. 

Excavation revealed the feature to be a steep-sided cut with a concave base backfilled once with C1208, a 

gravel-rich (50%) dark greyish-brown clayey silt (Figure 71). The deposit was generally well-defined, although 

some merging with the subsoil interface was noted. F27 was interpreted as a small pit or posthole, and while 

no dateable material was contained within C1208, a fragment of large mammal long bone was recovered 

(Appendix H). 

F28 was situated c.8.0m from the northern end of the intervention and appeared as a small circular deposit of 

greyish-brown gravelly silt, measuring c.0.70m in diameter. The feature was sectioned approximately NE-SW 

and the northwestern side was excavated, revealing an insubstantial feature up to 0.15m in depth (Figure 72). 

F28 had been backfilled once with C1209, which consisted of a dark greyish-brown silt with a high percentage 

of mixed gravel (75%) which appeared to be a redeposited subsoil. F28 was interpreted as either a truncated 

archaeological feature or a natural depression in the subsoil system; no dateable material was recovered during 

excavation. 

F29 was situated c.3.20m to the northeast of F28 and appeared as a deposit of dark brown clayey silt. The 

feature was situated at the eastern side of the intervention and continued beyond the eastern edge of excavation. 

It appeared to be a sub-circular feature measuring c.2.20m in diameter. The feature was half-sectioned northsouth 

and the western half was removed. Excavation revealed the feature to be 0.50m deep with well-defined 

gently sloping sides and a concave base (Figure 73). The feature had been backfilled once with C1210, a sterile 

brown clayey silt with high percentage of gravel (45%). F29 was interpreted as a pit of unknown function; no 

dateable material was recovered during excavation. 

F30 was situated at the southern end of the intervention and was only partially visible, disappearing beneath the 

southern western and eastern limits of the intervention. The feature appeared as a possible sub-circular deposit 

of sterile brown silt. The northeastern quadrant of the available area was excavated where the feature proved 

to have gently sloping sides to a depth of c.0.60m below the top of the feature becoming near-vertical thereafter 

(Figure 74). The feature was excavated to a depth of c.1.20m below the top of ploughsoil, and excavation was 

stepped in but only continued for another 0.20m; excavation was not taken further for health and safety reasons. 

The bottom of the feature was sought with an auger, an exercise which suggested a total depth of 2.50m. 

Within the excavated sample a total of six deposits were encountered, C1211, C1216 to C1220 inclusive (Figure 



75). The stratigraphically earliest fill to be encountered, C1217, consisted of a tipping deposit of grey clean 

sterile silt and proved to be homogenous and contained only gravel. C1217 was visible in both the east and west 

facing sections of F30, and was very similar to a band of gravelly coarse sand in the surrounding natural system 

at the same height as C1217. C1217 was overlain by a deposit of sterile gravel which contained black-coloured 

flecks which were thought to be manganese mineralisation (C1220). C1220 was overlain by a desiccated poorquality 

blocky peat with occasional veins of silver sand and mixed gravel throughout (C1219), which appeared 

to be tipping or ‘u’-shaped in profile. This deposit was overlain in turn by C1218 a tip of clean grey silt with 

rare charcoal flecks (2%), which was only visible in the north facing section of the feature. C1218 was overlain 

by another deposit with a tipping profile, C1216, which was a gravel-rich grey coarse sand. C1216 was defined 

as a clean sterile grey silt with rare mixed gravel inclusions measuring 0.50m thick within the excavated sample, 

although its full depth is unknown. This deposit was sealed by a ‘u’-shaped deposit of clean brown gravel-rich 

silt measuring up to c.1.00m in depth, which represented the latest fill of the feature (C1211). 

The fill system of F30 consisted mainly of tipping deposits, at least one of which represented the slumping of 

the surrounding natural subsoil (C1217), and only one of which consisted of desiccated peat (C1219); F30 was 

consequently interpreted as a sink hole and corresponded with the position of F24 (Intervention 4). 



boundary of Zone D within Zone B (see Figure 36). This 

machine-excavated trench measured 50m x 4m and was 

orientated east-west (Plate 32). Ground surface sloped down 

from c.41.15m AOD at the western end of the trench to 

c.40.55m AOD at the eastern end. The dark yellowish-brown 

ploughsoil (C1123) was found to be c.0.40m in depth 

throughout the trench and overlay an orangish-brown gravel and 

clayey silt subsoil (C1124) which became more grey and silty 

towards the eastern end of the trench. 


2m) 

A single feature, F32 was identified within Intervention 28 and was situated against the southern edge of the 

trench and continued beyond it (Figure 76). It appeared as a possibly circular deposit of dark olive grey sandy 

clay measuring c.0.70m in diameter. The entire available area was excavated and the feature proved to be a 

shallow, possibly sub-rectangular cut with steep sides and a flat base (Figure 77). Definition of the feature’s 

edges against C1124 was problematic, but two deposits were identified during excavation, C1214 and C1215. 

C1215 was the earliest backfill and consisted of a mixed olive grey friable clayey sand with lenses of friable 

yellow sand throughout. Occasional mixed gravel and pebbles were noted, but the deposit was otherwise sterile. 

C1215 was overlain by C1214, a dark olive grey sandy clay which contained charcoal flecks and very rare (2%) 

fine mixed gravel. F32 was interpreted as a small pit; no dateable material was recovered during excavation. 


Intervention 29 was situated towards the northern boundary of Zone B (see Figure 36). The machine-excavated 



trench measured 100m x 4m and was orientated north-south, 

and was positioned to contact a number of geophysical 

anomalies (Intervention 4, F2 and F4, Intervention 5, an area of 

high resistance) (Plate 33). Ground surface was fairly level at 

c.41.00m AOD. The dark yellowish-brown gravel and clayey 

silt ploughsoil (C1123) was found to be c.0.35-0.40m in depth. 

The underlying natural subsoil consisted of an homogenous 

orangish-brown gravel and clayey silt subsoil with bands of 

cleaner grey gravel and clayey silt running across the trench 

towards the north (C1124). 


2m) 

A total of four features were identified within Intervention 29: F21, F34, F35, F36 (Figure 78). F21 was situated 

c.37.80m from the southern end of the trench and was defined as a possibly sub-circular large feature against 

the eastern edge of the trench and continuing beyond it. The feature was half-sectioned north-south where it 

proved to have gently sloping sides to a depth of 0.70m, which then became near-vertical to a depth of 1.10m 

below the top of the feature (Figure 79); excavation ceased at this point for health and safety reasons. Within 

the excavated sample, three distinct deposits were identified, C1199, C1222 and C1223. The earliest deposit, 

C1223, consisted of a moist dark brown clayey-silt with a minimum 0.20m thickness; the base of the deposit 

was not reached during excavation. This deposit was overlain by C1222, a sterile grey clayey silt flecked with 

orange silt clods and containing occasional mixed gravel and pebbles. The final fill of F21 was allocated C1199 

and consisted of a sterile brown clayey silt which contained high percentages of mixed gravel and pebbles 

(40%). The sterile backfills and form of F21 suggest it was a sink hole and the feature corresponded with F4 

(Intervention 4). 

F34 was located c.8.0m to the north of F21 and was identified as a linear 

deposit of olive brown sandy-silt (Plate 34). The feature was orientated eastwest 

and was visible for 4.0m and measured 0.63m in width. A 2.0m section 

was excavated through the feature where it proved to be a shallow gully with 

a moderately sloping northern edge and a gently sloping southern edge (Figure 

80). The gully had been backfilled once with C1224, an olive brown sandy silt 

with moderate inclusions of mixed gravel and pebbles. F34 corresponds with 

the position and alignment of an historic field boundary and is considered to be 

relatively recent in date. 

F35 was situated 27.70m from the northern end of Intervention 29 and was 

defined as a sub-oval deposit of greyish-brown sandy silt. The feature was 

half-sectioned north-south and upon excavation proved to be a circular cut with 

gently sloping sides measuring 0.85m x 0.42m x 0.10m, and backfilled once 

with C1225 (Figure 81). C1225 consisted of a greyish-brown deposit of sandy 

clay with high percentages of mixed gravel and pebble inclusions (40%), but 

was otherwise sterile. F35 was interpreted as a small truncated pit. 

Plate 34 F34, Intervention 29, 

looking east (scale 1m) 

To the northwest of F35, a second similar feature was identified and allocated F36. The feature was first defined 



as a sub-oval deposit of very dark grey sandy silt (Plate 35). The feature was 

half-sectioned north-south and had moderately sloping sides and a concave 

base. Two backfills were defined during excavation, C1228 and C1226. 

C1228 consisted of a very dark grey sandy silt which contained occasional 

gravel but was otherwise sterile. This deposit measured 0.10m deep and was 

overlain by a second backfill, C1226. This deposit consisted of a very clean 

light yellowish-brown silty clay with no inclusions or dateable material and 

measured 0.10m deep. F36 was also interpreted as a small truncated pit. 


Intervention 30 was positioned 8.4m to the north of Intervention 29, close to 

the northern boundary of Zone B (see Figure 36). The trench was designed to 

contact several geophysical anomalies detected by both magnetometry and soil 

resistance survey (Intervention 4, F1 and part of F2, 

Intervention 5, F40 and F42). This machine-excavated trench 

measured 50m x 8m and was orientated east-west (Plate 36). 

Ground surface was level at c.41.10m AOD. The dark gravel 

and clayey silt ploughsoil (C1123) was found to be c.0.35m 

deep. The underlying natural subsoil consisted of an 

homogenous orangish-brown gravel and clayey silt subsoil with 

areas of fine grey silty clay towards the eastern end of the 

trench (C1124). 

A single feature was identified within Intervention 30 (Figure 

82) and allocated F31, which appeared as a sub-oval deposit of pale olive sand 

(Plate 37). The deposit measured 1.20m in length by 0.67m in width and was 

half-sectioned NW-SE and the eastern half of the feature removed. Upon 

excavation, F31 proved to be a steep-sided cut with a concave base (Figure 83). 

The feature had been backfilled twice with C1212 and C1213. The earliest 

backfill, C1213, consisted of a dark grey sandy clay with occasional pebbles 

inclusions and rare charcoal flecks. The deposit measured 0.21m and was 

overlain by C1212, a light olive brown sandy clay which also contained 

occasional pebble inclusions and rare charcoal flecks. F31 was interpreted as 

a small pit; no dateable material was recovered during excavation. The feature 

was found to correspond with part of F43, a circular low resistance anomaly 

(Intervention 5). 



looking east (scale 0.5m) 


2m) 


looking west (scale 0.5m) 

Intervention 31 was situated c.16.10m from the eastern boundary and in the northwestern corner of Zone B (see 

Figure 36). This machine-excavated trench measured 50m x 4m and was orientated east-west (Plate 38). The 

ground surface level sloped upwards from the western end of the trench at c.42.10m AOD to c.41.70m AOD 



at the eastern end. The yellowish-brown gravel and clayey silt 

ploughsoil (C1123) was found to be c.0.30-0.35m deep. This 

overlay the natural subsoil which consisted of an homogenous 

orangish-brown gravel and clayey silt which became gradually 

more grey in colour towards the eastern end of the trench 

(C1124). 

A single feature was identified within Intervention 31 and 

allocated F33, which appeared as a crescentic deposit of light 

olive brown sandy clay (Figure 84). The deposit measured 

2.20m in length by 0.60m in width. Upon excavation, F33 


2m) 

proved to have a shallow cut with gently sloping sides and a concave base and measured c.0.10m deep (Figure 

85). The feature had been backfilled once with C1221. The backfill consisted of a sterile pale olive sand with 

only rare mixed pebble inclusions and very rare charcoal flecks. F33 was interpreted as a small irregular pit; 

no dateable material was recovered during excavation. 


Intervention 32 was located in the southwestern corner of Zone 

A and measured 100m x 4m (see Figure 36). The trench was 

positioned in order to contact a curvilinear anomaly detected 

during the magnetometer area survey (Intervention 4, F13), 

although it was not encountered archaeologically. The trench 

was machine excavated and was orientated east-west (Plate 39). 

The ground within the area of the trench was 40.80m AOD. 

The yellowish-brown gravel and clayey silt ploughsoil (C1123) 

was found to be c.0.30m deep and overlay a natural subsoil 

which consisted of an homogenous orangish-brown gravel and 

clayey silt with broad bands of cleaner greyish-brown clayey 

silt towards the western end of the trench (C1124). 


2m) 

No features were defined within Intervention 32. 


Intervention 33 was situated 29.20m to the north of Intervention 

33, measured 100m x 4m and was designed to investigate and 

intersect several geophysical anomalies (Intervention 4, part of 

F7, F8 and F10, Intervention 5, F37) (see Figure 36). The 

trench was machine-excavated and was orientated north-south 

(Plate 40). Ground surface within the area of the trench was 

40.90m AOD. Ploughsoil consisted of a yellowish-brown 

gravel and clayey silt (C1123) which was a consistent 0.30- 


2m) 



0.35m depth over the whole trench. C1123 overlay the natural subsoil which consisted of an homogenous 

orangish-brown gravel and clayey silt with areas of clean grey gravel throughout the trench (C1124). 

A total of four features were defined within Intervention 33, 

F39, F40, F41 and F47 (Figure 86). F39 was defined as an oval 

deposit of light greyish-brown sandy clay, measuring 1.10m 

long by 0.60m wide, located 22.0m from the southern end of the 

intervention. The feature was initially half-sectioned, but 

during excavation the articulated skeletal remains of a dog were 

identified (Plate 41). The burial had been truncated by 

ploughing on its southern side resulting in the loss of the rear 

limbs (Figure 87). F39 is considered to be a modern dog burial. 

Plate 41 F39, Intervention 33, dog burial 

looking west (scale 0.5m) 

In the northern end of the trench the remaining three features were identified. F40 was located 27.0m from the 

northern end of Intervention 33 and was defined as an elongated oval deposit of brown sandy clay measuring 

2.10m in length by 0.73m in width. Upon excavation, the feature proved to be a shallow pit with moderately 

sloping sides and rounded ends (Figure 88). The feature had been backfilled twice with C1235 and C1236. 

C1236 was the earliest backfill and consisted of a dark bluish-grey deposit of sandy clay with occasional 

inclusions of mixed pebbles, but was otherwise sterile. C1236 was overlain by C1235 which comprised a mixed 

grey sandy clay with clods of strong brown sandy clay. Rare mixed pebbles and cobbles and charcoal flecks 

were also noted. F40 was interpreted as a small pit; no dateable material was recovered during excavation. 

F41 was situated 2.00m to the north of F40 and first appeared as a linear deposit of dark greyish-brown clayey 

silt orientated NNE-SSW and continued beyond the eastern and western limits of the intervention. A 2.00m 

section was excavated whereupon the feature proved to be a shallow gully with moderately sloping sides on the 

northern edge and gently sloping sides on the southern edge (Figure 89). The gully measured 0.20m deep and 

had been backfilled once with C1237, which consisted of a greyish-brown clayey silt containing occasional 

gravel and pebbles inclusions. F41 did not correspond with any known historic boundaries and no dateable 

material was recovered, although the form and backfill was reminiscent of other confirmed recent features. 

At the northern end of Intervention 33 a large feature was defined and allocated F47. The feature first appeared 

as a possibly linear deposit of stiff brown clayey silt measuring 9.0m wide. A 1.00m slot was excavated through 

the feature north-south to ascertain its form. It proved to be a broad shallow cut with gently sloping sides 

(Figure 90), although definition between the feature fills and subsoil was problematic and a sondage was 

excavated in the base of the feature to test the natural subsoil. Two fills were identified within F47, C1244 and 

C1245. C1245 was the basal fill of F47 and consisted of a loose desiccated peaty silt measuring 0.10m thick. 

This deposit was overlain by C1244, a stiff brown sandy silt with very rare mixed gravel and pebbles. Both 

deposits within F47 were sampled for environmental assessment which identified rare fragments of oak 

charcoal, small fragments of insect pupae, and natural iron concretions. F47 corresponds with the geophysical 

anomaly allocated as part of F7 (Intervention 4) and is likely to represent a sink hole. 




Intervention 34 was situated c.16.55m to the north of 

Intervention 33, measured 100m x 4m and was designed to 

intersect a linear cropmark and several geophysical anomalies 

(Intervention 4, F5, Intervention 5, F35 and F36) (see Figure 

36). The trench was machine excavated and orientated eastwest 

(Plate 42). The local ground surface was relatively level 

at c.41.20m AOD. Ploughsoil (C1123) consisted of a 

yellowish-brown gravel and clayey silt and was found to be 

between 0.30-0.35m deep. C1123 overlay the natural subsoil 

which consisted of an homogenous well-drained orangishbrown 

gravel and clayey silt which was consistent over the 

whole of the trench (C1124). 


2m) 

Two features were defined within Intervention 34, F48 and F50 (Figure 91). F48 was located 50.80m from the 

western end of the intervention and appeared as a butt-ending linear deposit of brown silt. Upon excavation it 

proved to be a possible butt-ending feature with moderately sloping sides and measuring 1.00m wide x 2.00m 

visible length (Figure 92). F48 had been backfilled once with C1246, a firm brown sandy silt with rare mixed 

gravel and pebble inclusions which was otherwise sterile. F48 was interpreted as a possible furrow or ditch; 

no dateable material was recovered during excavation. 

F50 was situated 24.60m from the eastern end of the intervention and was defined as a circular deposit of brown 

sandy silt. The feature was half-sectioned east-west and the southern half removed where it proved to be a pit 

measuring 1.40m in diameter but only 0.19m deep (Figure 93). The pit had been backfilled once with C1248, 

a brown sandy silt deposit which was flecked with mineralisation throughout. The deposit had merged with the 

surrounding subsoil making definition and feature identification difficult. F50 was interpreted as a small 

possible pit; no dateable material was recovered during excavation. 


Intervention 35 was situated towards the central area, and the 

southern boundary, of Zone A (see Figure 36). The trench was 

machine excavated and measured 100m x 4m, orientated northsouth 

(Plate 43). Ground surface within the area of the trench 

was 40.90m AOD. The yellowish-brown gravel and clayey silt 

ploughsoil (C1123) was found to be c.0.30m deep. This overlay 

the natural subsoil which consisted of an homogenous orangishbrown 

gravel and clayey silt subsoil which included areas and 

bands of mineralisation throughout the trench (C1124). 



2m) 




Intervention 36 was situated 82.85m to the east of Intervention 

35, 72.80m from the southern boundary of Zone A (see Figure 

36). The trench was positioned to investigate a geophysical 

anomaly, F16 encountered during the magnetometer area survey 

(Intervention 4). The trench was machine-excavated, measured 

50m x 4m and was orientated north-south (Plate 44). Ground 

surface within the area of the trench was 40.15m AOD. 

Ploughsoil consisted of an homogenous yellowish-brown gravel 

and clayey silt (C1123), which was found to be between.0.30- 

0.35m deep. This overlay the natural subsoil which consisted 

of an homogenous pale grey gravel and clayey silt which 

became gradually more orangish-brown in colour towards the 

northern end of the trench (C1124). 


2m) 

Six features were defined within Intervention 36, F37, F38, and F43 to F46 inclusive (Figure 94). F37 was 

located 28.5m from the southern limit of the intervention and was located against, and continued beyond, the 

western edge of excavation. It first appeared as possibly sub-circular deposit of friable brown sandy silt. The 

entire available area was excavated whereupon it proved to be a shallow feature or depression measuring no 

greater than 0.10m in depth with gently sloping sides onto a concave base (Figure 95). The feature contained 

a single deposit of soft friable brown sandy silt which contained rare mixed gravel and pebbles, but was 

otherwise sterile (C1229). No dateable material was recovered from F37 and it was interpreted as a natural 

depression in the underlying subsoil which had filled with ploughsoil. F37 was cut by a modern field drain, F44 

which was orientated approximately north-south joining another field drain F43 to the north which was 

orientated approximately east-west. 

Towards the southern end of the intervention a deposit of yellowish-brown sandy clay was defined, situated 

against the western limit of the trench and continuing beyond it (F38). The entire available area of the feature 

was excavated where it proved to be a shallow scoop with gently sloping sides and a concave base (Figure 96). 

The feature contained one mixed sandy clay backfill which contained rare gravel but was otherwise sterile. Like 

F37, F38 appeared to represent a small hollow in the underlying natural system which had filled with ploughsoil. 

At the northern end of the trench two features were identified, F45 and F46, which were also cut by modern field 

drains F43 and F44. F45 was identified during excavation of F46 at the larger feature’s southern side and 

definition between the two features was poor, since F45 coincided with the rising edge of F46. Nonetheless, 

its excavated form revealed a ditch with gently sloping sides which became steeper towards the base of the 

feature. The feature’s dimensions were 4.0m (visible length) x 0.55m wide x 0.60m deep. The ditch was 

backfilled once with C1241 which consisted of a dark grey clayey silt which was sterile and had no inclusions 

apart from very rare fine gravel. 

F46 was defined as a much larger feature visible as a deposit of crumbly desiccated peat, C1242. The deposit 

continued beyond the western and eastern limits of the intervention, but appeared to measure c.6.90m wide. A 



1.00m slot was excavated through the deposit to ascertain the feature’s form. Upon excavation the feature 

proved to be a broad shallow scoop which contained two fills C1242 and C1243 (Figure 97). C1243 was the 

earliest fill and consisted of a stiff dense deposit of clayey silt which contained rare gravel, pebbles and rare 

charcoal flecks. This deposit was overlain by C1242 a crumbly blocky desiccated peat deposit. No dateable 

material was recovered from F46 and the fill system is reminiscent of other similar features at the site. Samples 

were recovered from both contexts within F46 and environmental assessment identified poorly preserved root 

fragments and fragments of insect pupae which were considered to be intrusive, and small quantities of oak 

charcoal. The feature has closest parallels with F47, Intervention 33, which was also a broad shallow scoop 

containing a desiccated peat deposit. Indeed, like F47, F46 corresponds with a geophysical anomaly allocated 

F16 (Intervention 4) and the feature is likely to represent part of a sink hole. The area appeared to have attracted 

two episodes of drainage, the first represented by F45 and then again by F43 and F44. 


Intervention 37 was situated in the southeastern corner of Zone 


machine excavated and was orientated east-west (Plate 45). 

Ground surface within the area of the trench was 39.80m AOD. 

The yellowish-brown gravel and clayey silt ploughsoil (C1123) 

was found to be between 0.30 and 0.35m deep. The underlying 

natural subsoil consisted of an homogenous orangish-brown 

gravel and clayey silt which included an area of clean grey 

clayey silt and strong patches of orangish-brown mineralisation 

(C1124). 


2m) 

Two features were identified within the intervention and allocated F42 and F54 (Figure 98). F42 was situated 

19.60m from the western end of the intervention and was defined as a sub-oval deposit of dark brown silt 

measuring 1.05m x 0.50m in plan. The feature was half sectioned approximately NE-SW and the northwestern 

half of the feature was removed where it proved to be an insubstantial scoop with gently sloping edges and a 

concave base (Figure 99). The feature was backfilled once with C1238, a dark brown silt with patches of 

mineral staining and rare gravel and pebbles. F42 was interpreted as a natural depression in the underlying 

natural system which had filled with ploughsoil; no dateable material was recovered during excavation. 

F54 was identified as a modern field drain orientated approximately east-west and draining towards the east. 


Intervention 38 was situated 75.5m from the eastern boundary and 142.10m from the southern boundary of Zone 

A (see Figure 36). The trench was positioned to investigate part of a curvilinear anomaly, F15, detected by 

magnetometer survey (Intervention 4). The trench was machine-excavated, measured 100m x 4m and was 

orientated east-west (Plate 46). The local ground surface was highest in the middle of the trench at c.41.05m 

AOD, and sloped down to the east to c.40.70m AOD, and to the west at c.40.75m AOD. The yellowish-brown 

gravel and clayey silt ploughsoil (C1123) was found to be 0.30-0.40m in depth, and overlay a natural subsoil 



consisting of an orangish-brown gravel and clayey silt with 

bands of more grey gravel running throughout. The surface of 

C1124 reflected ground level topography. 

Two features were defined within Intervention 38 and were 

allocated F49 and F55 (Figure 100). F49 first appeared as a 

small sub-circular deposit of brown sandy silt. It measured 

c.0.30m in diameter and was initially half-sectioned NW-SE 

where it proved to be a shallow gently sloping cut no greater 

than 0.07m deep (Figure 101). The pit had been backfilled 

once with C1247, a firm brown sandy silt which contained 

charcoal flecks. F49 was interpreted as a possible truncated 

pit. 


2m) 

F55 was identified as a modern field drain orientated NNW-SSE and visible for the width of Intervention 38. 


Intervention 39 was situated in the northeastern corner of Zone 


machine-excavated and was orientated east-west (Plate 47). 

The local ground surface sloped down from c.40.00m AOD at 

the western end of the trench to c.39.60m AOD at the eastern 

end. The dark yellowish-brown ploughsoil was found to be 

0.30-0.40m in depth throughout the trench and overlay a welldrained 

homogenous orangish-brown gravel and clayey silt 

subsoil (C1124). The surface of C1124 reflected the local 

topography. 


2m) 

A single feature was identified within Intervention 39 and allocated F52 (Figure 102). F52 was defined initially 

as a small circular deposit of dark greyish-brown sandy silt. The deposit measured 0.22m in diameter and upon 

excavation proved to be a shallow irregular feature, measuring 0.13m deep (Figure 103). A single backfill was 

identified and allocated C1250, which was a firm dark greyish-brown sandy silt containing rare fine gravel, 

pebbles and a few charcoal flecks. F52 was interpreted as a 

possible truncated pit. 



boundary of Zone A and 90.50m west of Intervention 39 (see 

Figure 36). The trench was machine excavated, measured 50m 

x 4m and was orientated east-west (Plate 48). The surrounding 

ground surface sloped down gently from the eastern end at 


2m) 



c.40.70m AOD to c.40.50m at the western end. The ploughsoil, C1123, consisted of an homogenous yellowishbrown 

gravelly clayey silt and measured between 0.30-0.40m in depth. The surface of subsoil C1124 reflected 

ground level topography and consisted of an orangish-brown gravel and clayey silt with areas of more brown 

clayey silt. 

A single feature was identified within Intervention 40 and allocated F51 (Figure 104). This was first defined 

as a small circular deposit of dark grayish brown sandy silt measuring c.0.33m in diameter. Upon excavation 

the feature was revealed to be a very shallow scoop no greater than 0.03m deep (Figure 105). A single backfill 

was contained within F51 which consisted of a clean dark greyish-brown sandy silt with inclusions of very rare 

gravel, charcoal and iron-rich mineralised staining. The feature was interpreted as a truncated possible pit; no 

dateable material was recovered during excavation. 


Intervention 41 was situated close to the northern boundary of 

Zone A (see Figure 36) and measured 50m x 4m, being 

orientated north-south (Plate 49). The local ground level was 

highest at the northern end at c.40.50m AOD sloping down by 

0.50m to southern end. Ploughsoil C1123 measured between 

0.30 and 0.50m in depth, and overlay the natural subsoil C1124 

which reflected ground level topography. C1124 was 

predominantly a well-drained orangish-brown gravel and clayey 

silt with areas of light grey gravel throughout the trench. 



2m) 


Intervention 42 was situated within Zone E to the east of the 

main evaluation area (see Figure 36). The machine-excavated 

trench measured 100m x 4m and was orientated east-west (Plate 

50). Ground level was highest at the centre of the trench at 

c.41.80m AOD sloping down by 0.50m to the west and 0.20m 

to the east. Ploughsoil C1123 consisted of a yellowish-brown 

clayey silt with gravel and pebbles and was found to be 0.30- 

0.40m in depth throughout the trench. The surface of the 

natural subsoil C1125 reflected ground level topography and 

consisted of a predominantly mid-brown gravel and clayey silt 

with bands of light grey clayey silt running through the trench. 


2m) 

A single feature was identified within Intervention 42 and was allocated F53 (Figure 106). F53 first appeared 

as an apparently linear deposit of dark yellowish-brown silty sand orientated approximately north-south. Upon 

excavation the feature was found to be a variation in the natural subsoil system and was not archaeological in 



origin (Figure 107). 

9.0 DISCUSSION 

The results of the staged evaluation programme at Ladybridge Farm allow a number of conclusions to be drawn 

regarding the nature of archaeological features within this area. The battery of techniques used has proved to 

be complementary and results suggest a general dearth of archaeological remains at the site. Indeed, there is 

little by way of archaeological remains for most periods, particularly from the Bronze Age to the modern period. 

The results do, however, point to an area of prehistoric activity in the southern part of the site, focussed towards 

the highest ground in the southwest corner of the area of investigation (Zone C). This can be interpreted as part 

of a wider area of Neolithic activity, located on land surrounding an in-filled lake, the relict bank of which was 

identified in Zone E. 

9.1 CROPMARKS AND HISTORIC FIELD BOUNDARIES 

The linear and curvilinear features identified from aerial photography were largely targeted by trial trenches and 

proved to be of no archaeological interest. All of the cropmarks identified within the area of investigation, 

including the concentric of features to the west of Ladybridge Farm, seem likely to be either geological in origin, 

reflect surface topography, or represent temporary paths into the farmland. 

9.2 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY 

Of the thirty-five evaluation excavation trenches, fifteen were positioned specifically to investigate anomalies, 

or intersect possible linear features, detected by geophysical survey. Of these, twelve were designed to target 

features identified within the magnetometer data (Interventions 17, 18, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36 and 38) 

and seven trenches were located to investigate anomalies identified by soil resistance survey (Interventions 8, 

9, 13, 29, 30, 33 and 34). In some cases a trench was designed to encounter both kinds of anomaly as well as 

cropmarks. With the exception of seven sinkhole features and two undated pits the features identified in the 

geophysical data were not encountered archaeologically. In addition several areas of magnetic variation or high 

and low resistance were confirmed as variation in the underlying natural subsoil. The modern agricultural pit 

encountered at the easternmost end of Intervention 13 was detected during soil resistance survey. 

The magnetometer survey proved successful in identifying the location and distribution of sink hole features 

due to subsequent subsiding fills containing more dished ploughsoil, which was more magnetic than the 

surrounding natural subsoil. In addition the features tended to have higher moisture levels than the surrounding 

sand and gravel and were therefore also susceptible to detection through soil resistance survey. Other than these 

large features the geophysics proved capable of locating modern field drains and ploughing but little by way of 

archaeological significance. 

93. FIELDWALKING AND TEST PIT EXCAVATION 

Fieldwalking and test pit excavation finds were dominated by late post-medieval and modern material derived 



from recent manuring regimes. The distribution of this material on the ploughsoil surface seems to correlate 

with the plotted historic field boundaries. 

The lithic material recovered during fieldwalking (see Figure 12) demonstrated a higher density of finds in the 

southwestern part of the site (Zone C), with notably less finds further north, and gradually fewer further east. 

As noted, this initial distribution correlates with the results of earlier phases of fieldwalking in 1996, 2003 and 

2004 (Harding 1998a; 2004b), and suggests a higher level of prehistoric activity. The presence of cores and 

blades exclusively within this area would further suggest that the production and use of such artefacts may have 

occurred in this area; that dateable and burnt examples were also primarily in this area is worthy of note. 

The programme of test-pitting and sieving produced similar results. The much higher numbers of lithics 

recovered from Zone C can in some way be attributed to the different methodology employed in this area, but 

across the wider site, the same trends were identified; lithics occurred in higher densities closer to the southern 

and western boundaries of the site. The finds date from the Mesolithic to the Bronze Age, demonstrating 

activity in the region over a considerable period of time. 

Results of this nature have been produced during a programme of test-pitting undertaken to investigate ‘high’, 

‘medium’ and ‘low’ densities of lithics recovered during fieldwalking in the area to the east of the Thornborough 

henges (Harding and Johnson 2004c, 20-1). No prehistoric features were identified which could be securely 

associated with the finds in the ploughsoil. Harding and Johnson stress that the activities of later periods of 

agriculture, particularly modern farming and land use have often obliterated archaeological features of 

prehistoric date (Harding and Johnson 2004c, 20). Unfortunately, given the destructive impact of farming 

practices, it is difficult to differentiate between finds derived from completely ploughed out features from finds 

which were originally discarded on the prehistoric ground surface. 

9.4 EVALUATION EXCAVATION 

During evaluation a total of fifty-four features were defined and investigated (Figure 108). Of these, a total of 

eleven linear features were identified and upon investigation four of them proved to be modern land drains and 

three could be related to plotted historic field boundaries; an isolated curvilinear feature within Intervention 11 

remains undated. Seven features identified during evaluation were identified as possible sinkholes, of which, 

three contained desiccated peat deposits with eight others identified as natural depressions. Four deposits from 

these features were the subject of environmental assessment which concluded that they were of limited 

environmental potential. In addition, four pits were dated to the late Neolithic pits by ceramic, and twenty-three 

were undated pits. In addition a single dog burial was encountered and was considered to be modern. 

The late Neolithic features which were encountered were poorly preserved and frequently demonstrated recent 

plough-damage, as did the undated features encountered. Following environmental assessment, two late 

Neolithic features and an undated charcoal-rich feature were deemed to have limited environmental potential. 

The results of evaluation trenching confirmed the overall patterns detected by fieldwalking and test pit 

excavation, and demonstrated a higher level of prehistoric activity in Zone C, and part of Zone D. Dateable 

features were found to be small, truncated pits of late Neolithic date, containing ceramic and lithic artefacts 



indicative of domestic activity, although other undated features may also belong to this period. 

These pits are likely to form part of a much wider area of activity identified during watching briefs in the 

adjacent Nosterfield Quarry (FAS 2005), although the density of features appears to be lower, and their state 

of preservation poorer at Ladybridge Farm. Within the quarry site, similar features, containing comparable 

ceramic (including Grimston and Grooved wares) and lithic material, were identified in loose groups around 

the edges of an in-filled lake, which is likely to have been marshy, and seasonally characterised by standing 

water (Figure 109). Some features, which produced evidence for heating and quantities of charcoal, have been 

tentatively identified as associated hearths. This activity seems to be concentrated in the southern part of 

Nosterfield Quarry, possibly delineated by an alignment of pits and a ditch. The late Neolithic activity at 

Ladybridge Farm also appears to be situated to the south of this potential boundary. 

While the distributions evidenced by fieldwalking, test pitting and trial tenches adhere to the same general 

trends, the investigations revealed that the evidence from surface collection, and the presence of finds within 

the ploughsoil, cannot be used directly to infer the presence of underlying archaeological features. This lack 

of direct correlation has implications for the future interpretation of lithic scatters in this area, and also for the 

fieldwork strategies that may be subsequently employed as small scale investigations over ‘hot spots’ will not 

necessarily identify associated features. 

Although no Roman, early medieval or medieval features were identified, vestiges of later agricultural practices 

were encountered during the excavation of trial trenches at Ladybridge Farm, where three features were 

identified as historic field boundaries. A larger number of such linear features have been investigated at 

Nosterfield Quarry; hedgerows and ditches were used to delineate the enclosure of the landscape during the 

post-medieval period which have since fallen out of use. 

10.0 ASSESSMENT 

There is a notable absence of archaeology from the early Bronze Age (discounting lithic material of this date 

within the ploughsoil) to the early post-medieval period. The later post-medieval period is represented only by 

the historic field divisions and the manuring material within the ploughsoil. Some of the historic field divisions 

were apparently encountered during evaluation, but were unremarkable features. 

The programme of evaluation has defined an area of late Neolithic activity. This is manifest as a concentration 

of lithic material distributed horizontally and throughout the depth of the ploughsoil. It is also present in the 

form of scattered small pit features which are identifiable through their content: principally late Neolithic 

pottery, and were also found to contain broadly dated lithic pieces, charcoal and calcined bone. Both the lithic 

concentration and the excavated features are distributed throughout the southwestern part of the area of 

investigation fading to the north and the east. The identified area seems to be located on the highest ground 

within the investigation area. The broader distribution of these features reflects the trends identified at 

Nosterfield Quarry in so far as the activity seems to focus on the zone surrounding the infilled prehistoric lake. 

Investigation within Zone E, including surface reconnaissance and auger survey, has identified the possible 

eastern limit of the infilled lake represented by a marked slope which may reflect the original edge of the lake, 



as well as deposits of marl with occasional pockets of desiccated peat which is typical of the detritus filling the 

feature. 

The lithic distributions from fieldwalking and test pit excavation appear to reflect the area of prehistoric activity. 

The concentration of lithics detected by fieldwalking and test pit excavation corresponded with the area where 

Neolithic features were encountered during evaluation excavation. However, the lithic material within and on 

the ploughsoil does not appear to pertain directly to underlying features. Horizontally located flint could not 

therefore be reunited with plough-disturbed underlying archaeological features. 

The preservation of the late Neolithic features deserves further discussion. Feature 1 encountered within 

Intervention 7 allowed the first incidence of the ploughsoil-late Neolithic archaeology interface to be recorded 

in section. The excavation records identified substantial disturbance of the upper levels of the feature and 

extreme subsoil dragging and turbulence. Such damage has at times been identifiable in plan at Nosterfield 

Quarry. The depths of the identifiable late Neolithic features at Ladybridge Farm compare poorly with those 

encountered during Investigation 3 at Nosterfield Quarry (FAS 2005) which tended to be better preserved and 

subject to far less plough damage. This higher level of plough damage may offer a possible explanation for the 

lower density of prehistoric features in the Ladybridge Farm sample; it is clear that the Ladybridge archaeology 

is under severe and immediate threat from ploughing. 

The evaluation results suggest that the density of late Neolithic features is lower within the current area of 

investigation than in areas encountered previously. The total number of probable late Neolithic features 

encountered within the southern zones stands at six (F1, F2, F7, F14, F16 and F17), including those dated by 

2 

lithics only, in trenches totalling 4281m . The total of identifiable features is likely to be low, however, and 

some undated features may also prove to belong to the late Neolithic period. 

10.1 PALAEOENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Dr Stephen Carter) 

10.1.1 Introduction 

The purpose of this report is to provide an assessment of the palaeoenvironmental aspects of the archaeological 

resource at Ladybridge Farm. The palaeoenvironmental resource is defined as all sources of information on the 

nature of the environment in the past. Particular emphasis is placed on evidence for human impact on the 

landscape and man-environment interactions, given the archaeological context of this assessment. This 

information will be retained in mineral and organic sediments, deposited since the last ice age. Data-sets may 

include both biological materials (for example pollen, beetles or phytoliths) and properties of the actual 

sediments, which are the diagnostic products of chemical and physical processes. 

Evidence relating to the contemporary environment derived from archaeological features and deposits may be 

a significant resource in its own right and has been assessed (Appendix G). The scope of the present report is 

limited to what would be viewed by archaeologists as off-site deposits. 



This report addresses the following topics: 

 

 

Characterisation of the palaeoenvironmental resource 

Assessment of the significance of the resource 

The assessment of significance has been informed by the results of detailed palaeoenvironmental studies on 

deposits within the existing Nosterfield Quarry, immediately to the west of Ladybridge Farm. These are closely 

comparable with the deposits encountered during the evaluation of Ladybridge Farm. Other than some 

preliminary sampling and dating of deposits by Dr Richard Tipping (University of Stirling), the 

palaeoenvironmental data were collected by the University of Durham (Project Leaders Professor Anthony Long 

and Dr David Bridgland) under a project funded by English Heritage as part of the Aggregate Levy 

Sustainability Fund. The interpretations in this assessment report are those of the author (Stephen Carter), and 

not necessarily those of the Durham University or English Heritage. 

10.1.2 Methods 

The assessment is based on a desk-based study of relevant archaeological, palaeoenvironmental, 

geomorphological and geological records for Ladybridge Farm, Nosterfield Quarry and the surrounding area. 

The principal sources of relevant information are: 

 

 

 

 

 

Archaeological data for Ladybridge Farm and Nosterfield Quarry (FAS); 

Peat auger survey data for Ladybridge Farm and The Flasks (Nosterfield Quarry)(FAS); 

Palaeoenvironmental assessments and analyses of peat deposits from Nosterfield Quarry, by the 

Universities of Stirling and Durham (including work undertaken as part of the Swale and Ure 

Washlands Project at the University of Durham); 

Geological data for Ladybridge Farm, provided by (Tarmac); 

Published geological information for Nosterfield and related areas, including research on gypsum 

subsidence, by the British Geological Survey and others. 

There are no formal or widely accepted criteria that can be used to determine the significance of the 

palaeoenvironmental resource at Ladybridge Farm. Therefore in the present assessment, significance has been 

judged against the following general criteria: 

 

 

 

 

 

Temporal resolution: How short a time span can be detected in the information 

Spatial resolution: how large is the area of land that the information derives from 

Date-range: what date-range does the resource span 

Preservation: how well preserved are the sources of information 

Rarity: is the information likely to be available from other sources 

A highly significant resource will be one that spans a long, archaeologically relevant time span and has high 

temporal and spatial resolution; the data will be well-preserved and not available from other sources. Resources 

of lower significance will include those of short or poorly defined time spans, low resolution and poor 

preservation. 



10.1.3 Characterisation of the resource 

Evidence of past human environments at Ladybridge Farm will potentially be retained in any sediments that 

have been deposited or accumulated since the end of the last ice age, roughly ten thousand years ago i.e. 

sediments of Holocene date. This area of land is covered in several metres of sands and gravels of fluvio-glacial 

origin that are the target of the present quarrying operations (British Geological Survey 1992). These sediments 

were deposited during ice wasting at the end of the ice age when large volumes of water were released, sorting 

and re-distributing the unconsolidated sediments left by the retreating ice cover. The sands and gravels cover 

glacial till and limestone bedrock that outcrops to form low rises to the east and south of Ladybridge Farm. 

None of these sediments offer any potential for palaeoenvironmental data of archaeological significance because 

they date from a period of time when there was no detectable human presence in the area. However, sediment 

has accumulated more recently, during the Holocene period, in two situations at Ladybridge Farm and these are 

potentially of palaeoenvironmental significance: 

 

 

Small sediment-filled gypsum subsidence hollows 

Larger shallow sediment-filled depressions, possibly resulting from gypsum subsidence 

The character of these two depositional environments and processes leading to the accumulation of the deposits 

are described below. 

Subsidence due to gypsum dissolution 

Ladybridge Farm lies within a narrow belt of land in Yorkshire that is susceptible to surface subsidence due to 

the underground dissolution of gypsum (Powell et al 1992, British Geological Survey 1992). The hollows that 

are created by this process act as sediment traps, accumulating mineral and organic sediments, which are 

potential sources of palaeoenvironmental data. Powell distinguishes between the relatively small, discrete 

subsidence hollows and the larger areas of collapse: subsidence depressions. Subsidence hollows are present 

at Ladybridge Farm with definite examples being identified during the archaeological evaluation. Larger 

sediment-filled depressions have been identified at Ladybridge Farm, but it is not clear whether they are the 

product of gypsum dissolution or simply form irregularities in the hummocky surface of the fluvio-glacial 

deposits. Ice-wasting typically creates a chaotic surface topography and shallow sediment-filled hollows are 

typical of such hummocky terrain. 

Land subsidence due to gypsum is an extremely limited phenomenon in the UK. It has been reported where 

rocks of Permian age outcrop in a narrow zone running northwards from Nottinghamshire through Yorkshire 

and into County Durham. Active subsidence appears to be restricted to a much smaller area in the vicinity of 

Ripon in North Yorkshire; Nosterfield lies at the northern end of this active belt, which is no more than 3 km 

wide and 16 km long (Cooper 1986). Marl beds within the Permian rock sequence contain thick deposits of 

gypsum (hydrated Calcium Sulphate), which is highly soluble. Groundwater dissolves the gypsum, forming 

underground cavities. Progressive roof collapse allows these cavities to migrate upwards through overlying 

strata and break the surface, generally without warning. The upward migrating voids tend to be cylindrical pipes 

and when these reach the surface they form vertical-sided circular holes of varying diameter (see Klimchouk 

& Andrejchuk, 2003, for details of this process and explanatory illustrations). Recent examples of collapses 



from the Ripon area, reported by Cooper (1986), include holes 

12m and 30 m in diameter, 10 m and 7 m deep respectively. 

Much smaller diameter holes have also been recorded (c.2m in 

diameter), including one that actually appeared during the 

recent archaeological evaluation at Ladybridge Farm (Plate 51). 

The development of a subsidence hollow, once formed, is 

unpredictable (Klimchouk & Andrejchuk 2003). A hollow may 

experience further intermittent collapses as sediment continues 

Plate 51 New sink hole (scale 2m) 

to be washed down the pipe and into the cave below or it may 

stabilise if the pipe becomes choked with debris. Subsidence hollows where solid rock is close to the surface 

forming stable sides tend to remain vertical-sided and infill only slowly. In situations where the surface deposits 

are unconsolidated sediments (as at Ladybridge Farm), the sides will erode rapidly, forming a widening erosion 

cone and largely filling the hollow. In situations with high groundwater tables, there is the potential for 

accumulation of organic sediments under standing water, particularly where the supply of mineral sediment is 

low and therefore rates of infilling are slow. 

Larger subsidence depressions appear to result from the extensive foundering of rock into cave systems. The 

largest example identified in the vicinity of Nosterfield is at Snape Mires, a short distance to the north, where 

2 

roughly 6 km of land is believed to have collapsed by up to 25 m in the late-glacial period (Cooper 1986). The 

resulting depression was filled with lacustrine clay and then peat in the Holocene. Smaller depressions, 

hundreds of metres across, have been mapped by Cooper on the north side of Ripon. 

Gypsum subsidence hollows at Ladybridge Farm 

Recent archaeological field evaluation by FAS on the Ladybridge Farm site has identified at least three small 

subsidence hollows. As noted above, another small subsidence hollow actually began to form during the 

evaluation. 

Three subsidence hollows with peat deposits were encountered in archaeological evaluation trenches (F18, F30, 

F21). None of them had any surface expression, reflecting the long history of cultivation on the site, totally 

filling any hollows that have formed. All three hollows were identified as infilled erosion cones filled with 

stratified mineral sediments on top of vertical-sided pipes. Recorded cross-sections of F18 and F21 indicate pipe 

diameters of c.2m beneath 4m wide erosion cones; F30 appears to be larger but it was not sufficiently exposed 

during the evaluation to confirm its overall dimensions. 

Two of the hollows were originally detected as geophysical anomalies and then investigated by targeted trial 

trenching; one was only detected during trenching. This makes it impossible to directly count the number of 

hollows within the Ladybridge Farm site. The evaluation trenches provided a 2% sample of the site but, given 

that some hollows were targeted and not all were detected as geophysical anomalies, it is not possible to simply 

extrapolate from this sample. However, it is highly likely that more subsidence hollows are present. 

The absence of waterlogged or organic sediment fills in the hollows recorded to date at Ladybridge Farm 

contrasts with the results from Nosterfield Quarry where a number of hollows with waterlogged and organic fills 



have been identified. This may reflect a deeper water table at Ladybridge Farm, but the presence of surface peat 

deposits in the lower-lying areas strongly suggests that waterlogged gypsum hollows are present at Ladybridge 

Farm. One candidate has been identified at the north end of the Ladybridge Farm site where hand augering by 

FAS identified a small area of deep organic sediments (auger records 144-146). Here, a shallow surface 

depression, roughly 50 m across and up to 0.8 m deep contains up to 2.5m of stratified organic and organomineral 

sediments. It is possible that this represents a relatively large infilled gypsum hollow. 

Larger sediment-filled depressions at Ladybridge Farm 

Two shallow sediment-filled depressions have been identified at Ladybridge Farm but, as noted above, the 

process responsible for their formation is not certain. While it is reasonable to propose that these hollows 

originated by gypsum subsidence, it is also possible that they represent kettle holes. These are closed 

depressions in the surface of the fluvio-glacial sediments, formed by the melting of masses of ice within the 

sediments. It is not possible to confirm which of these processes (gypsum dissolution or ice melt) is responsible 

for the depressions at Ladybridge Farm. 

The first depression is located to the west of Ladybridge Farm and forms a southern continuation of the large 

wet area of land known as The Flasks. This wetland formerly extended further south again but this area has 

already been quarried. The Flasks has already been investigated as part of the programme of archaeological 

works for Nosterfield Quarry and the preliminary data from Ladybridge Farm conform to these earlier results. 

The portion of The Flasks within the Ladybridge Farm site measures roughly 140 x 170 m and lies 1 m below 

the drier land immediately to the east. A preliminary auger survey by FAS has proved up to 1.5m of sediments. 

The upper layers are peats (up to 0.9m thick) overlying marl and fine-textured mineral sediments. 

The second of the two depressions is a shallow closed basin on the east side of the site. The depression, which 

is enclosed by a fence, measures roughly 200 x 100 m and is 1-2m lower that the surrounding land. It is also 

distinctly wetter than the surrounding fields and a preliminary auger survey by FAS has recorded in excess of 

1.5 m of sediment fill in the centre of the depression. The upper part of this fill is peat. 

10.1.4 Assessment of Significance of the palaeoenvironmental resource 

Palaeoenvironmental potential of gypsum subsidence features 

Gypsum subsidence creates closed hollows and depressions on the land surface, allowing sediments to 

accumulate as the features are filled in. As these sediments accumulate, they have the potential to incorporate 

and preserve a proxy record of the local environment in the form of micro-fossils (e.g. pollen or phytoliths), 

plant and animal macro-fossils, or in the properties of the actual sediments. The potential value of these records 

will be determined by a number of factors: 

 

 

 

 

Preservation of the evidence after burial 

Rate of sediment accumulation 

Stratigraphic integrity of the record 

Ability to date the record 

A high value palaeoenvironmental record will be one where a range of material types have survived burial, 



sediment accumulation has been relatively rapid (giving high temporal resolution), no post-burial mixing has 

occurred and the sequence is readily dated by means of radiocarbon determinations. The only sediments likely 

to satisfy all of these conditions are peats derived from the in situ accumulation of organic matter in waterlogged 

conditions with little influx of mineral sediments. Hollows filled with oxidised mineral sediments are likely to 

be of low palaeoenvironmental value as they are unlikely to preserve micro- or macro-fossils, other than 

carbonised residues and these are likely to be derived from the eroding sides of the hollow. The sediments are 

likely to be affected by post-burial mixing processes and will be difficult to date. 

The three subsidence hollows identified to date at Ladybridge Farm which contained oxidised mineral fills are 

unlikely to retain a high value palaeoenvironmental record. However, other hollows must be present and it is 

possible that some of these contain organic fills with a higher potential (as was the case in the present 

Nosterfield Quarry). One possible example has been identified at Ladybridge Farm, as noted above. The larger 

peat-covered depressions at Ladybridge Farm are also potentially of greater value as they could contain a wellpreserved, 

stratified and dateable record. 

The palaeoenvironmental potential of peat-filled subsidence hollows and depressions has already been tested 

in the existing Nosterfield Quarry and the results of this work can be used to make predictions about the 

potential of the Ladybridge Farm site. 

Palaeoenvironmental investigations on subsidence hollows at Nosterfield 

Four subsidence hollows have been investigated to date at Nosterfield Quarry in varying levels of detail. Three 

small-diameter hollows were assessed by the University of Stirling (F44, 45 and 46, Tipping 2000) and 

radiocarbon dates were obtained for the top and bottom of the organo-mineral fills. Basal dates ranged from 

11,000 to 9000 uncal BP, upper dates from 4000 to 2000 uncal BP. It was suggested by Tipping that these 

features had the potential to provide long-duration Holocene records of vegetation change in the immediate 

vicinity of each of the hollows through pollen analysis. The potential for long-duration records with high 

temporal and spatial resolution would make them highly valuable in palaeoenvironmental terms as they would 

record short-duration changes in the local environment i.e. changes at the scale of human activity in the 

landscape. 

Hollow F45 was re-sampled by Tipping and the resulting 2.8 m core analysed by the University of Durham for 

pollen with additional radiocarbon dating as part of the Swale-Ure Washlands Project. The results from F45 

suggest that the 2.8 m deep fill can be divided into at least three main sections on the basis of pollen content and 

date. From 2.8 up to 1.4 m no pollen has survived and radiocarbon dates indicates that these sediments may all 

be of early Holocene date. From 1.4 up to 0.4 m, pollen is present and dominated by woodland taxa; 

radiocarbon dates suggest that at least part of this metre of sediment accumulated rapidly around 4000 uncal BP. 

From 0.4 m up to the top of the core, the pollen is dominated by sedge and grass pollen and the sediments appear 

to have accumulated rapidly around 2300 uncal BP. 

The analyst, Dr Jim Innes, has interpreted this record as a continuous vegetation history spanning the late 

Neolithic to the late Iron Age with evidence for fluctuating woodland cover controlled by both climate change 

and human land-use. The present author prefers a much more cautious interpretation of the evidence from F45. 

The radiocarbon evidence does not support a history of continuous accumulation: the dates around 2300 uncal 



BP span 0.4 m but are statistically indistinguishable; the dates around 4000 uncal BP span 0.5 m but again show 

no age-depth relationship. The record from F45 is therefore be interpreted as representing at least three discrete 

episodes of rapid sediment accumulation with prolonged periods of non-accumulation in between. Additional 

radiocarbon dating could lead to the identification of more discrete periods of accumulation, particularly in the 

basal 1 m of sediment. 

It is suggested that this pattern of interrupted accumulation results from the periodic re-activation of subsidence 

in the pipe underlying the surface hollow that the peaty sediments were accumulating in. Each time the 

subsidence hollow collapsed, mineral and organic sediment would have rapidly filled in the resulting hollow, 

and the pollen preserved in the sediment provides a snap-shot of the local vegetation at that time. In this context 

it may be noted that the absence of pollen below 1.4 m has been interpreted by Innes as the result of drying out 

of the peat and it seems most likely that this occurred when this peat was still at the surface and therefore 

susceptible to drying. It subsequently collapsed at least twice to its present deeply buried position where 

desiccation is improbable. This model of repeated collapse can also be used to account for the presence of 

humified peat throughout the 2.8 m sediment sequence. It is implausible that highly humified peat formed at 

the base of a narrow 3 m deep pipe; however, its presence is understandable if the hollow was originally shallow 

and the peat formed close to the ground-surface, only collapsing to its present position after it had humified. 

What is not clear from F45 is the extent to which the sediment fills already present in the hollow were disturbed 

each time a collapse occurred. Did they move down as a coherent body of sediment or were they progressively 

eroded from the roof of the sub-surface void and re-deposited lower down in the pipe The degree of 

disturbance will affect the stratigraphic integrity of the sediments and therefore the temporal resolution of the 

palaeoenvironmental record. It is possible that the absence of an age-depth curve in the radiocarbon dates from 

F45 reflects homogenisation of each block of sediments during re-activation of the subsidence hollow. 

How representative is F45 of subsidence hollows in general A second subsidence hollow was investigated at 

Nosterfield by the Swale-Ure Washlands Project, named Shake-Hole 1. This is a significantly larger feature 

than F45 and measured 24 m in diameter at the surface; the actual subsidence pipe is probably smaller in 

diameter as the top will have been widened by erosion. 4.9 m of organic sediments were sampled in this hollow: 

well humified peat was present down to 2.85 m, then a 0.45 m band of moss peat overlying 1.6 m of peat and 

organic lake mud. Radiocarbon dates were obtained for the bottom and close to the top of the sediment 

sequence demonstrating that deposition started around 7700 uncal BP and continued after 2700 uncal BP. In 

the absence of more radiocarbon dates, it is not possible to confirm either the rate of sediment accumulation or 

whether accumulation was continuous. However, the sediment stratigraphy conforms to the expected trend to 

shallower water conditions and then terrestrialisation as the hollow infilled. This suggests that Shake-Hole 1 

contains a simple accumulating fill spanning the mid-Holocene. Pollen and plant macro-fossil analyses are 

consistent with this interpretation, documenting the change from local vegetation dominated by woodland to 

an essentially open landscape after 2700 uncal BP. 

It may be concluded that investigation of two subsidence hollows at Nosterfield has demonstrated the 

palaeoenvironmental potential of this resource is highly variable. F45 appears to be too complex to permit 

confident palaeoenvironmental interpretation; Shake-Hole 1 appears to provide a readily interpreted mid- 

Holocene environmental record (although additional radiocarbon dating is required to confirm the apparent high 



quality of this record). Given the processes responsible for the formation of the subsidence hollows, it seems 

likely that the history of sediment deposition and re-deposition will be unpredictable and unique to each hollow. 

As a result, it is not possible to make a general statement about the palaeoenvironmental potential of the 

subsidence hollows. 

Palaeoenvironmental investigations on larger depressions at Nosterfield 

Two larger depressions have been subjected to palaeoenvironmental investigations at Nosterfield Quarry. The 

University of Stirling undertook a preliminary assessment of the margin of a depression immediately adjacent 

to the three subsidence hollows (F44, 45, 46) and recorded a sequence comprising marl overlain by a shallow 

peat that was truncated at its upper surface by oxidation. The base of the peat was dated to around 9400 uncal 

BP (Tipping 2000), demonstrating that that what was a shallow marl-forming lake at the start of the Holocene 

had terrestrialised to a peat soon afterwards. Subsequently, the University of Durham undertook analysis of a 

2 m long sediment core from The Flasks (Core 69) as part of the Swale-Ure Washlands Project. This work 

identified a Late Glacial Interstadial/Stadial sequence of lake muds overlain by silty clay beneath 0.9 m of 

Holocene peat. The upper part of the peat was oxidised and pollen had not survived but the lower part of the 

peat contained a typical early Holocene pollen record with a succession of vegetation types as woodland 

developed. The sequence was truncated by poor preservation in peat dating from about 8700 uncal BP. 

There is no evidence for stratigraphic complexity or disruption in these two sites that might suggest a complex 

subsidence history. This could reflect a distinction between repeated minor collapses in a narrow pipe beneath 

subsidence hollows and a catastrophic but single collapse of a larger area of caves. Both of the depressions that 

have been sampled existed at or before the beginning of the Holocene. The early origins for both of these 

depressions may be significant as it matches the Late Glacial date for the very large area of subsidence in Snape 

Mires, to the north of Nosterfield. The particular conditions that triggered the massive subsidence at Snape 

Mires are not fully understood but the effect of de-glaciation on groundwater movement has been proposed as 

a likely cause (Powell et al 1992). This suggests that the formation of large subsidence depressions may have 

been a peculiar phenomenon of the Late Glacial period. It must also be noted that a late glacial origin is 

precisely what would be expected for kettle holes but, in either case, the depressions do not appear to have 

continued to form through the Holocene. 

The significance of a Late Glacial date for the larger depressions, in terms of the present assessment, is that the 

palaeoenvironmental records from these features are likely to be restricted to the Late Glacial period and the 

early Holocene. Recent agricultural land drainage, and the consequent oxidation of near-surface organic matter, 

has destroyed any more-recent peat deposits that may have capped these shallow depressions. 

Palaeoenvironmental records from this period are of little value in archaeological studies at Nosterfield as the 

general vegetation history for this period is well-established and there are no known early Mesolithic 

archaeological sites to which more-local environmental studies can be related. 

Significance of the palaeoenvironmental resource at Ladybridge Farm 

Archaeological field evaluation has established that the Ladybridge Farm site contains an unknown number of 

gypsum subsidence hollows and two larger depressions containing sediments of Holocene date that may contain 

archaeologically valuable records of past environments. 



The subsidence hollows recorded to date at Ladybridge Farm have contained only mineral sediment fills with 

no evidence for waterlogging and the survival of organic matter. The palaeoenvironmental significance of these 

particular hollows is considered to be negligible. 

Other subsidence hollows may be present within lower-lying parts of the site and these may be waterlogged. 

If present, and depending on their history of subsidence, these hollows may contain a detailed vegetation record 

for the area immediately surrounding the hollow. The significance of this record will depend on its date, 

duration and temporal resolution. Long, high-resolution records of mid- to late-Holocene date will be of high 

significance in a local context as they will inform archaeologists about the local environment at a time when 

there was human activity in the area. Short duration, low resolution or early Holocene records will be of low 

to negligible significance. 

The larger depressions recorded at Ladybridge Farm contain waterlogged sediments, including peat, and 

therefore have a high potential to provide palaeoenvironmental information. The value of this information will 

depend on the age range of the deposits but the evidence from Nosterfield suggests that the deposits will be too 

early to be of archaeological value. This resource is therefore considered to be of low significance. 

11.0 ARCHIVE 

A medium-sized assemblage of ceramic and clay tobacco pipe and ceramic building material were recovered 

during evaluation (688; 591). The material is of late post-medieval to modern date and no further analysis is 

recommenced for the assemblages. A medium assemblage of lithic material (410) has been the subject of 

assessment and selected illustration has been recommended. A small assemblage of prehistoric pottery has been 

the subject of assessment and selected illustration and sherd consolidation has been recommended. A small 

assemblage of animal bone has been the subject of a specialist assessment and no further work is recommended 

for the material. 230 litres of soil were retained during fieldwork and have been the subject of full processing 

and assessment. Other finds of glass (81) metalwork (11), slag (1) and plastic objects (1) were of late postmedieval 

to modern date and no further analysis is recommended; a full index of all the material is available for 

consultation at FAS. 

The site archive and material assemblages are currently held by Field Archaeology Specialists. A paper and 

electronic copy of the report will be deposited with the Heritage Unit of North Yorkshire County Council. 



References 

Cartographic sources 

Bowen, E. N.d. (1750). An accurate map of the North Riding of Yorkshire divided into its wapentakes. Drawn 

from surveys with various additional improvements illustrated with historical extracts relating to its 

natural produce mines, minerals, manufacturers trade and present state of the city of York, by 

Emmanuel Bowen, geographer to his majesty, NYCRO: ZQH 6/63 

British Geological Survey 1992. Thirsk Sheet 52. Drift 1:50,000. Southampton: Ordnance Survey for the British 

Geological Survey 

Secondary sources 

Beresford, M. and Hurst, J. 1971. Deserted medieval village studies (Guildford and London) 

Berg, D. 1991. ‘Peat from the Rushwood Estate, Nosterfield, North Yorkshire’ (archaeological report, WYAS, 

within FAS_NOS02) 

Berry, C.H. 1953. ‘Roman villas in Yorkshire’, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 38:257-259 

Burl, A. 1969. ‘Henges: internal features and regional groups’, Archaeological Journal 126:1-28 

Carver, M.O.H. 1999. ‘Field Archaeology’, in G. Barker (ed) Companion Encyclopaedia of Archaeology, 

(London): 128-181 

Collingwood, W.G. 1907. ‘Anglian and Anglo-Danish sculpture in the north Riding of Yorkshire’, Yorkshire 

Archaeological Journal 19: 407 

Collingwood, W.G. 1911. ‘Anglian and Anglo-Danish sculpture in the East Riding, with addenda to the North 

Riding’, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 21: 299-302 

Cooper, A H 1986 ‘Foundered strata and subsidence resulting from the dissolution of Permian gypsum in the 

Ripon and Bedale areas, North Yorkshire’, in G. Harwood and D. B. Smith (eds) The English Zechstein 

and related topics. Geological Society of London Special Publication 22: 127-139 

Dalland, M. 1995. ‘Archaeological assessment: Nosterfield’ (archaeological report, AOC: within FAS_NOS02) 

Dymond, D.P. 1964. ‘The ‘henge’ monument at Nunwick, near Ripon: 1961 excavation’. Yorkshire 

Archaeological Journal 41: 98-107 

FAS 2003. ‘Desk-based assessment, Nosterfield, North Yorkshire’ (unpublished archaeological report) available 

at: www.archaeologicalplanningconsultancy.co.uk/mga/projects/noster/index.html 

FAS 2005. ‘Interim Report: Archaeological Watching Brief, Nosterfield Quarry, North Yorkshire (unpublished 

archaeological report) 

FAS_SC02: Copp, A. 1997. ‘Archaeological investigations, Scorton Quarry, Richmondshire: post-excavation 

assessment report’ (unpublished archaeological report) 

Frodsham, P. 1996. ‘Neolithic studies in No Man’s land’. Northern Pasts 13/14 

Gilyard-Beer, R. 1951. The Romano-British baths at Well 

Gledhill, T. and Griffiths, M. 1995. ‘Nosterfield North - Archaeological Investigations’ (archaeological report: 

within FAS_NOS02) 

Harding, J. 1991. ‘Using the unique as the typical: monuments and ritual landscape’, in P. Garwood, et al. 

Sacred and profane: 141-151 

Harding, J. 1994. ‘Vale of York Neolithic Landscape Project: Interim 1994’ (unpublished report, Department 

of Archaeology, University of Newcastle) 

Harding, J. 1995. ‘Social histories and regional perspectives in the Neolithic of lowland England’, Proceedings 



of the Prehistoric Society 61: 117-136 





Harding, J. 1998. ‘Recent fieldwork at the Neolithic monument complex of Thornborough, North Yorkshire’, 

Northern Archaeology 15/16: 27-38 

Harding, J. 2000. ‘From coast to vale, moor to dale: patterns in later prehistory’, in J. Harding and B. Johnson. 

Northern Pasts: 1-14 

Harding, J. and Johnson, B. 2000. Northern Pasts: Interpretations of the later prehistory of northern England 

and southern Scotland, British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) 

Harding, J. and Johnson, B. 2003. ‘The Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age archaeology of the Swale-Ure 

catchment’ (unpublished report, University of Newcastle) 

Harding, J. and Johnson, B. 2004a. ‘Topographic survey of the surviving round barrows at the Thornborough 

Monument complex, North Yorkshire’ (unpublished report, University of Newcastle, 13th January 

2004) 

Harding, J. and Johnson, B. 2004b. ‘Fieldwalking at the Thornborough monument complex, North Yorkshire’ 

(unpublished report, University of Newcastle, February 2004) 

Harding, J. and Johnson, B. 2004c. ‘Total lithic collection and test-pit excavations at the Thornborough 

monument complex, North Yorkshire’ (unpublished report, University of Newcastle, February 2004) 

Harding, J. and Johnson, B. 2004d. ‘Evaluation excavation at two round barrows at the Thornborough 

Monument complex, North Yorkshire’ (unpublished report, University of Newcastle, 13th January 

2004) 

Holst, M. 2004 ‘Osteological analysis: Nosterfield Quarry, North Yorkshire’ (unpublished specialist report, in 

FAS_NOS02) 

Howard, A.J., Keen, D.H., Mighall, T., Field, M.H., Coope, G.R., Griffiths, H.I. and Macklin, M.G. 2000. 

‘Early holocene environments of the River Ure near Ripon, North Yorkshire’, Proceedings of the 

Yorkshire Geological Society 53 (1): 31-42 

Innes, J. 2004. ‘Palaeoecology of Core Nosterfield F45' (unpublished specialist report, within FAS_NOS02) 

Innes, J. 2004(b) Nosterfield - The Flasks Core 69, (unpublished specialist report, within FAS_NOS02) 

Jones, A. 1994. ‘Healam Bridge, North Yorkshire: An archaeological evaluation’ (unpublished archaeological 

report: BUFAU) 

Klimchouk, A and Andrejchuk, V. 2003. ‘Karst breakdown mechanisms from observations in the gypsum caves 

of the Western Ukraine: Implications for Subsidence Hazard Assessment’, Speleogenesis and Evolution 

of Karst Aquifers 1(1), 1-20 

Liversidge, J. 1969. ‘Furniture and interior decoration’, in A.L.F. Rivet (ed) The Roman villa in Britain 

Long, A.J. and Tipping, R. 1998. ‘Nosterfield, North Yorkhire: Report on the sediment stratigraphy of three 

shafts (F44, F45 and F46)’ (archaeological report: within FAS_NOS02) 

Lukis, W.C.1870a. ‘On the flint implements and tumuli of the neighbourhood of Wath’, Yorkshire 

Archaeological Journal 1: 117-125 

Lukis, W.C. 1870b. ‘On some Anglo-Saxon graves on Howe Hill, near Carthorpe’, Yorkshire Archaeological 

Journal 1: 175-181 

MGA. 1992. ‘Nosterfield North Archaeological assessment for Tilcon’ (archaeological report: within 



FAS_NOS02) 

MGA website: www.archaeologicalplanningconsultancy.co.uk/mga/projects/noster/index.html 

Moloney C, 1996. ‘Catterick race course’, Current Archaeology 148: 128-132 

Muir, R. 1997. The Yorkshire Countryside: a landscape history 

Page, W. (ed.) 1914. Victoria County History of the county of York: North Riding, 2 volumes 

Powell, J. H., Cooper, A. H. and Benfield, A. C. 1992. Geology of the country around Thirsk. Memoir for 

1:50,000 geological sheet 52 (England and Wales) (London) 

Precious, B. and Vince, A. 2004. ‘Assessment of the Roman and later pottery from Nosterfield, North 

Yorkshire (unpublished specialist report: within FAS_NOS02) 

Raistrick, A. 1929. ‘The Bronze Age in West Yorkshire’, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 29: 364-365 

Rivet, A.L.F. (ed) 1969. The Roman villa in Britain 

Rutherford, M. 2004. Nosterfield - The Flasks Shake Hole 1 (unpublished specialist report within FAS_NOS02) 

St Joseph, J.K. 1977. ‘Aerial reconnaisance, recent results 43', Antiquity 51: 143-145 

Smith, A.J. 1969. ‘The mosaic pavements’, in Rivet, A.L.F. (ed) The Roman villa in Britain 

Tavener, N. 1996. ‘Evidence for Neolithic activity near Marton-le-Moor, North Yorkshire’, in P. Frodsham 

(ed) ‘Neolithic studies in No Man’s land’ 

Thomas, N. 1955. ‘The Thornborough circles, near Ripon, North Riding’, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 

54: 7-20 

Tipping, R. 2000. ‘14C assays on the peat sequences in F44, F45, F46 and Find No. 14' (unpublished 

preliminary report: within FAS_NOS02) 

Topping, P. 1982. ‘Excavation at the cursus at Scorton, North Yorkshire, 1978', Yorkshire Archaeological 

Journal 54:7-20 

Vatcher, F. 1960. ‘Thornborough cursus’, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 40; 169-182 

Whellan, T. 1859. History and geography of the City of York and the North Riding (Beverley) 


FIELD ARCHAEOLOGY SPECIALISTS LTD 

UNIVERSITY OF YORK 

KING’S MANOR 

YORK YO1 7EP 

TELEPHONE 

FASCIMILE 

E-MAIL 

(01904) 433952 

(01904) 433935 

arch18@york.ac.uk

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION - Mike Griffiths and Associates

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?