Printed from the APC web site: navigation and non-essential images removed.
Please view on-line for full content (URL at end of document).

Ladybridge Farm, Minutes of Monitoring Meetings

11 nov | 4th nov | 28th oct | 21st oct

Meeting 4. Friday 11th November 2005. Cancelled.

The site meeting today has been cancelled. Representatives from both English Heritage and NYCC were unable to attend.

Cancellation

John Hinchliffe (English Heritage) stated that:

both Keith [Emerick] and I had assumed that last Friday would be the last on-site meeting so neither of us have kept tomorrow free I'm afraid. I feel, as I said last Friday that the aims of the exercise have been achieved.

In the light of Neil's [Campling] concerns I am content that the remaining features be fully excavated, if you have the time & resources to do so.

If there is anything additional you would like us to see on the ground before backfilling do let us know and I am sure one or other us can visit next week.

100% sampling

The decision to alter the method statement and 100% excavate the early prehistoric features was made on the basis of comments made by Neil Campling at the meeting on Friday 4 th November and further this week. The group acknowledged that the reinstatement of the site, the need to subsoil it by the farmer to bring it back into cultivation following the investigation and the future erosion of the deposits by ploughing made it necessary to preserve by record the archaeological features that had been sampled. Considering the nature of the deposits it was felt that it would not be appropriate to leave 50% of each feature in the ground to be destroyed. The other halves will be excavated to recover the full assemblage from the features.

Revision of peat model

topography flooded to show marshy areas Prior to this phase of work the original extent of the peat on the Ladybridge site was modelled on the basis of topography, surviving peat and recorded ground levels on the quarry, in the evaluation and in adjacent fields. Following the results of the current investigation, coupled with comments received by Dr Stephen Carter, the original extent of the peat has now been revised to cover a greater area of the Ladybridge site than originally thought. A detailed topographic study combined with field observations indicates that the Ladybridge Farm area is made up of a series of gravel ridges and humps which are concentrated at the southwestern corner of the site. In the past these areas would have been dry with the lower ground to the north and east being predominantly wet and boggy.

Investigations at Nosterfield Quarry have shown that in these formerly wet areas there is no prehistoric archaeology. At Ladybridge Farm this concept has been confirmed both by the location of the known archaeological features on the site and also by the distribution of flint, all of which corresponds with the areas of high ground. Work undertaken by Professor Long at Durham University has indicated that the margins of these wet areas would have been populated by dense alder woodland in the Neolithic with the drier areas supporting differing vegetational cover.

The image to right shows the revised model of marshy areas. High ground (southwest corner) is clearly indicated by brown and orange, lower areas in green. The area thought to have been marsh has been flooded with grey/blue.

Meeting 3. Friday 4th November 2005 (minutes recorded by Guy Hopkinson, Archaeoscope)

The third site meeting concerning the additional archaeological investigation was held at Ladybridge Farm on Friday 4 th November 2005 at 2.00pm. Present were:

Irene Almack (Landowner)
Ambrose Almack (Landowner)
Alan Coe - Operations Manager (Tarmac)
Bob Nicholson - Estates Manager (Tarmac)
John Hinchliffe - Acting Regional Director (English Heritage)
Neil Campling - County Archaeologist (NYCC)
Bob Sydes - Heritage Manager (NYCC)
Chris Jarvis - Minerals Officer (NYCC)
Alwyn Shaw- Head of Planning (NYCC)
Steve Timms - Consultant (Mike Griffiths & Associates)
Anthony Dickson - Project Manager (On-Site Archaeology)
Chris Fenton-Thomas (On-Site Archaeology)
David Lindley - Land Agent
Guy Hopkinson - minutes recorder (Archaeoscope)

At the time of the meeting Trenches A, B, C and D were open. Trench D contained no archaeology and was not examined. Potential soil features in Trenches A, B and C had been hand cleaned, several of those in Trench A had been half-sectioned. Hand cleaning of potential features in Trench C was ongoing.

After a brief introduction from Steve Timms regarding progress over the past week, the group inspected Trenches C, B and finally A. They were also provided with a pre-excavation survey of potential features in Trench A, B and C, and two plots showing the topography of the area. The first of these illustrated contours at five centimetre intervals, the second (see image above) showed the revised estimate of the area which is thought to have been marshy ground during the prehistoric period. The postulated extent of marshy ground has been increased based on evidence from the current investigations and comments made by Dr. Stephen Carter of Headland Archaeology during a site visit on November 1st.

Trench A (100m x 50m)

Trench A contains a number of soil features. The majority of these appear to be natural in origin. A number of soil features have been identified which may be archaeological in origin, generally confined to a slight ridge visible in the field and highlighted by the contour plot of the area.
A group of features in a low-lying area contain the remnants of posts and appear to be modern in date. A drawing illustrating the position of historic field boundaries from old Ordnance Survey maps overlaid with the pre-excavation survey of the trenches shows that this group, and a few other isolated features, follow the line of a historic boundary. As agreed at the previous meeting, one of these features has been half sectioned and an extant post is clearly visible. The group agreed that these were of relatively recent date. These features are not evident on the higher ground, Steve Timms suggested that greater plough truncation on the ridges was the cause. Bob Sydes asked where the displaced material had gone. Steve Timms referred to Stephen Carter's comments, and stated that while raised areas were more severely impacted by ploughing, the material removed from these ridges gradually filled up the depressions resulting in a gradual flattening of the topography. In addition, some material was lost from the site through wind and water erosion.
A number of other features in low-lying areas were examined, and appear to be either of natural origin, possibly small swallow holes, or cut features of recent date. Steve Timms suggested that those thought to be swallow holes might be aligned on a minor fault line.
On the higher ground 11 features thought to be of archaeological origin were evident. Antony Dickson described these features to the group.
Of the eleven features, five have been dated as prehistoric through the presence of pottery, one of these has not been half-sectioned as the sherds were visible at the surface. In accordance with the earlier wishes of the group, two have not been half-sectioned due to the presence of flint at the surface, though this cannot be considered a secure method of dating.
In terms of the spatial arrangement of these features, no structural pattern could be observed.
Two of these features may have contained posts, as indicated by the presence of packing stones in one, and an arc of charcoal (possibly a burnt post) in another.
All were described as severely truncated, with probably the upper 40 centimetres having been lost through plough action.
Steve Timms raised the issue of how the remaining archaeological features should be treated. John Hinchliffe indicated that he was happy for them to remain unexcavated and the site backfilled. Bob Sydes concurred with this view. Neil Campling, however, stated that the process of reinstatement would destroy the features encountered through a combination of machinery passing over them during the replacement of the ploughsoil, and because to remedy the compaction caused by this machinery the landowner would have no option other than to subsoil the effected areas before cultivating them. Steve Timms reiterated the fact that the landowner would have to subsoil the archaeological trenches in order to bring the areas back into cultivation. Neil Campling stated that as a professional archaeologist he was obliged under Rule 2.1 of the IFA code of practice to ensure that archaeological remains were properly recorded and not lost needlessly or thoughtlessly, and that they should be recorded prior to reinstatement and before they were destroyed. He stated "that one cannot just leave bits of pot and flints sticking out of the surface of a feature to be destroyed without record". In a departure from the agreed methodology it was subsequently agreed that all the archaeological features, regardless of the presence of artefacts at the surface, would be half-sectioned to preserve them by record and recover any artefacts within them prior to reinstatement.
Following the examination of features a discussion of the results and the significance of the archaeology at Ladybridge ensued, noted in the 'General' section below.

Trench B (100m x 50m)

Trench B contains far fewer soil features than Trench A. The majority of these still appear to be natural in origin.
Two features appear to be archaeological. One of these, a north-south aligned linear feature corresponds with a historic boundary, and the group agreed this related to a fairly recent field boundary.
A single isolated archaeological feature was examined. It had been agreed at the previous meeting that this required half sectioning, though this had not yet taken place. Steve Timms pointed out that this feature was on a slight rise, visible both in the field and on the topographic survey. A single chert flake was visible at the surface of the feature.
In the northwest corner of Trench B a discrete group of features had been identified and examined at the previous meeting. These are located in a slight depression, with gleying of the surrounding ground. Steve Timms reported Dr. Stephen Carter's interpretation of these features as "the fag end of peat formation". One of this group appears to be a tree throw with peat having formed in the resultant hollow, while a number of others appeared to be caused by roots rotting in situ. Neil Campling commented that the in situ rotting of roots would indeed result in gleying of the surrounding soil as oxygen levels would be reduced. It was agreed that one of these features would be half-sectioned.
The group agreed that the isolated feature on higher ground was the only one in Trench B likely to hold any archaeological potential.

Trench C (100m x 50m)

The natural exposed in Trench C is intensively scored by plough scars over the entire trench. Most of these are aligned north-south a direction in which the field had not been ploughed for ten years , though in the northern part of the trench east-west scarring is also evident.
The location of the FAS evaluation trench was clearly visible, as were the features that had been half sectioned by FAS (which produced no dating evidence).
A large swallow hole is visible in the central southern area of the trench. This swallow hole is also evident on the topographic survey of the area, forming a large depression.
Steve Timms discussed the environmental potential of the swallow hole, which could provide valuable pollen data regarding past vegetation cover. He also related Dr. Stephen Carter's observation that some of the smaller features evident in Trenches A, B and C may have a similar origin.
A linear feature at the northern end of the site corresponds with a historic boundary and the group agreed that this feature is most likely the severely truncated remains of a relatively recent boundary ditch.
A number of oddly shaped features were examined, all thought to be of natural origin. As agreed with Keith Emerick regarding similar features in Trenches A and B, one of these will be half-sectioned.
A further feature was examined with a dark organic fill surrounded by a gleyed area, which Steve Timms suggested was a tree throw. John Hinchliffe suggested that if that interpretation was correct, disturbance of the surrounding natural would be expected. Steve Timms suggested plough truncation had probably removed the disturbed material. It was agreed that this feature would be half-sectioned.

Trench D (50m x 25m)

Trench D has been finished.

General

John Hinchliffe stated that the current investigation had fulfilled its objective of characterising the archaeology at Ladybridge and further trenching was not required at this stage. He then focused on Steve Timms' observation that across all the trenches the archaeological features were constrained to higher ground, and agreed that in terms of determining zones of potential archaeology the model currently proposed did work.
Steve Timms mentioned that we could still not determine the temporal relationship of the features. Were they the result of successive intermittent episodes of activity or were they contemporary? He also noted that we could not currently determine whether they were contemporary with the Thornborough Henges. Elsewhere on the quarry the evidence suggested episodic activity over a vast timescale, but he suggested that this impression might be a result of a lack of data.
John Hinchliffe stated that issues regarding contemporaneity could probably not be resolved given the surviving evidence and our current typology of prehistoric pottery.
Steve Timms asked Neil Campling, Bob Sydes and John Hinchliffe whether they considered the archaeology at Ladybridge to be of national significance.
Neil Campling stated that the archaeology was "interesting, extremely interesting, but I'd be hard pressed to say it warrants a refusal [of the planning application]".
Bob Sydes said that while the pits on the Ladybridge Farm site were nationally significant because of their association with the Thornborough Henges, he questioned whether they were important enough to merit preservation in situ (in the context of the low density and state of preservation of the observable archaeology). When pressed by Steve Timms, he stated that they were not important enough to merit preservation in situ.
John Hinchliffe stated that 75% of the site contained no archaeology of significant interest, but the fragment that did survive was associated with Thornborough Henges, and was therefore nationally significant and worthy of preservation in situ. He said the investigation had successfully characterised the archaeology of the area, but that value was another issue, and association gives value. Now was not the time for such a discussion, and there would be plenty of time for such debates before the Planning Committee meets in January 2006.
Steve Timms pointed out that there were many key questions in terms of dating before association with the henges could be established. He also argued that the degree of truncation greatly reduced the value of the Ladybridge archaeology. He suggested that the findings were insignificant when compared to recent discoveries of three Early Neolithic and three Later Neolithic buildings at another Tarmac quarry at Millfield Quarry, Northumberland, which English Heritage have heralded as an "exciting discovery [which] offers huge potential to improve our understanding of Neolithic ways of life in the north-east of England". He reported that at no point had either English Heritage or the local council approached the quarry manager to put forward a case to preserve the remains in situ. He also compared the low density of artefacts at Ladybridge with Neolithic pits excavated by On-Site Archaeology in advance of a housing development at Sewerby, East Yorkshire, some of which contained around 200 artefacts.
John Hinchliffe replied that he was not suggesting that extraction be stopped, but that gravel extraction in 75% of the application area would not affect significant archaeology.
Alwyn Shaw stated that the Planning Committee was looking for a clear archaeological view from English Heritage.
John Hinchliffe replied that a model for the zonation of archaeology at Ladybridge had been achieved, and the archaeology had been successfully characterised. Although a consensus of opinion on the issue of significance had not been reached, a step forward had been taken and this was a positive development. The next step was for Tarmac to propose a mitigation strategy.
Bob Nicholson reiterated that the issue of significance still had to be resolved, and that NYCC did not agree with EH regarding the importance of the Ladybridge archaeology.
The ongoing plough damage was further discussed, and it was acknowledged that Tarmac's proposal to donate 60 acres of land adjacent to the henges would provide the only effective way of preserving remains in that area by returning the land to pasture.
Steve Timms asked if, in the light of evidence of ongoing and current damage to the archaeological features, in the event of a refusal of the planning application on the grounds that archaeological features warranted preservation in situ, could English Heritage deliver preservation in situ? He suggested that NYCC did not have the authority to do so, and only English Heritage could through scheduling and/or compulsory purchase.
John Hinchliffe agreed that while this was the case, in the event of a refusal of the planning application English Heritage would not use such powers to achieve preservation. JH pointed out that only DCMS, not EH, had powers of compulsory purchase. He pointed out that preservation could be achieved through a voluntary agreement with the landowner. In effect, only the landowner could deliver preservation in situ.
Chris Jarvis pointed out that the wording of the minerals plan policy 4/8 did not require that preservation in situ actually be delivered, merely that an application would be refused on the basis of nationally important archaeological remains being present which were considered worthy of preservation in situ, regardless of whether such preservation was subsequently achieved.
Steve Timms stated that while that may be the case, PPG16 clearly states that nationally important remains are to be preserved in situ.
Steve Timms informed the group that, prior to reinstatement, the excavated half of all the archaeological features would be backfilled with the same marker artefacts used in the recent plough damage experiment, in order that ongoing erosion of the features could be monitored and reported on.

Meeting 2. Friday 28th October 2005 (minutes recorded by Guy Hopkinson, Archaeoscope)

The second site meeting concerning the additional archaeological investigation was held at Ladybridge Farm on Friday 28 th of October 2005 at 2.00pm. Present were:

Irene Almack (Landowner)
Ambrose Almack (Landowner)
Alan Coe (Tarmac)
Keith Emerick - Inspector of Ancient Monuments (English Heritage)
Neil Campling - County Archaeologist (NYCC)
Steve Timms - Consultant (Mike Griffiths and Associates)
Anthony Dickson - Project Manager (On-Site Archaeology)
Nick Pearson - Director (On-Site Archaeology)
Guy Hopkinson - minutes recorder (Archaeoscope)

At the time of the meeting Trench A, Trench B and Trench D were open. Trench D had been cleaned before the first monitoring meeting, and it was agreed at that meeting that no further work was warranted due to the complete absence of archaeological features. Potential soil features in Trenches A had been hand cleaned, four of which had been half-sectioned. Hand cleaning of potential features in Trench B was ongoing.

After a brief introduction from Steve Timms regarding progress over the past week, the group inspected Trenches A and B. They were also provided with a pre-excavation survey of potential features in Trench A.

Trench A (100m x 50m)

Trench A contains a number of soil features. At this stage the majority of these appear to be natural in origin. A number of soil features have been identified which may be archaeological in origin.
A group of these features contain the remnants of posts and appear to be modern in date. It was agreed that Steve Timms will compile a drawing relating the boundaries visible on old Ordnance Survey maps to the position of these features. This will be issued to the group before the next meeting. Keith Emerick requested that one of the group of features be half sectioned. The drawing prepared by Steve Timms, with additions by Guy Hopkinson, can be viewed as a pdf document.
Two features with flint evident at the surface were inspected, and although the presence of flint cannot necessarily prove the date of a feature, it was agreed that for the time being these features be left in situ .
A possible feature had been half sectioned and one of the fills comprised an ashy deposit. Steve Timms stated that where seen on previous occasions this ash had been too fine to provide a date through scientific analysis. Keith Emerick will ask advice from Ian Panter (English Heritage scientific advisor) regarding this matter.
A small cluster of truncated shallow probable archaeological features will be treated as per the existing methodology, i.e. half-sectioned and samples retained. Stephen Carter is to visit the site on Tuesday 1 st November, and it was agreed that no environmental processing will occur until his advice has been sought. Antony Dickson stated that between 3 and 4 sample tubs of material were being retained from each feature.
A feature with burnt stones and a fragment of possible Grooved ware evident in its upper fill will be recorded but not excavated. A surveying arrow will be used to probe the feature to try and establish its depth.
It was agreed that a fairly large area of disturbance (c. 6.50 by 4.50m) was probably caused by tree roots, and that no further work was required in this area.
A possible natural feature had been half-sectioned, but the interpretation of this feature was left open for the time being. Stephen Carter will be asked to comment on Tuesday.
Two linear features, which currently appear to be natural, contain a fine gravel fill. These are to be box sectioned.
A number of 'banana' shaped features are evident, and are assumed from past experience to be natural. The group agreed at Keith Emerick's request that one of these features be half-sectioned.

Trench B (100m x 50m)

Trench B contains far fewer soil features than in Trench A. The majority of these still appear to be natural in origin, but hand cleaning was ongoing..
As in Trench A, some of these are 'banana' shaped and presumed natural. As in Trench A the group agreed that one of these be half-sectioned. It was agreed that this could be done with mattocks.
An isolated archaeological feature, currently without dating evidence, was examined. This had a darker fill than the majority of features encountered during the evaluation of the site and it was agreed that this be half-sectioned.
In the northwest corner of Trench B a discrete group of features was identified. No datable material was visible at the surface. Three of these appear to be square-cut postholes, but Mr Almack had no recollection of a fence in the vicinity. It was decided that these would be subject to sampling according to the agreed methodology.
A narrow north-south aligned linear feature some 16 metres in length had been cleaned. This may relate to previous field boundaries, and the Ordnance Survey drawing to be compiled by Steve Timms may shed light on this. This drawing will be sent to members of the group before the next meeting, and also copied to John Hinchcliffe and Neil Redfern at English Heritage.

Trench C (100m x 50m)

The revised position of Trench C had been set out, but topsoil stripping will not begin until next week.

Trench D (50m x 25m)

Trench D has been finished, and is awaiting backfilling.

General

Stephen Carter will be asked to provide a brief report on his site visit this coming Tuesday 1 st of November, in time for distribution to the monitoring group before the next meeting (now available on-line).
A plan of the possible features in Trench B will be provided at the next meeting.
Keith Emerick asked if any comments had been made regarding the web site diary. Steve Timms reported than none had been received.
The results of the recent experiment investigating the impact of ploughing on the archaeology at Ladybridge were briefly discussed. Steve Timms reported that this had demonstrated active movement of buried artefacts by the plough, and also as a result of artefacts brought to the surface sticking to the tractor wheels. He also stated that the experiment would be published via the APC web site on Monday 31 st October. Neil Campling requested that a hard copy be sent to the Heritage Unit at NYCC.
The group agreed that the results of the additional investigation to date basically confirmed the results from the archaeological evaluation of the site last year.

Meeting 1. Friday 21st October 2005 (minutes recorded by Steve Timms, Mike Griffiths & Associates)

The first site meeting concerning the additional archaeological investigation was held at Ladybridge Farm on Friday 21 st of October 2005 at 2.00pm. Present were:

Irene Almack (Landowner)
Alan Coe (Tarmac)
Keith Emerick - Inspector of Ancient Monuments (English Heritage)
Neil Campling - County Archaeologist (NYCC)
Bob Sydes - Heritage Manager (NYCC)
Steve Timms - Consultant (Mike Griffiths and Associates)
Anthony Dickson - Project Manager (On-Site Archaeology)
Nick Pearson - Director (On-Site Archaeology).

At the time of the meeting Trench A, Trench B and Trench D were open. Trench D had been cleaned. Potential soil features in Trenches A and B had been marked up with spray paint during the machining.

The group inspected all three of the open trenches. Whilst deposits in Trench A and B require hand cleaning and mapping it was still possible to state the general character of each area.

Trench A (100m x 50m)

Trench A contains a number of soil features. At this stage the majority of these appear to be natural in origin. A number of soil features have been identified which may be archaeological in origin. A group of three of these contain the remnants of posts and appear to be modern in date. A second group require further sampling to characterise their origin and date. Of the remaining features two comprised pits from which a fragment of worked flint was recovered from the surface.
Subsoil scars were visible at regular intervals across Trench A.
It was decided by the group that with the exception of the two pits containing flint the remaining soil features that had been marked out would be cleaned, recorded and sampled according to the agreed methodology.
It was acknowledged that despite the flint being visible at the surface of the two pits, the date and function of these features was still in question as residual flint has been found in features of all date on the quarry.
It was decided that these two pits would be recorded in plan and left in situ until the rest of the sampling was completed in Trench A. At this point the group would decide on an appropriate strategy for these features.

Trench B (100m x 50m)

Trench B contains far fewer soil features than in Trench B. The majority of these at this stage appear to be natural in origin. A small number of soil features have been marked for further investigation.
A small area of panning was visible across the surface of the subsoil.
In the northwest corner of Trench B a discrete group of features was identified. No datable material was visible at the surface. It was decided that these would be subject to sampling according to the agreed methodology.

Trench C (100m x 50m)

The group discussed the revised location of Trench C to avoid an asbestos water pipe. Trench C will now be located some 35m to the east of its currently agreed position.

Trench D (50m x 25m)

The six archaeologists within the group confirmed that there are no archaeological features in Trench D.
No further work is required in this area.

General

Considering the lack of apparent archaeological features in Trenches A and Trench B the group agreed that these trenches were in or just outside the zone of transition identified from the evaluation with the focus of activity, if any, to the south.
The group stressed the need to clean map and sample marked features for the next site meeting.