An Archaeological Assessment of Nosterfield, Ladybridge and The Thornborough Plain
PART 1 THE ARCHAEOLOGY
Introduction
The Thornborough Plain is located in the Vale of Mowbray, flanked by the Rivers Ure and Swale. As a landscape it is characterised by low hills, small valleys and areas of floodplain which lie on the junction between fluvio-gravels and magnesium limestone. The location of the gravels has made this area not only a favoured location for settlement and activity in the past but also a prime area of agricultural exploitation and gravel extraction to the present day. It is an evolving landscape which continues to change in response to the needs of society and records a story of human activity in the landscape for some 7000 years.
Archaeological Investigations of the Thornborough Plain
The archaeological evidence suggests that the ritual significance of Thornborough landscape started in Late Mesolithic and ceased in the Late Iron Age. Despite the well documented growth in interest in henge monuments in other parts of England in the 18th, 19th and 20th century, the Thornborough henges were not the subject of study by antiquarians or archaeologists before 1950, nor were they the focus of religious practice.
Prior to 1952, antiquarian attention was exclusively concerned with the various barrows in the Thornborough area. In 1864, the Reverend William Lukis undertook a campaign of excavation in North Yorkshire. In addition to excavating the burial mound at Howe Hill, near Carthorpe, he also excavated the Three Hills Barrow group to the northeast of the Central Henge, and the Centre Hill barrow, located between the southern and Central Henge at Thornborough. Lukis made reference to the henges in a cursory manner prompted by their close proximity to the barrows and referred to them as "small entrenched enclosures called camps by the inhabitants and marked as camps in the ordnance maps"
He wrote that; "their forms suggest the idea of their having been constructed for specific purposes, either for permanent cattle pens (cattle constituting the wealth of primitive people, and requiring protection from the attacks of wild beasts inhabiting the surrounding extensive forests), or for places of religious assembly, or for the exhibition of periodical games."
It could be argued that despite the passing of 141 years we are no closer to knowing the origin and purpose of the Thornborough Henges now than the Reverend Lukis was in 1864.
20th Century Fieldwork
In 1952 Nicholas Thomas undertook a series of small scale excavations through the inner ditch and bank of the Central Henge, and the cursus. He concluded that the inner ditch had silted up over a period of time before the feature was backfilled and essentially levelled in the medieval period. The bank, itself, appeared to have been constructed in a series of dumps of earth and gravel. Within the bank make-up concentrations of gypsum were recorded, which lead Thomas to suggest that originally the bank "had received an artificial coating of gypsum crystals which subsequent rains had gradually dissolved and spread down into its core" (Thomas, 1955). With the exception of a single flint flake no finds which could date the construction of either the henge or cursus were recovered.
During the 1950s a number of small scale rescue excavations were mounted in response to gravel quarrying to the west of the Southern Henge (Vatcher 1960). These excavations involved further investigation of the cursus in addition to the excavation of a cist burial. (Vatcher, 1960)
The Vale of Mowbray Neolithic Landscape Project
In 1994 The Vale of Mowbray Neolithic Landscape Project was established by Dr Jan Harding, then at Reading University. Over a period of five years the project undertook a programme of wide spaced fieldwalking in and around the Thornborough Henges as part of a research based landscape study of the area. In addition to the surface reconnaissance, the project also undertook limited geophysical survey at the Northern, Southern and Central Henges as well as over the double pit alignment, oval enclosure and the location of a possible second cursus to the north of the Central Henge.
These non intrusive investigations were followed up by a series of small scale evaluation trenches located over part of the double pit alignment (1994), Southern Henge outer ditch (1996), Southern Henge inner ditch (1997) and the Central Henge inner ditch (1997). In 1998 and 1999, the tenant farmer funded the total excavation of the southern double pit alignment by Dr Harding in order to preserve these deposits by record. The scheduled remains of the pit alignment lay outside the stewardship management area (established in 1997) and were perceived to be threatened by an increase in the level of cultivation.
The Northern Henge was the subject of a topographic survey in 1996 by Ed Dennison and Associates.
The Thornborough Project
In 2003 Dr Harding and Newcastle University undertook a second phase of archaeological investigation on the Thornborough Plain. In addition to further reconnaissance fieldwork, the project produced a desk based assessment which was followed by a programme of total lithic collection of 4.8ha and test pitting. A further geophysical survey was carried out to provide coverage of the interiors of the Southern and Central Henges. The project also undertook a programme of topographic survey of the surrounding round barrows and the archaeological evaluation of two of these monuments. A study of the wider archaeological context was also undertaken.
This project, which was funded by English Heritage using Aggregate Sustainability Levy Funding, also sought to produce an archaeological resource guide for the area and combine the results of earlier investigations into a single publication.
Archaeological Investigations Commissioned by Tarmac Northern Ltd
To the north of the monument complex, a programme of archaeological fieldwork was undertaken on behalf of Tilcon and later Tarmac Northern Ltd on the site of Nosterfield Quarry. Since 1992 Mike Griffiths and Associates have managed and commissioned a series of archaeological investigations which were undertaken in support of a planning application and to meet an archaeological planning condition placed on the extraction of aggregate over an area of 69ha.
In addition to an ongoing scheme of archaeological works, which has so far studied 56ha, the work also included a desk based assessment, two areas of total surface collection, test pitting, limited geophysical survey, augur survey and topographic survey. A preliminary report on the archaeological findings on the current quarry site, between 1992 and 2004, is currently available at www.archaeologicalplanningconsultancy.co.uk/mga/projects/noster.
The archaeological fieldwork was augmented by the sampling and analysis of well preserved environmental deposits found in naturally occurring features on the site by Durham University.
The current proposal for gravel extraction at Ladybridge Farm has prompted another phase of archaeological investigation. Following a more extensive desk based assessment, a programme of evaluation on the 44ha site was completed between October 2003 and October 2004. In addition to a series of large machine trenches covering 2.02% of the proposal area, the work included a programme of total surface collection, topographic survey, auger survey, geophysical survey and sieving.
The most recent work has just been published (WYAS, 2005). In 2004, English Heritage commissioned West Yorkshire Archaeological Services to undertake Aerial Photographic mapping of the Thornborough area in preparation for Thornborough Conservation Plan. Funded by the Aggregates Sustainability Levy Fund this work completed photographic coverage for the whole Thornborough area.
The Archaeology of the Thornborough Plain
These archaeological investigations have produced an unprecedented body of evidence relating to the development of the Thornborough landscape from the Holocene to the present day. Whilst highly informative, it must be stressed that this evidence is largely incomplete and is constrained by many factors, such as degree of preservation, research methodology and access. It is essentially a partial record of man's impact over the last 7000 years. Several substantial pieces of fieldwork are still ongoing and others that have been completed are still awaiting publication. The following model of the archaeology of Thornborough is based on the current available evidence.
Landscape Development
At the end of the last Devensian glaciation the backbone of the Thornborough landscape was formed. Through a number of processes the receding ice sheets gouged channels through the landscape and deposited large quantities of till and gravel on route. Successive phases of meltwater created channels and lakes in addition to depositing extensive banks of gravel and sand in its outwash. The gradual melting of the glaciers resulted in rising sea levels which led to the separation of Britain from the rest of the continent in the middle of the seventh millennium BC.
The Mesolithic period was characterised by a rise in temperature and climate change at the end of the Ice Age, c.8000BC. An increase in temperature facilitated the formation of deeper soils and the open tundra vegetation which was characteristic of the much of southern and northern England was gradually replaced by woodland. The changing environment gave rise to new habitats and wildlife. For the people living in these landscapes hunting, gathering and fishing formed the basis of their subsistence and everyday objects and tools were formed from stone, bone, antler and wood. Although the pollen analysis and the archaeological record provide some evidence for limited land management, settlement patterns were essentially intermittent or seasonal.
The heavily wooded landscape visible in the Mesolithic predominated until later prehistory when the combined agencies of man and climate had a radical impact on the vegetational cover of the country. During the Early to Middle Neolithic the environmental evidence suggests that most of Britain was still a heavily wooded landscape. Evidence for large scale forest clearance at this time was limited to coastal regions and the rich chalklands of southern England (Evans, 1978). Woodland clearance in other areas appears to have been localised, small scale and frequently followed by periods of forest regeneration.
Pollen evidence recovered from sink holes on Nosterfield Quarry shows that around 3000BC the area to the north of the henges was woodland and supported a substantial cover of trees which included larch, alder, pine and oak. It was not until the very Late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age that small clearances were created within the woodland by people to live in or to grow crops. Two phases of localised clearance appear to have occurred between 3000BC and 2000BC. Both appear to be short lived and were followed by a regeneration of the woodland cover. It may be that one episode of clearance was contemporary with the construction of the cursus monument.
By the Bronze Age the climate in Britain appears to have been drier and warmer than it is today. In many areas of Britain this period is associated with an increased level of agricultural exploitation and forest clearance. The pollen evidence from Nosterfield indicates that a major phase of woodland reduction occurred at some point during this period (between 2000BC and 1000BC). This was associated with tree clearance and the cultivation of cereals. It is possible that it is at this time that many of the major monuments within the Thornborough Plain were constructed.
Whilst dramatic, this change in the vegetational history of the site was temporary and before long the woodland had once again fully regenerated with an increase in the presence of species such as lime and willow. The lack of herbaceous pollen in the pollen record possibly indicating the abandonment of the area.
The Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in Britain is characterised by a period of climatic decline. It is at this time that the widespread disappearance of woodland cover is recorded in the pollen record on many sites. This process was initially a gradual one which was triggered by an increase in rainfall and a drop in temperature but was later accelerated by the actions of people opening up the landscape for farming on a vast scale. The division of Britain into highland and lowland zones is seen as occurring at this time.
The pollen record from Nosterfield Quarry records the gradual decline of woodland with a complete lack of indicators for agricultural clearance in the landscape in the middle of the 1st millennium BC. By the later Iron Age there is a dramatic increase in the presence of cereal, grass and weed pollen with a sharp decline in the few remaining tree types. This apparent opening up of the landscape for cultivation is contemporary with the division of the larger landscape in series of ditches and enclosure to the north and west of the site.
Whilst the pollen evidence for the quarry does not survive beyond this point, evidence elsewhere in Britain indicates a similar vegetational history for the landscape throughout the Roman period. In Northern Britain the creation of fields and opening up of the landscape is traditionally associated with stock management as opposed to intensive agriculture.
Archaeological Evolution
Mesolithic
The earliest evidence for human activity within the Thornborough landscape is represented by a small number of Mesolithic flint blades and artefacts. The majority of this material was found in the ploughsoil during fieldwalking undertaken by Newcastle University. Almost eight percent of the total material collected between 1994 and 1997 has been ascribed to this period. Whilst most of this material is not diagnostic, microburins, triangles, pyramid cores, edge blunted points and various forms of scraper have been found (Harding & Johnson, 2004b).
A total of five Mesolithic flints was recovered during surface collection at Ladybridge Farm and a further five Mesolithic flints were recovered in secondary contexts within cut features on Nosterfield Quarry. Additionally, fifteen lithics of this date were also recovered during the excavation of the triple ditched barrow in 2003 (Harding & Johnson, 2004d).
There does not appear to be any significant pattern in the distribution of this material within the landscape and in no case has any diagnostic Mesolithic material been found in association with a contemporary feature during fieldwork. This would be consistent with a model of low level occupation or exploitation of the Thornborough landscape with Mesolithic peoples attracted to the tree covered wet areas as a focus for hunting, bird fowling and gathering.
Within this general picture the discovery of a series of pits at Nosterfield Quarry may, however, indicate a more substantial presence in this early period of prehistory.
A radiocarbon date of 4675 BC was recovered from sediment from a large pit in the south western part of the quarry. The feature measured 2.6m in diameter and was one of 17 pits which appeared to form a double pit alignment, running from north to south over a distance of 79m. The pits were regularly spaced at intervals of between 5.5m and 11.0m and formed two rows some 25.5m apart. The sections from the features revealed a variety of fill systems. Some pits appeared to have been dug, filled and then recut, whilst others appear to possibly have been left open. Some of the profiles even suggested that some of these features may have been natural in origin.
Whilst the pits are evenly spaced and produce a corridor effect there is no evidence that they were excavated in a single event. 30m to the north a series of four regularly spaced sink holes were recorded which ran along the same alignment as the western row of pits. Is it possible that the pits were emulating or continuing a series of natural features? The possible incorporation or extension of a series of natural sink holes into a man made feature would be an interesting phenomenon. Whilst the excavators have exercised an understandable degree of caution as to the dating and interpretation of this feature, its presence could have important implications for our understanding of the area at this time.
Examples of Mesolithic pits are known from other sites in Ireland and England, where more secure evidence for Mesolithic activity has been produced. Since the publication of Star Carr in 1954 (Clark, 1954), further Mesolithic material has been subject to study in the Yorkshire area. Lithic assemblages at Chapel Cave were found in association with hearth features; radiocarbon-dated charcoal from within the excavated sequence provided a date of 6575±59 BP (OxA-8837: Donahue and Lovis 2003, p313).
Further afield, evidence for Mesolithic activity has been produced from a site which later formed a focus for Neolithic monumentality, at Billown, on the Isle of Man (Darvill 1999; 2000; 2003). A hearth-pit (4658-4369 cal BC: Beta-89312), pit fill (4542-4464 cal BC; Beta-125767) and a burnt plank (4899-4719 cal BC: Beta-1106691) provided evidence for some, probably temporary, Mesolithic activity on the site. The hearth-pit and flint scatters were found to occur in the same location as later enclosures and pits of Neolithic and Bronze Age date. Notably, this area has sink holes which may have formed the focal point for later activity (Darvill 2000, pp68-70).
Recent landscape studies have suggested that natural places and features that were visited with regularity during the Mesolithic sometimes came to have a permanent significance for societies, which 'ultimately set the scene for the construction of monuments in the Neolithic' (Cummings, 2003, p74). Such a scenario may present a possible context for the construction of the double pit alignment at Nosterfield in the Late Mesolithic (FAS, 2005).
Neolithic
The evidence from Thornborough suggests that it was not until the mid- Neolithic that the character of human activity within the landscape began to change. Environmental evidence recovered from Nosterfield Quarry concurs with the widely held view that much of the area was still wooded at this time, with larch and alder predominating. Within this landscape the archaeological evidence for sporadic possibly seasonal occupation has been recovered.
At Nosterfield Quarry a total of six shallow pits containing fragments of Grimston Ware pottery were recorded. Five of these were located to the south and west of the infilled lake while a single pit containing Grimston Ware was found during the Ladybridge Farm evaluation.
All of these features are indicative of limited occupation or activity occurring in the mid to late fourth millennium BC. The sparse distribution of these features would fit well with a model of dispersed activity in small clearances within a predominantly wooded landscape, a model which is supported by the pollen evidence from a sink hole on the quarry.
Of a less specific nature, other evidence for Early Neolithic activity was recovered predominantly from wide spaced surface collection undertaken by Newcastle University. Early Neolithic lithics comprised around 14 percent of the total collected and included a number of leaf shaped arrowheads, polished axe fragments, a sickle fragment and various forms of scraper and retouched flakes (Harding & Johnson, 2004b). This widespread, unfocussed distribution across the gravel terrace and around the monument complex has been interpreted as a small increase in the population or level of activity from the Mesolithic period.
Cursus
Whilst there is extremely limited evidence for settlement in this period, it has been suggested that certain areas of the landscape were cleared and subject to the construction of monuments at this time. The Thornborough cursus was identified from aerial photographs by St John between 1945 and 1952 and comprised a double ditched avenue, aligned east west, 43m wide and 1.2km long. Whilst an early date has been suggested for this feature (Harding & Johnson, 2003), archaeological investigation has not produced any dating evidence to corroborate this. Small scale excavations of the cursus which were undertaken by Thomas in 1952 and Vatcher in 1955 did not produce any finds.
Thomas recorded the cursus ditch at four points. As well as concluding that the monument had had an external bank and he also confirmed that the feature was stratigraphically earlier than the bank of the Central Henge. After initial erosion of its bank, the cursus ditch had silted up before supporting a turf line which was clearly visible beneath the bank of the henge. Analysis of the soils indicated that the fills of the cursus "...suggests a forest soil, - relatively close woodland under an oceanic climate with plentiful rainfall. From this we may conclude that the Thornborough cursus was constructed in the Pre-Bronze Age climatic phase." (Thomas, 1955).
From this it is also reasonable to conclude that the cursus was constructed in clearings within a wooded landscape, a notion supported by pollen evidence found at Nosterfield Quarry.
Even so, the cursus remains a poorly understood and dated phenomenon. Whilst we can definitely state that from the available evidence that the monument had fallen into disuse prior to the construction of the Central Henge, the date of its construction is still in question. As Dr Harding has stated in his recent work "It is supposed, rather than demonstrated, that both the Cursus and the Oval Enclosure date to the fourth millennium BC" (Harding, 2003, 2.2 para. 3).
Evidence from other sites in the region suggest that this form of monument may have been a late phenomenon in Yorkshire. Archaeological excavations from the Scorton cursus recovered Beaker pot sherds from the primary fill of the western ditch (Harding & Johnson, 2003). A similar Late Neolithic, Early Bronze date has also been suggested for the cursus monument at Rudston (Topping, 1982). From lack of evidence to the contrary it would, therefore, be more appropriate to assign a Late Neolithic date to the Thornborough cursus monument.
Other monumental features within the landscape have been suggested of originating in the Early Neolithic. Like the cursus, however, the interpretation of these features is hampered by the lack of dating material.
Oval Enclosure
Approximately 350m to the east of the cursus a small oval cropmark was the subject of investigation in 1996 by the Vale of Mowbray Neolithic Landscape Project. The excavations revealed a ditched enclosure 17 metres north-south by 25 metres east-west with a bank which suggested that the feature was originally an open monument.
It has been suggested that this feature is of an Early Neolithic date from its similarity in shape with ploughed out long barrows and 'long mortuary enclosures'. As no finds were recovered during excavation, however, it is impossible to corroborate this assumption without further excavation. It has also been argued that the monument was deliberately located in relation to the apparent eastern entrance of the cursus monument (Harding & Johnson, 2003). The most recent aerial photograph transcriptions commissioned by English Heritage clearly show that this is not the case and the cursus continues well beyond the line of the oval enclosure.
Double Ring Ditch Barrow
A third monument which has been suggested as originating in the Early Neolithic comprises a heavily truncated barrow located some 450m to the southeast of the Southern Henge. This feature, now termed the Double Ditched Round Barrow, was the subject of evaluation by Newcastle University in 2003. The barrow which appears to have had three consecutive phases of construction, contained a ditch and three pits within its circuit. Two of the pits were interpreted as burial pits and contained quantities of fragmentary human bone relating to six individuals.
Whilst no secure dating evidence was recovered during the excavation of the monument, the recovery of quantities of charcoal and human bone provide an excellent opportunity to produce a chronology of the monument based on absolute dates. Currently the monument is "tentatively" suggested as having Early Neolithic origins (Harding & Johnson, 2004d). Without recourse to radio-carbon dating of these remains the precise dating of this monument remains open to question.
The archaeological investigations on Nosterfield Quarry and in the Thornborough Landscape Project record that all of the monuments have been heavily degraded by the plough. With the exception of Double Ditched Round Barrow, no excavated examples retain even traces of their original mounds and even in this particular case the mound material had been reduced to a shallow spread. Topographic survey undertaken by the University of Newcastle in 2003 indicated that between 1864 and 2003 all of the remaining barrows in the Thornborough landscape had been reduced to less than 0.5m in height or were no longer visible. The triple ditched barrow, which is no longer visible as an earthwork, is estimated as originally being 2.5m in height (Harding Arch. Resource Guide); today it cannot be seen.
The level of destruction has severely limited the archaeological potential of these features. At Nosterfield Quarry ploughing had not just removed the mound upcast but also any evidence for the buried land surface that would have been preserved under it. The significance of these land surfaces in understanding the environmental context in the past should not be underestimated (Harding, 2003).
It is also clear from the results of both work undertaken at the quarry and on the two barrows evaluated by Newcastle University that in many cases the burials themselves have been destroyed or badly truncated. Several cremations within the Nosterfield Quarry had been reduced to mere scoops of cremated bone whilst at the Double Ditched Round Barrow Harding stated in reference to one of the burial pits "that much of the bone had been freshly broken, due to ploughing, and often material from the ploughsoil refitted with other pieces from the spread pit feature"(Harding & Johnson, 2004d).
This erosion of archaeological deposits is an ongoing problem where "The actions of just a couple of years of ploughing will very significantly degrade the quality of this archaeology." (Harding & Johnson, 2004d, para. 4.3)
The level of truncation to the archaeological deposits exhibited within the landscape severely limits the potential to interpret and date these monuments. Whilst it has been suggested that certain features may have had origins in the Early Neolithic, little actual physical evidence survives to corroborate this. On Nosterfield Quarry in the instances where burial deposits have been tested by radio carbon dating they have proved to be exclusively Bronze Age or later in origin (FAS, 2005).
Whilst the pits containing Grimston Ware pottery on Nosterfield Quarry indicate that there are archaeological features from the earlier Neolithic present within the landscape it is not clear if these are contemporary with the first monuments or relate to an earlier agricultural exploitation of the landscape.
Later Neolithic
The archaeological evidence indicates an increased level of activity across the Thornborough landscape in the Late Neolithic period. This activity is represented by an increase in the number archaeological features on Nosterfield Quarry in addition to the quantity of material recovered during surface collection by Newcastle University. It has been argued that this intensification of activity is contemporary with the construction of the henge monuments.
Lithic Scatters
The majority of the lithics discovered at Thornborough during surface collection by Newcastle University were later Neolithic or Early Bronze Age in character and most of the material was undiagnostic of a specific period (Harding & Johnson, 2003). The focus for this activity has been identified in an area behind Chapel Hill and in a zone to the southeast of the henge complex. The recognition of these finds' scatters has had an important role in defining areas of human activity. The distribution of surface lithics has been used to argue for deliberate zoning of "ritual and profane" activity across the landscape at this time (Harding & Johnson, 2004b). For a number of reasons the value of this technique as a basis for general interpretation rather than simply a reconnaissance tool should be approached with caution.
Most of the lithic material across the Thornborough study area (Harding op. cit.) and on Nosterfield Quarry (Rowe, 2005) is not chronologically diagnostic and is consequently severely limited as a dating tool. The grouping of artefacts into a category of Late Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age puts the finds into a temporal framework which covers a period of approximately 1000 years. In the absence of other dating material within a primary context these lithics have a limited value as dating evidence.
The picture is further complicated by the possibility that flint was being recycled and reworked at various times across the Thornborough landscape. On Ladybridge Farm the only feature to contain Grimston Ware pottery also contained a small assemblage of lithics. Amongst these a small fragment of polished stone axe had been reworked into a utilised flake (Rowe 2005) suggesting that contemporary material was being recycled into new forms. The debitage recorded in a number of features and during surface collection has been suggested as being debris derived from secondary knapping (Rowe). With the absence of an associated number of cores this raises the possibility that the recycling of flint artefacts may have been occurring on a wider scale. Examples of retouched pieces and utilised flakes are present within the assemblages from both Nosterfield Quarry and Ladybridge Farm.
In terms of their distribution at Thornborough what do the lithic scatters mean? In order to interpret the patterning within the landscape it is not only essential to establish the processes by which the material was originally deposited and discarded but also to consider other factors which may have moved or masked the material at a future date. These factors are the result of a combination of natural processes or man made actions.
Boismier (1991) points to three processes which can alter patterning of artefacts within the landscape - natural processes, agricultural ploughing and unsystematic artefact collection. Recent studies have shown that surface finds on even relatively shallow slopes can be moved up to 50m from their point of origin through a mixture of soil creep, water movement and ploughing (Waddington, 1999).
Understanding and mitigating against the effects of these factors is seen as an essential prerequisite before attempting to analyse and interpret the distribution of artefacts within the ploughsoil (Boismier, 1997). Without undertaking this, it is difficult to know whether patterning within data sets is the result of meaningful past activities or modern agricultural practice, natural erosion or poor methodology. Allen states that "it is only when all the human and taphonomic processes involved in the formation of artefact scatters are at least acknowledged, if not fully understood, that any sensible interpretation on a spatial and temporal plane can be attempted" (Allen, 1991, p39).
Lithics can find their way into the soil through a variety of means. It has been suggested from evidence from Nosterfield Quarry and work undertaken by Newcastle University that some of the flint could have originated from features which had simply been ploughed away. As mentioned above, where flint scatters have been tested by excavation on the site there has been no correlation between surface concentrations and sub-surface archaeology. This is a phenomenon which has been recorded in fieldwork elsewhere.
During the Stonehenge Environs Project, Julian Richards undertook total collection fieldwalking and archaeological excavation over the sites of several lithic scatters which had been identified during wide spaced fieldwalking. In the excavation of all of the sites the results indicated that there was no correlation between the recorded lithic concentrations on the surface and sub surface archaeological features. Indeed at Fargo Wood I, the distribution of surface flint, when tested, appeared to correlate with the transition on the site from clay to chalk soils and the distribution has been tentatively ascribed to manuring.
The investigation of a flint scatter on King Barrow Ridge produced a complex patterning of material. A series of pits were originally thought to be the source of large quantities of lithics within the ploughsoil, but subsequent radio carbon dating of these features showed that the pits and the surface scatter were not in fact contemporary. The flint therefore must have been deposited by some other activity or process.
This evidence suggests that a large amount of flint never made its way into cut archaeological feature to begin with. In this context lithic concentrations may relate patterns of surface discard either on middens or in peripheral areas to settlement. As well as at Fargo Wood, flint recovered from plough scars beneath a barrow at South Street provide further evidence for manuring in the Neolithic period. Evidence from a number of archaeological sites in Ireland also indicate that material was being discarded across the landscape in this way (Armit et al., 2003). As such, distributions may relate to areas of disposal rather than of use.
There are therefore many factors which could affect or result in the distribution of flint artefacts in the ploughsoil. The issue of defining areas of discard versus use may appear to be an academic one but it has significant implications for the interpretation of human activity in the Thornborough landscape, particularly for the location of so called "settlement". It is not clear at present how much, if at all, the current patterning has been altered or transformed by natural processes.
Their interpretation is further complicated if we consider that there may be more than one process of disposal or discard in play at various times in the past. This issue was recognised by Richards during the Stonehenge Environs Project where he concluded that "The excavation at W59 (The King Barrow Ridge) demonstrated the problems of sampling and consequently the interpretation of a surface scatter which may be part of an extensive palimpsest rather than a chronologically and spatially discrete area of activity" (Richards, 1990, p116).
The significance of the surface concentrations within the Thornborough landscape in this context is poorly understood and not clear cut. There can be no doubt that the lithic material represents the signature of past human activity over a broad period in certain areas. The character, date and intensity of this activity is, however, less obvious and it may actually be irretrievable. To date, most of the fieldwalking carried out at Thornborough has been wide spaced, with transects walked at intervals of 15m. This technique recovers a sample (13.5%) of the total number of lithics visible on the ploughsoil at any one time (Harding 2004, total) and has been used in other landscape projects at Stonehenge (Richards, 1990) and in the Millfield Basin (Waddington op.cit.). Using the results from this technique, the total population (100%) of lithics present across any one area can be notionally calculated. Although this is obviously a rough guide, it is, however, an important method of assessing the significance of levels of activity within the landscape as a whole.
Recent work undertaken by Newcastle University sought to test the relationship between the results from wide spaced sample surface collection undertaken between 1995 and 1997, by carrying out of total surface collection in the same areas in 2003. Surprisingly between 80% and 90% less flints were found during the total coverage fieldwalking than had been predicted from the earlier work. In one area less flint was actually recovered using the total coverage technique than had been found when the area was walked at fifteen metre intervals.
This significant reduction in flint recovery has major implications for the current interpretation of the landscape, particularly in the use of sampling techniques to predict total populations. The author has suggested that the discrepancy in the data may have been the result of using student labour (Harding & Johnson, 2004c). Research into the subject of walker variability, however, shows that while differences between fieldwalkers produce slight variations in recovery rates they do not significantly alter the results (Shennan, 1985). Until the reasons for this discrepancy can be satisfactorily explained it is unclear what the recorded patterning of lithics in the Thornborough landscape means. The test pitting which was carried by Harding in the same areas as part of this exercise did not find any sub-surface archaeological features.
More conclusive evidence for Late Neolithic occupation was recorded around the periphery of the infilled lake area in Nosterfield Quarry. A total of forty pits were excavated which contained mixed assemblages of pottery and flint. Of these, seven pits contained Peterborough Ware while a total of thirty three pits contained later Neolithic Grooved Ware.
These features appear to be all that remains of episodic activity occurring at the margins of the infilled lake - a pattern of activity that was also recorded on a smaller scale in the Early Neolithic period. Whilst the pits provide our only evidence of possible domestic activity, the true scale and character of this activity is not clear. The excavations so far have failed to find any structures, occupation surfaces or definite hearths. The pits were all heavily truncated and contained very little bone or environmental evidence. It is also unclear as to whether the pattern of pits represents a significant occupation over one or two seasons or is indicative a smaller but longer lived presence which shifted around the margins of the peat area over time. Similar movement has been noticed in Late Mesolithic contexts such as at Seamer Carr.
The pottery recovered from the pits, whilst informative, was poorly preserved and incomplete. The flint assemblage from the pits was generally small and undiagnostic. In none of the pits were complete remains of any one pottery vessel found. This phenomenon has been recognised on other sites and has caused some to argue that some pottery fragments were being selectively deposited into pits, possibly in a ritual context, in the Neolithic period (Armit et al., op. cit.). At Nosterfield this is difficult to prove due to the heavily truncated nature of the pits.
It is clear from the evidence from the quarry that many archaeological features had been badly affected by ploughing. Consequently, in the case of many of the Neolithic pits this could easily have resulted in the destruction of anything up to 0.5m of their upper fills. The results from the double pit alignment excavations by Newcastle University also showed a similar level of truncation. In this instance any pottery within the upper zone of these features would have been quickly destroyed leaving only a sample left in the lower levels.
If the deposition of incomplete vessels was a phenomenon of the period, rather than representing selective deposition of material it may actually represent selective collection. The function of these features and their relationship to other facets of occupation is not understood. Were they used as rubbish pits? Were they located adjacent to living areas or on the periphery of a settlement? Was waste discarded in middens or manure heaps and then used to fill in pits at a later date, resulting in partial deposition? If this was the case it may account for why much of the pottery is incomplete and poorly preserved. Did the pits have a primary function which was completely unrelated to their backfilling? (such as lined with skins to use for the storage of water?). The paucity of the evidence may mean we can never answer these questions.
Whilst the lack of structural evidence may be the result of truncation by ploughing it is also possible that buildings of this period may not have been substantial post built structures. Building forms for the Neolithic have been the subject of considerable study over the last fifteen years (Darvill, 1996; Thomas, 1996; Topping, 1997). Despite this research there is still a distinct lack of evidence for dwellings or domestic structures in England. This is in stark contrast with other parts of the Neolithic world. House forms and settlement plans are known from a variety of archaeological sites across Ireland and the continent (Armit et al., op.cit.) and a variety of reasons have been argued as to why Neolithic houses are not visible in the archaeological record in this country (Darvill op. cit.; Thomas op. cit.). Whatever the reason there is no direct evidence for dwellings or house structures at Nosterfield Quarry.
Evidence from the continent and Scotland indicate the use of peat as a building material for small huts or dwellings with a minimum amount of additional construction. Examples of this technique can still be seen today in parts of Iceland and reconstructions have been built at Hurwyt in Canada. The walls of this type of building are built form blocks of turf or peat constructed on low sills of stone or timber. The roof structure itself is structurally independent of the walls and is supported by a timber frame which rests in a series of shallow post holes or on past pads. Such buildings would leave little trace in the archaeological record particularly if the site has undergone severe truncation by ploughing.
The exploitation of peat may be supported from other archaeological evidence. In the rare instances where any of the pits contained other than sterile fills, charcoal was notably lacking. Instead, possibly burnt material was present in the form of a fine ashy silt which may have derived from the combustion of peat. Environmental work has shown that peat was forming in Nosterfield Quarry from the Early Mesolithic until at least the Iron Age. Historical documents indicate that in the Middle Ages peat was being exploited for fuel in the area around Nosterfield. There is no reason to suggest why this may not have been occurring in earlier periods and may represent a process which began in the Neolithic.
The archaeological evidence for domestic activity in both the Early and later Neolithic period is tantalising in its presence but lacking in its potential.
Henges
The most substantial and visible features from this period are the Thornborough Henges themselves. The three earthworks measure approximately 240m in diameter and are positioned at intervals of 550m along a SW-NE alignment. With opposing entrances they form part of a larger sequence of monuments incorporating other henges at Nunwick, Cana Barn and Hutton Moor and the Devil's Arrows near Boroughbridge.
Despite being the subject of limited archaeological investigation since 1952, the Thornborough Henges are still a poorly understood phenomenon. Recent investigations of the Central Henge by Newcastle University have suggested that there were at least two phases of construction; the first comprised the excavation of an interrupted outer ditch with an external bank, the second the excavation of a substantial inner ditch and massive bank, the earthworks of which can be seen today. On the basis of its similarity with causewayed enclosures elsewhere, Harding has argued that first phase of construction may be Middle Neolithic in date.
Whilst this may or may not be the case it is clear that the chronology of the henges remains to be satisfactorily resolved. In 1952 Thomas established that the massive bank of the of the Central Henge overlay the infilled and grassed over ditch of the cursus. The dating of the earliest phase of the Central Henge to the Middle Neolithic is also based on the assumption that the Thornborough cursus originates in the Early Neolithic, an idea which, as noted above, may not be the case.
The excavations on the monuments have failed to produce quantities of dating material and only one absolute date has been obtained so far. Fragments of charcoal that were recovered from the primary fill of the inner ditch of the Southern Henge produced a radio carbon date of between 1745BC and 1500BC. If correct this would indicate that the inner ditch and massive bank of the Southern Henge were a product of the Bronze Age. The excavator has since questioned the validity of this date for reasons not stated (Harding & Johnson, 2003). The late dates for this, however, would fit with other evidence in the landscape.
Whilst the latest phase of the Thornborough Henges appears similar by virtue of the standing remains, the earlier phases may have had a complex and variable development. Geophysical survey of the henge interiors has suggested the presence of internal features. Without recourse to excavation, however, it is not clear whether these are contemporary with the monuments or part of earlier or later structures. Consequently the monuments may have served a function which also changed through time. Once established as physical elements within the landscape their interpretation and use could have evolved in different social, economic and environmental contexts.
The environmental evidence from Nosterfield Quarry indicates that for much of the Neolithic period that areas of the landscape to the north of the henges were characterised by a tree cover of alder, birch and pine. Whilst the pollen evidence refers to the local environment of the sink hole that the data was recovered from, it does indicate that the landscape was not entirely open at this time and that the settlement activity surrounding at least part of the peat area was within a wooded area.
In the Bronze Age the pollen record from the quarry indicates a period of substantial but temporary woodland clearance and agriculture. This is short lived, however, and is followed by complete woodland restoration. It is not until the Iron Age that climatic change results in the gradual loss of woodland from the pollen record altogether. If the henges were constructed in the later Neolithic then it must be assumed that this was not in a cleared landscape of open grassland and prairie.
With this being the case the whole concept of monument intervisibility and spatial meaning needs to be reassessed. In this context the alignment of the henges could easily reflect a possible avenue or route way through a wooded landscape, emphasising a corridor and controlling movement along it. If at a later date changes within the landscape altered views to and from the monuments then their significance and interpretation may also have altered. In this context pit alignments could easily represent formalising established routes through wooded areas which in a cleared landscape would need to be defined in another way.
The double pit alignment excavated by Newcastle University in 1998 and 1999 may fall into this category. It comprised of two rows of forty four post pits 10m apart which were recorded for a distance of 350m. From the excavation results that are currently available it would appear that many of the features have been badly truncated by ploughing, in some cases only surviving to a depth of 0.25m. Whilst it has been suggested that this monument may be Late Neolithic (Harding & Johnson, 2003) in date all of the dating evidence recovered during the excavation of the pits clearly indicates a Bronze Age origin.
The physical effort to produce earthworks on this scale is worthy of consideration. Based on their current state it is estimated that the construction of each henge would have involved the excavation and movement of approximately 12,000 cubic metres of soil. This rough calculation assumes that inner and outer ditch were excavated at the same time. As current evidence suggests that the site has undergone a degree of truncation by ploughing, the original ground level in and around the monuments may have been reduced by up to one metre. Taking this information into account the construction of each henge could easily have involved the excavation of approximately 27,000 cubic metres of earth and gravel. At Thornborough, therefore, the construction of all three henges would have involved the excavation and movement of up to 81,000 cubic metres of gravel and earth.
Such an undertaking would have involved a considerable amount of labour. Each henge on its own is comparable with the Stonehenge ditch which is estimated to have involved the excavation of some 20,000 cubic metres. Together, however, the Thornborough Henges fall somewhat short of the 120,000 cubic metres of solid chalk that was dug out by Neolithic man to create the massive henge ditch at Avebury. Whilst the amount of labour to construct these monuments may be comparable on a superficial level it should be noted that in the case of many of the monuments in Wessex the main expenditure of effort was involved in the procurement and transportation of stones or timbers to be erected on the sites rather than the excavation of the ditches themselves. This certainly does not appear to be the case at Thornborough.
In addition to the excavation of the ditches, manpower may have also been needed to produce and maintain clearances in the wooded landscape of the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age.
Whilst it would appear that the henges may have tentatively had their origins in the later Neolithic, the limited available evidence suggests that the bulk of the activity, including the final layout of the monuments is part of a Bronze Age scheme. In addition to supporting the limited dating evidence available so far it would also concur with a period of major forest clearance recorded in the pollen record to the north of the henges in the Middle Bronze Age.
Bronze Age
In the wider Thornborough landscape Bronze Age activity was characterised by a series of barrows visible as cropmarks or recorded during excavation. The only feature of this type to be securely dated so far is a ring ditch that was excavated in the western half of Nosterfield Quarry. A burial central to this feature produced a radio-carbon date of 1605 ± 35BC and a badly truncated inhumation immediately outside it produced a date of 1240 ± 40BC. A group of ten cremations located 250m to the northeast were focused around a second ring ditch and produced radiocarbon dates of between 1000BC and 1170BC.
Whilst several of the round barrows surrounding the Thornborough Henges were excavated by Lukis in the 19th century none of the material survives for study today.
The Double Ditched Round Barrow excavated in 2003 by Newcastle University has not yet been the subject of absolute dating.
The dating of the earlier ring ditch on Nosterfield Quarry would suggest that this feature was contemporary with the later phases of the henge monuments and double pit alignment. The reason why certain areas become the focus for burials later in the period is not yet clear.
While there are a total of fourteen barrows (Harding, 2003) known in the Thornborough landscape, this is a small number compared with other sites both regionally and nationally. This may be in part a consequence of agricultural activity though this would not account for the small numbers recorded by antiquarians such as Lukis, unless of course medieval farming had already seriously affected the monuments. The small number of barrows would suggest that the area did not become a significant focus for burial during this period. This is particularly evident in comparison of the Thornborough evidence with the numbers of barrow monuments recorded at Stonehenge or the Millfield Basin, or even closer to home at Cana Barn.
With the exception of the Bronze Age elements within the lithic scatters, no evidence for settlement activity from this period has been recorded in excavations.
Iron Age
By the Iron Age the Thornborough Henges appear to have lost their ritual significance and excavations in the western half of Nosterfield Quarry have recorded the only archaeological evidence for this period. The paleao-environmental evidence suggests that the Early Iron Age was characterised by thick woodland which began to decline with increased rainfall and a fall in temperature.
By the 5th century BC the landscape appears to have been subject to considerable reorganisation with the creation of a large ditched enclosure which was subject to further division by two pit alignments. The main component of this reorganisation was a substantial, right-angled ditch, 1.10m deep, which extended across the site for approximately 350m NW-SE, before turning towards the southwest for a further 280m. A second ditch divided this enclosed area into two parts. The resulting rectilinear areas were then further divided by two parallel pit alignments, some 215m apart, which ran on a NW-SE alignment. These pit alignments were made up of closely spaced pits (between 0.80m and 1.20m apart), each measuring between 1.40m and 5.10m in length.
Both the Bronze Age ring ditches were impacted by the construction of this enclosure indicating that the ditches were originally excavated sometime after 1000BC and that the boundaries that they marked may already have been defined in the Bronze Age.
A quantity of Late Iron Age or Early Roman pottery was recovered from the upper fills of several of the pits in the pit alignments indicating that these features were still open and visible within the landscape until at least the Roman period.
Human remains, radio-carbon dated to 40AD were recovered from the top of one pit in the pit alignments. The analysis of the bones suggested that the body had been excarnated prior to careful burial in the pit, which at that time was already partially infilled.
Whilst evidence for the enclosure was present, no archaeological evidence survived within it to indicate what function the land division served. Pollen evidence, however, does indicate a dramatic increase in the presence cereals and weeds at this time.
The most recent plot of aerial photographs for the Thornborough area clearly shows that the field system recorded in the quarry continued for a considerable distance towards Well and beyond. It is possible that the remains recorded on Nosterfield Quarry mark the southern end of an Iron Age estate, the majority of which was located on the limestone escarpment, and presumably more favourable soils to the north.
Outside the area, on the periphery of the estate on the gravel soils, however, there is evidence for burial and ritual deposition. Two square ditch enclosures were identified to the south of the main enclosure ditch. The first was located 40m to the SE of the enclosure and measured approximately 10m x 10m. No burial was associated with this feature. A study of the ditch section suggests that originally the ditch may have held a series of upright posts along its circuit. Whilst no dating material was found during the excavation, its form and association with a pit feature 8m to the southeast suggested that it was Iron Age in date.
The pit contained the remains of four horses. The animals had been carefully laid out in two pairs, back to back in the bottom of a hole. Only the lower pair had survived intact from later disturbance. Radio-carbon analysis of the horse bone provided a Late Iron Age/Early Roman date of between 15 and 85AD.
The second square ditched feature which was located some 90m to the northeast of the corner of the main enclosure, measured 7.5m x 6.5m and has been interpreted as the remains of a small square barrow. Whilst no burial was located in the middle of the barrow, a burial was found interred along the western length of ditch. A radio-carbon date of c.135BC was obtained from the skeleton. The legs of the burial had been damaged by a re-cutting of the ditch at some point later in the Iron Age.
The shift in focus to the limestone escarpment in the region of Well could be seen in the context of climatic deterioration and widespread deforestation of previously wooded areas. The soils on the gravels may have been over-cultivated or over-grazed in the earlier periods. Manuring and periods of abandonment and re-forestation may have been inadequate to reinvigorate them. The grouping of the Iron Age burials, and possibly the later Bronze Age burials, may represent use of this now marginal land for burial purposes.
Roman
The dominance of the area around Well continued into the Roman period. A possible villa was recorded in the village (Gilyard-Beer, 1951) and produced evidence for a bath house with a tessellated pavement, which was dated to 160-190 AD (Smith, 1969, 78). Fragments of building material, including a mosaic pavement, have also been found at Langwith House in secondary deposits.
In contrast to the funerary nature of earlier period, Roman remains on Nosterfield Quarry appear to have been associated primarily with agricultural activity. This is exclusive to the western part of the quarry and corresponds with the location of activity recorded in the Iron Age. A possible corn-drying kiln was excavated on the quarry. It comprised a series of large pits or chambers, a stone-built oven, a stoke hole, and associated post-holes. Archaeomagnetic dating of this feature provided a date for the last firing of the kiln between AD100 and AD180.
A small number of pits in the vicinity of the kiln also produced Roman pottery. The pottery recovered from these pits, and from the upper fills of a number of pits in the Iron Age pit alignment, suggests that a highly Romanised settlement may have existed in the area; a number of imported wares were identified, with amphorae, mortaria and various domestic vessels present.
With the exception of two pieces of pottery recovered during fieldwalking, no archaeological evidence for Roman activity was recorded during the evaluation at Ladybridge Farm. A Roman brooch was found in the backfill of the inner ditch of the Southern Henge.
The archaeological evidence suggests that during the Roman period the quarry area and much of the Thornborough Plain was on the periphery of an agricultural estate apparently centred on Well. This occupation appears to be focussed on the limestone soils to the west and north of Nosterfield as opposed to the gravel terraces and peat areas in and around the henges. The cropmark evidence supports this distribution and shows an extensive system of enclosures and ditches running towards Snape. The villa at Well may be one of a series that have been identified in the Hambleton area in recent years.
Medieval
The medieval landscape of the Thornborough area was characterised by a series of villages and their outlying field systems. Several of these, such as West Tanfield and Wath appear to be in existence before the Norman invasion and are recorded in the Domesday book. Others, such as Nosterfield and Thornborough were not recorded in the Domesday Book in 1086, but are known to have existed since the 13th century. They have maintained a small but continuous population until the modern day. The most notable archaeological remains from this period exist as earthworks of the Deserted Medieval Village of East Tanfield and are located 500m to the south of the Southern Henge monument.
The current transcription of aerial photographs (WYAS, 2005) indicates that substantial areas of land to the north and south of the Thornborough Henges were once covered with ridge and furrow earthworks. Whilst there are difficulties in dating these remains it is interesting to note that the immediate area surrounding the henges does not contain cropmarks relating to this form of cultivation. Whilst it could be argued from this evidence that the area was not subject to cultivation during the Medieval period the archaeological evidence shows that it was.
Geophysical survey undertaken by the Thornborough Project recorded evidence for furrows to the northeast of the Central Henge and subsequent test pitting confirmed the presence of a medieval soil (Harding & Johnson 2004c). Excavations undertaken by Thomas and Newcastle University record that the inner ditches of the henges were backfilled during the Medieval period and it seems reasonable to suggest that the interiors of the Central and Southern Henges were probably taken into cultivation at this time.
Traces of furrows were also recorded on Nosterfield Quarry during the watching brief in areas where there had been no previous cropmarks.
At the northern end of Nosterfield Quarry no traces of ridge and furrow were found during the watching brief in an area which is known to have contained ridge and furrow cultivation. Aerial photographs also indicate that ridge and furrow earthworks existed in at least three of the fields on Ladybridge Farm until the second half of last century. Not only are these remains no longer visible on the ground, recent archaeological evaluation on the site failed to identify any that had survived as truncated archaeological features.
This picture of extensive erosion through agriculture is evident across much of the landscape and indicates that intensive farming has had a dramatic impact on archaeological deposits from all periods in the last fifty years.
Conclusion
The archaeology of the Thornborough landscape is still poorly understood despite a substantial body of archaeological work being carried out since the 1950s. Important questions regarding the chronology of the monuments and nature of past occupation remain to be answered and indeed may never be.
Whilst recent fieldwork by Newcastle University and Mike Griffiths and Associates has provided a tantalising insight into the development and exploitation of the area from the Mesolithic period to the present day they have also revealed a landscape which is under threat. Fieldwork has shown that in virtually every case archaeological deposits have been heavily truncated and possibly even completely destroyed by Medieval and later farming. That which remains is often poorly preserved and retains little of its original potential to provide useful information about the character and date of past human activity.
The impressive nature of the monuments at Thornborough does not appear to be mirrored in the quantity or quality of the surrounding, surviving archaeology. The density of archaeological features, finds and other monuments is small when compared to comparable landscapes in the south, Wessex and Sussex, and to the north, in the Millfield Basin, and to the east, on the Yorkshire Wolds.
Whilst there is still a problem in dating the monuments at Thornborough the information that has been collected so far suggests that they may be a later phenomenon in the prehistoric landscape than has previously been argued. Rather than the monuments being the original focus for human activity the evidence from the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic suggests that it was the place that was important, possibly because of natural phenomena, and it may only be in the very Late Neolithic that the first monuments were constructed. The henges may, therefore, form part of an Early Bronze Age tradition - a notion which is supported from the only absolute date recovered from the monuments themselves. Without further investigation it is unlikely that the origins of these features will ever be resolved.
The process of intensive agriculture which has caused damage to the archaeological resource is one that continues today even within some of the scheduled areas. In 2003 English Heritage launched their campaign "Ripping Up History" to address the problem of the continuing erosion of archaeological sites, a process which is causing the gradual loss of the archaeological resource without record on a massive scale. If this process is allowed to continue unmanaged there may be very little left of the archaeology of Thornborough for future generations.
archaeological planning consultancy > thornborough > an archaeological assessment of nosterfield, ladybridge and the thornborough plain