Ladybridge Farm: Interim Assessment (April 2008)

*SITE NAME:*		Ladybridge Farm, Nosterfield
*COUNTY:*		North Yorkshire
*NATIONAL GRID REFERENCE:*		429350 480660
*ON BEHALF OF:*		Mike Griffiths and Associates 1 St. George's Place York YO24 1GN
*CLIENT:*		Tarmac Northern Ltd
*EXCAVATION TEAM:*		A. Dickson C. Fern D. Hopkinson G. Hopkinson L. Signorelli W. Timms J. Welsh
*SPECIALIST CONTRIBUTIONS:*		A. Beacock (biological remains) J. Carrott (biological remains) A. Dickson (lithics) D. Jaques (biological remains) A. Schmidl (biological remains) B. Vyner (prehistoric ceramics)
*REPORT* *PREPARED BY:*		A. Dickson G. Hopkinson
*ILLUSTRATIONS*:		M-C. Ferguson G. Hopkinson
*TIMING:*		Excavation: 20/11/07 to 16/01/08 Post excavation & report preparation: 18/01/08 to 18/04/08
*PERIODS REPRESENTED:*		Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age Post-Medieval

1.0 Summary

Following the submission of a revised planning application to extend quarrying into an area east of Nosterfield Quarry known as Ladybridge Farm, a scheme of archaeological works was agreed by English Heritage, North Yorkshire County Council and Mike Griffiths & Associates, the consultants employed by Tarmac Northern Limited. The work outlined in that scheme is currently in progress, the haul road linking the existing quarry to Ladybridge Farm, Area 1 and Area 2 having now been investigated.

After the removal of topsoil covering an area of approximately 3.33 hectares, three prehistoric pits and one possible prehistoric pit (though undated), have been encountered along the route of the haul road. Areas 1 and 2 have revealed no prehistoric material, but a system of post-medieval boundary ditches are evident along with a possible though isolated posthole, and a possible pit thought to be of recent origin. The remaining anomalies visible on cleaning the exposed natural were all of non human origin, consisting of root and animal disturbance, and a number of geological sinkholes.

When compared with the topography of the site, on which a predictive model has been created in an attempt to define areas of high and limited archaeological potential, the one probable and three definite prehistoric pits all fall within the bounds of the model. The absence of prehistoric archaeology in those areas thought to be of low potential would appear to corroborate the hypothesis of that model.

2.0 Introduction

This document provides an assessment of the soil features (both archaeological and natural in origin) that have been identified, excavated and recorded during the removal of topsoil deposits at the Ladybridge Farm Quarry site. The archaeological investigations have been carried out under the terms and conditions set out in the written scheme of investigation (WSI) which was prepared by Mike Griffiths & Associates in consultation with English Heritage and North Yorkshire County Council and approved by the local planning authority in July 2007 (Timms, 2007).

Topsoil removal commenced at the eastern end of the haul road on the 20th November 2007 and continued into Areas 1 and 2 (see Figure 2), fieldwork being completed on the 16th January 2008. It is expected that as the phased investigation of the excavation areas progresses the results from that work will be incorporated in this document, which will act as a generic account of the results of the archaeological investigations within the application area.

The work has been undertaken by AD Archaeology and Archaeoscope for Mike Griffiths & Associates on behalf of Tarmac Northern Ltd. In accordance with the WSI, the fieldwork has been undertaken in a transparent and open manner. This has involved a weekly update to a site diary on the Nosterfield website (www.archaeologicalplanningconsultancy.co.uk/thornborough), along with the digital photographic archive, finds register, context details, and drawing register also being made available during the progress of fieldwork.

3.0 Site Location, Geology, Topography and Land Use

The application area (NGR SE 293 806 centred) is situated to the east of Nosterfield Quarry, and to the north of the village of Thornborough. The application area can be divided into eastern and western parts, bisected by Moor Lane which runs north-south along a spur of higher ground. The eastern part comprises an area of 30.9ha which is bounded to the south by 14.8ha of arable land which was omitted from the original application area (Figure 2). This area of land lies to the north of Thornfield road (B6267). To the west the site is bounded by Moor Lane and to the north and east by the course of Ings Goit. There is a known area of peat deposits on the eastern side of the application area, which has been left under pasture in a separate field and holds surface water during wet weather conditions. A small pond to the south of this field is thought to be fed by a natural spring. Other than this small field the majority of the eastern part of the application area is given over to arable farming.

The smaller western part of the application area comprises a small field and the route of the haul road which lie to the south and west of Ladybridge farm and to the north and east of Nosterfield Quarry (Figure 2). This part of the site comprises approximately 2.26ha of pasture land.

The underlying geology of the site represents the fluvio-glacial gravels that characterise land north of the River Ure. Within the larger part of the application area, the ground slopes gently down from the south-western corner at around the 43 metre contour towards the small pasture field on the centre of the eastern boundary, which lies at approximately 40 metres above sea level. The northern part of the area is relatively level at around the41 metre contour, but slopes down in both the north-eastern and north-western corners to approximately 40 metres above sea level. The smaller part of the application area to the west of Ladybridge Farm lies on two levels divided by a steep slope. The eastern side of this area is relatively flat at approximately41m above sea level, rising to around 42 metres in the south-eastern corner. The western side is also fairly level, lying at approximately 40 metres above sea level.

Figure 1. Location of Ladybridge Farm NGR 429350 480660 (centre).

4.0 Planning Background

Prior to the present phase of fieldwork taking place an initial application area comprising 45.7ha was subjected to extensive archaeological evaluation and investigation. In 2003 an archaeological evaluation comprising fieldwalking, geophysical survey, test pitting and machine trenching was undertaken by Field Archaeology Specialists (Garner-Lahire et al, 2005). In October 2005 a second phase of archaeological trenching was undertaken by On Site Archaeology in response to concerns raised by English Heritage and North Yorkshire County Council. The results of this work identified a thin scatter of early prehistoric features located on marginally higher ground in the southeast corner of Ladybridge Farm (Timms & Dickson, 2005). Based on the results of this early work a topographic model has been created which shows that the northeast area of the site would have been wet and boggy and unsuitable for occupation, settlement and burial until the land was drained in the post-medieval period (Hopkinson & Dickson, 2008). However, the south-western area of the site was recognised as an area of potential prehistoric activity or occupation and was therefore omitted from the revised application area. This characterisation of the site has been endorsed by English Heritage and North Yorkshire County Council and the area of former wetland (30.9ha) forms the basis of the revised extraction area.

As part of the planning process associated with the revised application to extend Tarmac’s current quarrying operations into the Ladybridge Farm area, a programme of archaeological investigations has been instigated. Initial work involves an ongoing fieldwalking survey covering the original application area (45.7ha). To date this survey has covered the southern half of the site area (Dickson & Hopkinson, 2007). The rest of the area will be covered as harvesting allows, prior to extraction progressing to the north.

The Ladybridge Farm site has been divided into eight excavation areas located in the western, south-western and southern part of the revised application area, with the haul road forming a ninth area (Figure 2). A watching brief has been proposed for the north-western, northern and south-eastern parts of the site. The scheme of works devised for the investigation of each excavation area involves the monitoring of topsoil removal followed by the mapping, excavation and recording of all exposed archaeological deposits prior to extraction. The programme also involves the mapping, excavation and recording of a twenty percent sample of natural features identified in each area. The scheme of works for the watching brief area involves the monitoring of topsoil removal and the mapping and sampling of soil features, which will take place during the phased extraction works. It was also agreed that on completion of each excavation area an interim assessment report would be prepared outlining the results of the work undertaken. This document therefore represents an ongoing assessment of the results, which will be added to and modified as work continues. On completion of the fieldwork it will form the basis for a complete assessment of the site and outline further work required to bring the results to publication.

Figure 2. Mitigation Areas

5.0 Methodology

5.1 Mechanical Excavation

The extent of each excavation area was marked out by Tarmac's surveyors using a total station theodolite. In each area of excavation, topsoil and overburden were removed using a 360º excavator fitted with a toothless bucket working under the continuous supervision of an experienced archaeologist.

Spoil was removed from the site by dumper truck and stockpiled at locations identified by Tarmac. Plant was not be permitted to track across stripped areas unless they had been declared clear of archaeological remains. In that respect the dump trucks operated in defined haul routes that had been declared clear of archaeological remains. Topsoil and modern overburden were removed in a series of level spits down to the top of the first significant archaeological horizon. Following the removal of the topsoil, each area was defined and fenced off.

5.2 Mapping

As removal of the overburden took place, all identifiable features within the stripped areas were mapped using a total station theodolite to create a comprehensive pre-excavation plan of the site. This was then used to identify areas of potential, target resources and prioritise work.

5.3 Hand Excavation and Sampling Strategy

All features with any archaeological potential were cleaned by hand and recorded in plan at an appropriate scale. In Area 1, Area 2 and along the route of the haul road features were investigated by hand in accordance with the following preliminary sampling strategy.

Linear features field boundaries/land divisions - 20% by length, recorded sections to include all terminals, intersections and other relationships.
Structural components -100% excavation, recorded sections to include all terminals, intersections and other relationships.
Discrete features - Pits 100% excavation. Running sections to be employed where appropriate to ensure placed deposits are identified.
Post-holes - 100% by number, recorded in half section.
Horizontal deposits Layers/spreads/ stratified deposits - 100% excavation, recorded in running sections, half sections or on a grid system and excavated in spits, as appropriate.
Tree throws -100% mapped with 20% excavated and recorded in half section.
Swallow Holes - 100% excavated by number, recorded in half section. Appropriate environmental sampling undertaken (see below)

5.4 Recording

As excavation proceeded written descriptions of all features, comprising both factual data and interpretive elements were recorded in a database on hand held computers. These were synchronised on a daily basis with an Access database. All recording was undertaken in accordance with the standards and guidance of the Archaeological Field Manual (Museum of London Archaeology Service 3rd edition 1994).
Where stratified deposits were encountered, a 'Harris' type matrix was compiled as excavation progressed. A full and proper drawn record of archaeological deposits was made: plans of excavated features were drawn at a scale of 1:20 and where relevant 1:50. Sections of excavated features showing layers, deposits, cuts and any relationships were drawn at 1:10 and all sections were accurately related to Ordnance Datum. Registers of sections and plans were maintained in a database on hand held computers.

A full black and white and colour (35mm transparency) photographic record was maintained and was supplemented by digital photographs. This illustrated the principal features and finds both in detail and in a general context. Photographs of features were taken before and after excavation, using appropriate scales. The photographic record also included working shots to represent more generally the nature of the work. A register of all photographs was maintained in a database on hand held computers.

5.5 Environmental Sampling

Environmental sampling was undertaken in accordance with a sampling strategy produced by John Carrot of Palaeoecology Research Services Ltd. The sampling strategy was produced in accordance with the latest guidelines (English Heritage, 2002) and with reference to work previously undertaken on the site and in the wider area.

During the archaeological investigation of Ladybridge Farm, bulk sediment sampling was undertaken from appropriate deposits with the following objectives;

To retrieve biological remains from appropriate deposits to provide information relating to past human activities and environments on the site.
To retrieve dating material from archaeological features where appropriate.

The on site sampling strategy prioritised features of a potential prehistoric date for the recovery of bulk sediment samples and other sampling techniques (such as spot samples for dating) were undertaken by the field team in accordance with current guidelines (English Heritage 2002). Contexts of a potential early prehistoric date were subjected to bulk sediment sampling as a matter of course to retrieve biological remains and material suitable for dating. Additional samples were taken at the discretion of the project supervisor when necessary.

In general:

Bulk sediment samples taken for the recovery of carbonised remains comprised a minimum of 30 litres
Further bulk samples for small animal bones and other small artefacts were taken from appropriate deposits.

5.6 Sink Holes

Sink holes on Ladybridge Farm were initially assessed using the same strategy employed in The Flasks area of Nosterfield Quarry as agreed by North Yorkshire County Council. A section was excavated by hand to a safe working depth in order to record the sink hole's profile and characterise its upper fills. From the resulting section the upper most layer of peat was sampled when appropriate. The sample was then processed and appropriate material sent for AMS dating. Sink holes which contained peat in the upper horizon which was of a relatively late date (ie late in the human occupation of the wider area) were prioritised for further sampling. Further sampling comprised the extraction of a core or column of sediment from the sink hole by specialists form Durham University. Once removed from site the samples will be stored at Durham University pending further assessment and reporting.

The level of further assessment and analysis on each sink hole will be determined in consultation with Dr Jim Innes (Durham University). The assessment reports generated from the sink holes will form part of the final publication of the site. Once sampled the remaining fills of the sink holes will be excavated by machine under archaeological supervision. Every effort will be made to record the deposit profiles of these features safely to aid in the interpretation of the formation of the sediments.

Sink holes which are not considered to be of further potential will be excavated by machine under archaeological supervision following the completion of the Area.

5.7 Finds Collection

All identified finds of pre-modern date were collected and retained for study. Modern objects were not retained, but their presence noted in the relevant context record. The three dimensional locations of the majority of stratified artefacts were recorded using a total station theodolite, though this was not undertaken when underlying artefacts might have been damaged in the process. Animal bone samples were recovered by hand during excavation and were processed as part of the finds assemblage. Animal bone recovered from bulk samples will also be retained for analysis. Finds were placed into bags labelled with the project code and find number.

5.8 Finds Treatment

All finds were processed according to current best practice. All artefacts were, as a minimum, washed (where appropriate), counted, weighed and identified before being re-bagged and boxed by material. Spot dating of finds was undertaken during the course of the fieldwork in order to inform excavation strategy. Assessment analysis of ceramics, lithics and environmental samples was also undertaken by the relevant specialists.

5.9 Dissemination of Information

An ongoing account of the site works along with the primary digital archive was published in the form of a weekly diary on the Nosterfield website (Mike Griffiths & Associates).

5.10 Health and Safety

All work was undertaken within the terms of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Health and Safety Management Regulations 1992, and in accordance with the SCAUM (Standing Conference of Archaeological Unit Managers) health and safety manual Health and Safety in Field Archaeology (1997).

6.0 Results

6.1 Introduction

The results from the current fieldwork undertaken at Ladybridge Farm are set out below. The factual and artefactual material which make up each excavation area archive are assessed for their potential in answering site specific questions relating to the character, extent and chronology of the archaeological deposits in Section 7 of this document. The potential of the archaeological deposits in adding to local, regional and national research frameworks are also assessed. The format of the report is based on guidelines set out in The Management of Archaeological Projects (English Heritage, 1991). The work is being undertaken in phases, and to date the haul road and Areas 1 and 2 have been investigated (see Figure 2).

6.2 Summary of Results

6.2.1 Haul Road

An area of topsoil approximately 0.36ha in area was removed from the route of haul road by a 360 excavator. In keeping with the WSI all archaeological features were mapped and preserved by record. Natural features were also mapped then sample excavated and recorded. The site was characterised by three prehistoric pits, one undated possible pit and a series of natural features (see Figure 11 and Figure 12).
Two pits, contexts lbf07031001 and lbf07031003, were located at the eastern end of the haul road adjacent to the western boundary of Moor Lane (Figure 11 (omitted from web version, please see site plan)). In terms of topographic location the features were situated on a ridge of relatively high ground, aligned north/south along which Moor Lane runs (see Figure 22). According to the topographic model this gravel ridge has the potential to support evidence for occupation activity from the prehistoric period through to the post-medieval and early modern periods (Dickson & Hopkinson, 2008).
The pits at the eastern end of the haul road were shallow in depth, u-shaped in profile. Pit lbf07031001 was filled by a single deposit, context lbf07031002. Pit lbf07031003 was filled by two deposits, recorded by the excavator as a single fill, context lbf07031004 (Plate 1 and Plate 2, Figure 3 to Figure 6). During excavation worked flint, stone axe flakes and sherds of late Neolithic/early Bronze Age ceramic were recovered from both features, while pit lbf07031001 also produced fragments of burnt hazelnut shell.


Plate 1. Pit lbf07031001 half sectioned	Plate 2. Pit lbf07031003 half sectioned

Figure 3. Pit lbf07031001, section	Figure 4. Pit lbf07031003, section

Figure 5. Pit lbf07031001, plan - north to top	Figure 6. Pit lbf07031003, plan - north to top

A third pit, context lbf07031009 and a possible pit, context lbf07031030 were excavated at the western end of the haul road where it links with the existing quarry site (Figure 2). These features were very similar in plan and form to the pits from the eastern end of the haul road (Plate 3 and Plate 4, Figure 7 to Figure 10). However, only pit lbf07031009 produced artefactual material, which comprised over two hundred sherds of early Bronze Age collared urn.


Plate 3. Pit lbf07031009 pre-excavation	Plate 4. Pit lbf07031030 half sectioned

Figure 7. Pit lbf07031009, section	Figure 8. Pit lbf07031030, section

Figure 9. Pit lbf07031009, plan - north to top	Figure 10. Pit lbf07031030, plan - north to top

Along the route of the haul road a sample of twenty-six natural features was excavated. These were variously interpreted as tree/bush throws (thirteen features), areas of root disturbance (ten features), unidentifiable natural features (two features) and animal burrows (one feature). These features were chiefly irregular, crescent shaped and elongated oval in plan with often irregular sides and bases (see Plate 5 to Plate 8 for examples).

Apart from the topsoil and natural, two further layers were identified. One was interpreted as a natural lens of sand and gravel and a second as a layer of remnant topsoil.

Thirty-four natural features were recorded in plan only, and were therefore issued context numbers purely as a means of identification during mapping. These features were similar in plan to the excavated sample. The majority comprised deposits which were very similar in colour, composition and texture to the excavated natural examples.


Plate 5. Feature lbf07031015 half sectioned	Plate 6. Feature lbf07031050 half sectioned

Plate 7. Feature lbf07031056 half sectioned	Plate 8. Feature lbf07031064 half sectioned

6.2.2 Area 1

Area 1 forms part of the area excavations located in the western and south-western part of the extraction area. The area lies to the east of Moor Lane and the eastern termination of the haul road (Figure 2). Area 1 is part of a larger site that has already been the subject of previous archaeological investigations (Garner-Lahire et al 2005; Timms & Dickson 2005). An area of topsoil approximately 0.56ha in size was removed from Area 1 by a 360 excavator. In keeping with the WSI all archaeological features were mapped and preserved by record. Natural features were also mapped then sample excavated and recorded. The site was characterised by a linear land drain that cut a late post-medieval/early modern field boundary, a possible pit, and a series of natural features (see Figure 13 and Figure 14 (both omitted from web version, please see site plan)).

In terms of topography, almost the entirety of Area 1 lies below the 41.50 metre contour, with only a small raised island of ground in the north of the area (see Figure 22). The only feature encountered in areas above the current 41.50 metre contour was feature [1123], of natural origin.

The earliest archaeological feature comprised an east/west aligned ditch feature lbf07031062 filled by lbf07031178 and lbf07031179 (Plate 9). The ditch was part of a wider field system which is known to date to the late 18th early 19th centuries when documentary sources indicate that Thornborough Moor was enclosed (Roe 2003). The ditch was cut by a deep, steep sided cut, which contained a ceramic land drain at its base. The land drain was probably cut in the late 19th century when the use of ceramic drains became widespread throughout England (Phillips 1999).

The only other potential archaeological feature was a possible pit: context lbf07031162 filled by lbf07031061. This was shallow with a regular plan and u-shaped profile. The cut was filled by homogenous dark reddish brown silty clay, which produced fragments of coal but no dateable artefacts (Plate 10).

A total of three natural features were sample excavated in Area 1. They were interpreted as an area of root disturbance, an unidentifiable natural feature and a topsoil smear. These features were chiefly irregular, crescent shaped and elongated oval in plan often with irregular sides and bases (see Plate 11 and Plate 12 for examples).


Plate 9. Ditch lbf07031062 & land drain lbf07031177	Plate 10. Feature lbf07031162 half sectioned

Plate 11. Feature lbf07031111 half sectioned	Plate 12. Feature lbf07031123 half sectioned

Two layers were recorded in Area 1, these being the natural deposits and the overlying topsoil.

Fourteen features were recorded in plan only and were therefore issued with context numbers as a means of identification during mapping. These features were similar in plan to the excavated sample. The majority comprised deposits that were very similar in colour, composition and texture to the excavated natural examples.

It is also worth mentioning that a large waterlogged, shallow depression was identified in the western part of the excavation area. This was initially earmarked for sample excavation, however this was not undertaken as the former landowner, Mr A. Almack, pointed out that the depression represented a pond which had been backfilled and levelled quite recently. This feature will not be discussed any further in this report.

6.2.3 Area 2

Area 2 forms part of the area excavations located in the western and south-western part of the extraction area. The area lies to the east and southeast of Area 1 (Figure 2) and is again part of a larger site subject to previous archaeological investigations. An area of topsoil approximately 2.41ha in size was removed from Area 2 by a 360 excavator. In keeping with the WSI all archaeological features were mapped and preserved by record. Natural features were also mapped then sample excavated and recorded. The site was characterised by a system of linear late post-medieval/early modern field boundaries, a single possible posthole/truncated pit. a feature containing charcoal rich deposits interpreted as evidence for vegetation clearance, several sink holes and a series of natural features (see Figure 20 and Figure 21 (both omitted from web version, please see site plan)).

All of Area 2 lies below the 41.50 metre contour, and it is therefore unlikely that any undated features in this area are early in the sequence.

The southern half of Area 2 was characterised by a system of linear ditches that relate to a wider field system, which can be dated to the very late post-medieval/early modern period on the basis of documentary and cartographic evidence (Plate 13). Elements of this field system which correspond directly to the current results have already been investigated during previous excavations (Garner-Lahire et al, 2005; Timms & Dickson, 2005). The recent excavations have revealed that the series of ditches were recut and extended, apparently in a piecemeal fashion over time. The earliest stratigraphic feature was a north/south aligned linear ditch lbf07031138 (Table 4, Figure 15, Plate 14) which was relatively narrow and shallow with a u-shaped profile. This was cut by a similarly aligned ditch lbf07031140 which showed a similar profile but tended to be wider and deeper in dimensions (Table 4, Figure 15). Ditch lbf07031140 probably represents the redefinition of the same section of ditch after the earlier one lbf07031138 had silted up. Both these ditches continued under the southern limit of excavation and terminated at an intersection at their northern extent. There was no evidence to suggest that either ditch phase turned to the east or the west at their northern terminal, but it is highly likely that they did.

Table 4 . Main contexts assigned to each phase of ditch and the contexts that they were also recorded under at other excavated sections

Phase	Main Context (cut only)	Same As (cut only)
1	lbf07031138	lbf07031136, lbf07031109 and lbf07031142
2	lbf07031140	lbf07031205
3	lbf07031134	N/A
4	lbf07031125	lbf07031132
5	lbf07031130	N/A
N/A	lbf07031066	lbf07031119
N/A	lbf07031070	lbf07031121
N/A	lbf07031092	N/A
N/A	lbf07031203	N/A

The later phase was then cut at its northern terminal by east-west aligned ditch lbf07031134. This ditch showed a similar profile and dimensions to ditch lbf07031140 but clearly truncated the latter. In plan ditch lbf07031134 appeared to terminate at its juncture with lbf07031140 so it is unlikely it extended to the west. Its extent to the east could also not be fully identified, but it could be represented by ditch lbf07031092 recorded at an excavated section located on the eastern limit of excavation (Table 4, Figure 16, Figure 17 and Figure 20).

Ditch lbf07031134 was re-cut by ditch lbf07031125 which was much narrower in plan, but still retained a u-shaped profile and followed the same alignment (Table 4, Figure 15). This ditch continued to the west where it was probably identified as ditch lbf07031203 at a section located c.40m to the west of the excavated intersections (Table 4). The ditch also continued further to the west where it could have been represented by either ditch lbf07031066 or lbf07031070 at the western limit of excavation (Table 4, Figure 20). Undoubtedly these two segments of ditches represented the redefinition of this linear feature but due to the fact that they were both heavily plough truncated no relationship could be identified. It is also possible that ditch lbf07031125 continued to the east where it may have been represented by ditch lbf07031092. It is unclear as to whether this part of the ditch was the continuation of cut lbf07031134 or the earlier ditch lbf07031125.

The final phase of activity was represented by foundation cut lbf07031130 which cut ditch lbf07031140 at the ditch intersections (Figure 15). The cut contained two linear parallel settings of stone, contexts lbf07031128 and lbf07031129, comprising roughly tooled limestone blocks set on their edges to form a culvert. The two side walls were capped by similar blocks of masonry, context lbf07031127. The culvert may have acted as a crossing point or was placed in order to drain a particularly wet area of ground. The culvert extended for approximately five metres on a north south alignment (Figure 15).

The only finds recovered from the ditches was a small unidentifiable fragment of ceramic building material (CBM) and two metal objects. The artefacts have not been sent for assessment given that they are recent in date or unidentifiable. The cbm was recovered from ditch lbf07031138 and the iron objects were recovered from the fill of the culvert, lbf07031126. Their presence was noted in the relevant context records.


Plate 13. Ditch intersections & culvert	Plate 14. Ditch lbf07031138

Figure 15. Intersection of field boundary ditches and remains of culvert in plan


Figure 16. Feature lbf07031092, excavated section - north to top	Figure 17. Feature lbf07031092, section

A probable posthole, cut lbf07031068 and fill lbf07031067 was recorded between linear features lbf07031066 and lbf07031070 (Figure 18 and Figure 19). The feature was circular in plan with steep sides and a u-shaped profile. No dating evidence was recovered.


Figure 18. Feature lbf07031068, plan - north to top	Figure 19. Feature lbf07031068, section

Plate 15. Ditch lbf07031092, section	Plate 16. Feature lbf07031068 half sectioned

A feature containing a charcoal rich fill was recorded in Area 2. The cut, lbf07031195, was slightly irregular and crescent shaped in plan and probably represented the burning of the root bole of a tree or shrub during land clearance.

Six sinkholes were recorded in the southwest quadrant of Area 2 (contexts lbf07031071, lbf07031076, lbf07031167, lbf07031172, lbf07031180 and lbf07031190). In accordance with the WSI all these features were half sectioned in order to reveal their depositional sequences and to identify deposits of peat from which potential dating material could be retrieved. If the returned AMS dates from the most recent deposits of peat fall within later archaeological periods ie medieval or later, than the rest of the depositional sequence will be sampled for palynological analysis. Only three of the sink holes (contexts lbf07031167, lbf07031172 and lbf07031190) had suitable peat rich deposits deemed worth analysing for datable material and at the time of writing dating of this material is still being undertaken. A fragment of clay tobacco pipe and an unidentifiable fragment of cbm were recovered from the latest fill of sinkhole lbf07031172. The artefacts have not been sent for assessment given that they are of recent date, unidentifiable and residual. Their presence was noted in the relevant context records.

A total of thirteen natural features were sample excavated in Area 2. These were variously interpreted as topsoil smears (one feature), tree/bush throws (five features), areas of root disturbance (two features), unidentifiable natural features (three features) and animal burrows (two features). These features were chiefly irregular, crescent shaped and elongated oval in plan with often irregular sides and bases (see Plate 17 to Plate 20 for examples).


Plate 17. Feature lbf07031197 half sectioned	Plate 18. Feature lbf07031171 half sectioned

Plate 19. Feature lbf07031094 half sectioned	Plate 20. Feature lbf07031098 half sectioned

Two layers were recorded in Area 2, these being natural deposits and the overlying topsoil.
Forty natural features were recorded in plan only and were therefore issued with context numbers as a means of identification during mapping. These features were similar in plan to the excavated sample. The majority comprised deposits which were very similar in colour, composition and texture to the excavated natural examples.

6.3 Preliminary Results

Although much of the evidence unearthed by fieldwork has yet to be fully integrated and interpreted, several important conclusions can already be reached:

6.3.1 Haul Road

The small number of features of archaeological origin produced dating evidence indicating that they were early prehistoric in date.
One feature, although sterile of artefactual material had a regular plan and form similar to the dated early prehistoric features and is likely to be of a similar date.
The shape in plan and form of the majority of the features mapped and excavated elsewhere along the route of the haul road indicated that they were natural in origin.
Both the archaeological and natural features were shallow in depth indicating that they had been severely truncated.
The early prehistoric features are located in areas where the topographic model has predicted the potential for prehistoric or later occupation activity to be situated.
No archaeological features were identified in the zone suggested by the terrain model to have been a wetland environment.

6.3.2 Area 1

The small number of features of archaeological origin (although they produced no datable artefacts other than the ceramic drain) could be dated to the late post-medieval/early modern period on the basis of the available documentary and cartographic evidence.
One feature, although sterile of artefactual material had a regular plan and form indicating that it was archaeological in origin and probably of a recent date given its topographic location and inclusions of coal fragments within the fill.
The shape in plan and form of the majority of the features excavated and mapped throughout Area 1 indicated that they were natural in origin.
Both the archaeological and natural features were shallow in depth indicating that they had been severely truncated.

6.3.3 Area 2

The small number of features of archaeological origin (although they produced no reliable datable artefacts other than the ceramic drain) could be dated to the late post-medieval/early modern period on the basis of the available documentary and cartographic evidence.
The linear ditch system was subjected to distinct phases of re-cutting/redefinition over time indicating a complex sequence of use.
The sinkholes potentially contain evidence for environmental change in the local area, which may be related to wider human occupation activity in the landscape.
The shape in plan and form of the majority of the features excavated and mapped throughout Area 2 indicated that they were natural in origin.
Both the archaeological and many of the natural features were shallow in depth indicating that they had been severely truncated by recent plough activity.

7.0 Assessment

7.1 Introduction

The following section details and assesses the potential archaeological value of the data collected during fieldwork. Particular attention will be paid to the potential that this data contains to contribute to archaeological knowledge and identify any further study necessary. It will begin, however, with a detailed descriptive breakdown of the quantity and character of the material recovered. For the purposes of describing the nature of the material recovered during excavation the archive has been divided into separate and distinct material categories. Each will be quantified and described separately.

7.2 Stratigraphic Record

For each cut, layer or deposit there exists a context record as well as a drawn plan and section (where appropriate).

7.2.1 Haul Road

There are a total of one hundred and twelve contexts recorded during the mapping and excavation of soil features along the route of the haul road. These are broken down by type as:

Context type	Number
Cut	30
Deposit	44
Layer	4
Unexcavated features	34

7.2.2 Area 1

There are a total of twenty-nine contexts recorded during the mapping and excavation of soil features in Area 1. These are broken down by type as:

Context type	Number
Cut	5
Deposit	8
Layer	2
Unexcavated features	14

7.2.3 Area 2

There are a total of one hundred and fifty-two contexts recorded during the mapping and excavation of soil features in Area 2. These are broken down by type as:

Context type	Number
Cut	35
Deposit	72
Layer	2
Unexcavated features	40

7.3 Archives

The archive has been checked and cross-referenced. A security copy of the entire digital and paper archive has been made and is kept at AD Archaeology. The primary archive is being kept separately at Archaeoscope. Due to the scale of the work involved a large number of plans and sections of natural features have not been digitised.

7.3.1 Haul Road

Drawings
Total drawings	47
Sections and profiles @ 1:10	26
Plans @ 1:10	5
Plans @ 1:20	16
A3 permatrace sheets	8
Photographic
B/W films	1
Colour transparency films	1
Digital downloads	1
Finds and Samples
Pottery	137
Lithics	22
Total registered finds	159
Samples for biological analysis	8

7.3.2 Area 1

Drawings
Total drawings	8
Sections and profiles @ 1:10	3
Plans @ 1:20	5
A3 permatrace sheets	2
Photographic
B/W films	1
Colour transparency films	1
Digital downloads	1
Finds and Samples
Samples for biological analysis	1

7.7.3 Area 2

Drawings
Total drawings	51
Sections and profiles @ 1:10	15
Sections and profiles @ 1:20	12
Plans @ 1:20	24
A3 permatrace sheets	9
Photographic
B/W films	1
Colour transparency films	1
Digital downloads	1
Finds and Samples
Samples for biological analysis	4

7.4 The Artefactual Record

7.4.1 Haul Road

7.4.1.1 Worked stone

The worked stone assemblage comprised a total of twenty-two pieces. Eleven pieces were recovered from context (1002), nine from context (1004) and two from unstratified contexts. The assemblage comprised eight flint and chert flakes, two blades, one chip, three scrapers, a double edged knife, one other stone flake and six flakes of volcanic tuff.

The assemblage showed great variation in colour and texture within the raw material types, and was probably derived from secondary glacial deposits such as till and possibly gravels. Whether the material was recovered from local deposits or from further a field is difficult to be certain of, but given the quality and variation in colour it is possible that some of the material may have derived from till deposits from the east coast of Yorkshire.

Beyond waste produced during core reduction and the preparation of tools, formal tool types included edge used pieces and scrapers. Two scrapers were classified as potential thumbnail forms while the third was a broad side and end form. The only other tool was a double edged knife form from an unstratified context, which was made on a large flake that had also been retouched at the distal end to produce a scraping edge. The edge used pieces, the knife and the scrapers could all have been employed in a wide range of tasks associated with working plant and animal resources.

Of note is the presence of six flakes of volcanic tuff. Two of the flakes had direct evidence for them having been removed during the reworking or maintenance of polished stone axes. A possible flake from an unidentifiable stone axe was also recorded.
Given the diagnostic tool types and raw material present the assemblage would fit comfortably within a Neolithic/early Bronze Age date span. However, given that the ceramic assemblage has been dated to the early Bronze Age due to the presence of Collared Urn, the lithic assemblage may be of similar date.

7.4.1.2 Prehistoric Ceramic

The prehistoric ceramic assemblage comprises approximately 100 sherds. Two sherds were recovered from deposit lbf07031004, twenty-nine from lbf07031002 and the rest were recovered from lbf07031010. The contexts from which the material was recovered comprised the fills of three individual pits.

The bulk of the assemblage comprises sherds of early Bronze Age ceramic, principally Collared Urn. Context lbf07031010 contains sherds from at least three Collared Urn vessels, while context lbf07031002 contained sherds identified as early Bronze Age ceramic, possibly Collared Urn, and several sherds of undiagnostic ceramic that require closer examination. Context lbf07031004 contained at least one sherd of Grooved ware, but probably a few more, and sherds of probable Collared Urn, indicating that the Grooved ware was residual.

The presence of Collared Urn potentially throughout the fills of all three features is unique within the known distribution of prehistoric ceramics from pit assemblages across the Nosterfield Landscape, which on the whole is dominated by Grooved ware assemblages. The only other finds of early Bronze Age ceramics have been sherds of Beaker, but this occurrence is very limited. Alongside this, the context from which the Collared Urn recovered from is unusual in that it is usually associated with cremation deposits. To find Collared Urn in association with flakes of polished stone axes is not only unusual in a local context but regionally too.

Date wise the Collared Urn has been assigned a date bracket of 1800-1650 cal BC placing the assemblage in the later part of the early Bronze Age.

7.4.1.3 Environmental Samples

Ancient biological remains recovered from the six 'bulk' samples included small quantities of fine wood charcoal (mostly unidentifiable) and charred hazelnut shell fragments (see Table 5). Additionally a single charred grain in poor preservation was found in Context lbf07031004 (single fill of prehistoric pit lbf07031003). Most of the samples contained modern waterlogged rootlets and occasional earthworm egg capsules, and most also contained other modern contaminants such as fruits and seeds of chickweed (Stellaria media (L.) Vill.), common fumitory (Fumaria officinalis L.), fool's parsley (Aethusa cynapium L.), and red/bladder campion (Silene dioica (L.) Clairv.(S. vulgaris Garcke). Small numbers of shells of the burrowing land snail Cecilioides acicula (Müller) represented further recent intrusions into the deposits (Contexts 1010 and 1029).

All eleven of the organic spot find samples from Context lbf07031002 (fill of prehistoric pit lbf07031001) contained silted charred hazel (Corylus avellana L.) nutshell fragments (Table 8). The single 'spot' sample from Context lbf07031010 (secondary fill of prehistoric pit lbf07031009) was processed as a small 'GBA' sample (Table 5) and the remains recovered were mostly modern rootlets and sand, with some unidentified silted charcoal (to 10 mm).

7.4.2 Area 1

7.4.2.1 Environmental Samples

A single sample from this area produced only a few tiny fragments of wood charcoal (see Table 6, Appendix 2) and was mainly of modern intrusive/contaminant material including waterlogged rootlets and seeds and fruits of chickweed (Stellaria media (L.), Vill.), knotgrass (Polygonum aviculare L.) and orache/goosefoot (Atriplex/Chenopodium).

7.4.3 Area 2

7.4.3.1 Environmental Samples

Ancient biological remains recovered from one of the two samples (Context lbf07031194 - 'peat' from sinkhole lbf07031190) comprised large amounts of waterlogged wood and bark fragments, with some bud scales and a single waterlogged hazelnut shell (see Table 7). The second 'sandy' sample from Context lbf07031165 ('peat' from sinkhole lbf07031167) contained only a modern contaminant in the form of a single waterlogged seed of chickweed (Stellaria media (L.) Vill.).

A very small quantity of hand-collected bone was recovered from just two deposits; Contexts lbf07031165 and lbf07031166, the secondary and primary fills of sinkhole lbf07031167 in Area 2 (Table 9, Appendix 2). The remains were very poorly preserved, with severe erosion of the exterior cortical bone, but some fragments could be identified; all of these were of horse. A proximal shaft fragment from Context 1165 showed evidence of dog gnawing.

7.5 Statement of Potential

Having detailed and quantified the material retrieved during data collection it will now be possible to assess the potential the site archive has in addressing questions relating to the character, extent and chronology of the archaeological deposits discovered.

In order to characterise the archaeological deposit, questions relating to the nature and permanency of occupation represented by the deposits will be addressed. An attempt should also be made to identify the character of activities relating to production and use of material culture, particularly worked stone, ceramics and the palaeo-ecological evidence. Efforts should also be made to identify evidence for subsistence activities represented by the archaeological deposits.

The chronological aspect of the site should also be addressed in order to establish the date of the recorded archaeological deposits, which may in turn shed some light on the duration of occupation.

The spatial extent of the site should also be addressed with particular reference to the results of earlier archaeological investigations carried out within the immediate area and the wider landscape. This should include reference to the local topography.

However, initially the potential of each defined material category will be assessed. This will be followed by a discussion of the potential value of the whole body of data once each category has been integrated.

7.5.1 Stratigraphic Record

7.5.1.1 Haul Road

The archaeological stratigraphic information from the haul road consists entirely of cut features representing three definite prehistoric pits and one possible example. None of the cut archaeological features appear to relate to structures. However, the pits were spatially associated in that they were found in pairs and may have some meaningful association with each other given that the ceramics recovered from three of the features are of the same style and date. Any attempted reconstruction of the physical character of the archaeological deposits and their spatial relationship would therefore rely on the stratigraphic record. In that respect the nature of occupation activity represented by the features can be explored to a limited extent. The spatial location of the archaeological deposits will also help to understand their relationship with similar feature types identified elsewhere within the immediate and wider landscape. However, the small number of recorded archaeological features from the haul road makes it difficult to answer more specific questions regarding the nature, chronology and extent of occupation using the stratigraphic record alone.

The remaining stratigraphic records relate to the presence of natural features within the landscape. That part of the record has no potential to furthering knowledge on the nature, chronology and extent of human occupation within the area of the haul road. While it could be argued that the presence of tree and bush throws represents the floral composition of the landscape, without recourse to a series of dates from and species identification of these features they do little but confirm that the landscape was wooded at some point in the past.

7.5.1.2 Area 1

The archaeological stratigraphic information from Area 1 consists entirely of cut features. These comprised one definite linear ditch, which was truncated by a later land drain, and a possible (undated) pit. Any attempted reconstruction of the physical character of the area would rely on the stratigraphic and structural record. However, the small number of recorded archaeological features makes it difficult to answer more specific questions regarding the nature and permanency of occupation using the stratigraphic record alone.

The remaining stratigraphic records relate to the presence of natural features within the landscape. That part of the record has no potential to furthering knowledge on the nature, chronology and extent of human occupation within Area 1. As with the haul road, these features do little but confirm that the landscape was wooded at some point in the past.

7.5.1.3 Area 2

The archaeological stratigraphic information from the site consists of cut features and one structure. These comprised a system of truncated ditches, a culvert within one of those ditches, and a possible posthole. Any attempted reconstruction of the physical character of the area would rely on the stratigraphic and structural record. The small number of recorded features from the excavation makes it difficult to answer more specific questions regarding the nature and permanency of occupation using the stratigraphic record alone.

The remaining stratigraphic records relate to the presence of natural features within the landscape. That part of the record has no potential to furthering knowledge on the nature, chronology and extent of human occupation within Area 2. Again, the presence of these features does little but confirm that the landscape was wooded at some point in the past.

7.5.2 Artefactual Record

7.5.2.1 Haul Road

7.5.2.1.1 Worked Stone

The potential the worked stone assemblage has in addressing questions relating to the character, extent and chronology of the archaeological deposits discovered along the route of the haul road is promising (see Appendix 3). A technological analysis of the whole worked stone assemblage shall be undertaken at two levels of enquiry. Each element of the worked stone assemblage will be subjected to analysis at the level one stage, while those items with the potential to elucidate further on the nature of occupation will be subjected to level two analysis.

The results from the analysis of the worked stone assemblage shall be considered in terms of their potential to answer the following site and assemblage specific aims and objectives:

Site Specific:

To determine the character and function of the site.
To determine the nature of occupation.
To investigate the permanency or otherwise of this occupation.
To identify evidence for subsistence activities at the site.
To investigate the chronology of the site.
To establish the date of the site.
To understand the duration of the site's occupation.
To establish the extent of the site.

Assemblage Specific:

To determine the technological strategy employed at all stages in the production of tools and waste.
To investigate all raw material procurement strategies.
To inter-relate the final assessment of the worked stone assemblage with the data from other material assemblages from the site: contextual evidence, the pottery assemblage and the environmental evidence.
To compare the final interpretation of the worked stone assemblage with assemblages from contemporary sites within the local and regional area to understand the site's relationship in the wider landscape perspective, with particular reference to the working/re-working of stone axes and distinctive tool types, such as scrapers.
To explore the spatial distributions of artefacts and to use this to investigate the potential zoning of activities across the wider landscape.

The results from the archaeological excavations along the route of the haul road have added further data to an already substantial assemblage of worked stone recovered from excavation and fieldwalking surveys within the local landscape (Dickson, 2007; Harding ,1997 and 1998; Harding & Johnson, 2004a; Rowe, 1998, 1999, 2004a, 2004b, 2005 and 2006). Worked stone assemblages recovered from similar contexts as those identified in this report account for over half of this material. The analysis of the material from the current phase of work should therefore add to the ongoing analysis of habitation activity associated with the local landscape, especially in respect to the monument complex to the southwest of the present site.

The potential of the worked stone assemblage to local, regional and national research priorities is of value. At the local scale a limited amount of research has been undertaken towards understanding the nature of flint working, procurement strategies and its relation to the wider pattern of occupation activity during the early prehistoric period. Given that the present worked stone assemblage has been found in association with an early Bronze Age pottery style not previously recovered from excavations in the quarry, further analysis may shed light on elements of occupation activity currently underrepresented within the immediate local landscape. This is especially relevant in relation to the presence of worked stone axe fragments. Therefore, the further analysis of the assemblage has the potential to add significantly to our knowledge of the production and utilisation of cultural material in contexts that are relatively unusual within the local archaeological record.

7.5.2.1.2 Prehistoric Ceramic

The ceramic assemblage recovered from the haul road area is uncharacteristic of the overall assemblage from the quarry excavations, little early Bronze Age pottery having previously been discovered. For that reason, the present assemblage has the potential to contribute to the further understanding of the site, its chronological development and its regional context.

7.5.2.1.3 Environmental Samples

Ancient biological remains recovered from the subsamples were largely restricted to charcoal fragments which were mostly too small to be identifiable. Charred fragments of hazel (Corylus avellana L.) nutshell (Contexts 1002, 1004, 1010 and 1031) and a single indeterminate charred cereal grain (Context 1004) probably represented human food waste, but were too few to be of any real interpretative value. Almost all of the samples showed evidence of recent intrusions and bioturbation in the form of modern rootlets, seeds and fruits, earthworm egg capsules and shells of the burrowing land snail Cecilioides acicula.

The charred fragments of hazelnut shell and the single charred cereal grain could provide suitable material for radiocarbon dating (via AMS).

7.5.2.2 Area 1

7.5.2.2.1 Environmental Samples

The single sample from Area 1 is of no further potential, and no further analysis is warranted.

7.5.2.3 Area 2

7.5.2.3.1 Environmental Samples

Waterlogged ancient plant remains were recovered from one of the sinkhole deposits in Area 2 (Context 1194). Most of the material was unidentified rotted wood and bark, but there was also a single waterlogged hazelnut shell fragment and several bud scales. These remains were too few for detailed interpretation but showed that the organic component of this deposit did not originate as peat as originally thought in the field.

The hand-collected bones were too few and too poorly preserved to be of any interpretative value. The small numbers of poorly preserved biological remains warrant no further consideration.

7.6 Assessment Review

It is recommend that on completion of the fieldwork a report or publication is prepared which accurately reflects the results from all areas of the excavation in accordance with the WSI. All recommended analysis should be undertaken, and the results from the previous non-intrusive and evaluation stages of fieldwork carried out within the area of the excavation should be integrated within the body of that report.

8.0 Discussion & Conclusions

With the exception of one possible and three definite prehistoric pits, the results from the excavation of the haul road and Areas 1 and 2 at Ladybridge farm have produced little in the way of new archaeological information, the vast majority of features encountered being of natural origin. Given the terrain model created of the Ladybridge area and the steps taken to mitigate disturbance to archaeological features this is not particularly surprising, the area of greatest archaeological potential being in the southwest of the field and excluded from the extraction area (Dickson & Hopkinson, 2008).

It is worth noting the position of the archaeological features that were encountered in relation to the topography of the site. Based on observations made during previous fieldwork regarding environmental evidence and the distribution of known features in relation to the terrain, it was expected that early features would be confined to ground above the present 41.5 metre contour, areas below this having been wetland environments during prehistory. All three definite prehistoric features encountered are located in areas above that contour, supporting the hypothesis suggested by the terrain model (see Figure 22). The two features at the western end of the haul road are at the margins of the predicted wetland, being situated on a narrow spur of higher ground, while those at the eastern end are on a wider spur along which the current Moor Lane runs. The few archaeological features encountered in areas predicted to have been wetland are all either known or thought to be of post-medieval date, by which time land drainage would have made these areas accessible. At the eastern end of the haul road contexts lbf07031001 and lbf07031003 were recorded at 41.97 and 41.88 metres above sea level respectively. At the western end contexts lbf07031009 and lbf07031030 were at 41.28 and 41.30 metres. Given that approximately thirty centimetres of topsoil had been stripped to reveal the features, these two pits are just above the 41.50 metre contour.

It should be noted that the topographic model is being refined as fieldwork is undertaken within and around the quarry and any new data generated is being used to constantly update the model. The modern day 41.50m contour is not a constant reflection of the boundary between wetland and dry land and is open to local fluctuations. The effects of recent agricultural practices and soil loss have resulted in the general flattening out of the landscape over time, with areas of high ground having been truncated and low ground in filled. This will have blurred and distorted the original prehistoric terrain.

Taken in isolation, the archaeological features discovered to date are too few and too widely dispersed to draw many conclusions other than to validate the hypothesis presented by the topographic model. The discovery of collared urn in association with stone axe fragments in pits lbf07031001 and lbf07031003, however, is a rare occurrence and warrants further investigation in its own right. Little early Bronze Age pottery has been recovered from the excavations directly associated with the quarry, though it has been found in the wider landscape by Lukis during the excavation of Centre Hill barrow (Lukis, 1870) and during Harding’s excavation of the double pit alignment to the west of the southern henge (Harding, 2004).

When viewed in the light of previous findings at both Nosterfield Quarry and in the wider landscape, particularly the dispersed prehistoric pits found immediately to the west of the Ladybridge Farm site and the discovery of collared urn by Lukis and Harding, the recent discoveries add considerably to the body of data and have the potential to improve our understanding of the chronology and character of the site as a whole.

Figure 22. Location of prehistoric features (white) in relation to topography, including those nearby found in previous fieldwork.
Feature sizes have been exaggerated. Transition between blue and green denotes the 41.50 metre contour.

9.0 Bibliography

Brück, J. 1999. What's in a Settlement? Domestic Practice and Residential Mobility in Early Bronze Age Southern England. In Making Places in the Prehistoric World: Themes in Settlement Archaeology (eds. J. Brück and M. Goodman). London: University College London Press.

Copp, A. and Toop, N. 2005. Interim Report: Archaeological Watching Brief, Nosterfield Quarry, North Yorkshire. York: Field Archaeology Specialists Ltd.

Dickson A. J. 2007. Interim report on the flint from fieldwalking. In Dickson. A. J. & Hopkinson, M. G. 2007: Ladybridge Farm near Thornborough, Fieldwalking. York: ADA Archaeology Report No 07004.

Dickson. A. J. & Hopkinson, M. G. 2007. Ladybridge Farm near Thornborough, Fieldwalking. York: ADA Archaeology Report No 07004.

Dickson A. J. & Hopkinson, M. G. 2008. Nosterfield Environs: Topographic Modelling & Landscape Characterisation. York: Archaeoscope.

Garner-Lahire, J., Spall, C. & Toop, N. 2005 Archaeological Evaluation, Ladybridge Farm, Nosterfield, North Yorkshire. York: Field Archaeology Specialists Ltd.

Harding, J. 1994. Vale of York Neolithic Landscape Project: Interim 1994. Newcastle: Newcastle University, Department of Archaeology.

Harding, J. 1997. Recent Fieldwork at the Neolithic Monument Complex of Thornborough, North Yorkshire. Past 26, 4-5.

Harding, J. 1998. Recent Fieldwork at the Neolithic Monument Complex of Thornborough, North Yorkshire. Northern Archaeology, 15/16, 27-38.

Harding, J. 2003. Henge Monuments of the British Isles. Stroud: Tempus Publishing Inc.

Harding, J. 2004. Desktop Assessment: The Neolithic and Bronze Age Monument Complex of Thornborough, North Yorkshire, and its Landscape Context. Newcastle: Newcastle University, Department of Archaeology.

Harding, J. & Johnson, B. 2000. Northern Pasts: Interpretations of the later prehistory of northern England and Southern Scotland. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Harding, J. & Johnson, B. 2004a. Fieldwalking at the Thornborough Monument Complex , North Yorkshire. Newcastle: Newcastle University, Department of Archaeology.

Harding, J. & Johnson, B. 2004b. Evaluation Excavation at Two Round Barrows at the Thornborough Monument Complex, North Yorkshire. Newcastle: Newcastle University, Department of Archaeology.

Lukis, W. C. 1870. On the flint implements and tumuli of the neighbourhood of Wath. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 1, 117-125.

Manby, T. 1988. The Neolithic in Eastern Yorkshire. In T. Manby (ed.) Archaeology in Eastern Yorkshire, 35-88. Dept of Archaeology, University of Sheffield.

Phillips, A. D. M. 1999. Arable land drainage in the nineteenth century. In Water Management in the English Landscape: field, marsh and meadow (eds. H. Cook and T. Williamson). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Roberts, I. (ed.). 2005. Ferrybridge Henge: The Ritual Landscape. Leeds: West Yorkshire Archaeological Services.

Roe, A. 2003. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment, Nosterfield, North Yorkshire. York: Field Archaeology Specialists Ltd.

Rowe, P. 1998. Flint report: Nosterfield 1991, 1994-1996. In Copp, A. and Toop, N. 2005: Interim Report: Archaeological Watching Brief, Nosterfield Quarry, North Yorkshire. York: Field Archaeology Specialists Ltd.

Rowe, P. 1999. Report on the Flint Assemblage, 1998 season. In Copp, A. and Toop, N. 2005: Interim Report: Archaeological Watching Brief, Nosterfield Quarry, North Yorkshire. York: Field Archaeology Specialists Ltd.

Rowe, P. 2004a. Nosterfield 1999-2003, Flint Report. In Copp, A. and Toop, N. 2005: Interim Report: Archaeological Watching Brief, Nosterfield Quarry, North Yorkshire. York: Field Archaeology Specialists Ltd.

Rowe, P. 2004b. Ladybridge Farm 2003-4, Flint Report. In Garner-Lahire, J., Spall, C. & Toop, N. 2005. Archaeological Evaluation, Ladybridge Farm, Nosterfield, North Yorkshire. York: Field Archaeology Specialists Ltd.

Rowe, P. 2005. Ladybridge Farm 2005, OSA05EV11 Flint Report. In Timms, S. & Dickson, A. J. 2005. Ladybridge Farm, Nosterfield. Report on an Archaeological Investigation. York: Mike Griffiths and Associates Ltd.

Rowe, P. 2006. Nosterfield 2005, Intervention 11-The flasks, Flint Report. York: Field Archaeology Specialists Ltd.

Thomas, N. 1955. The Thornborough circles, near Ripon, North Riding. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 54, 7-20.

Tilley, C. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments. Oxford: Berg Publishers.

Timms, S. 2007. Written Scheme of Investigation for the Archaeological excavation of the Haul Road, Area 12 and Area 2. York: Mike Griffiths and Associates Ltd.

Timms, S. & Dickson, A. J. 2005. Unpublished Report: Ladybridge Farm, Nosterfield. Report on an Archaeological Investigation. York: Mike Griffiths and Associates Ltd.

Vatcher, F. 1960. Thornborough cursus. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 40, 169-182.

10.0 Appendix 1: Archive Index

Please refer to links at the top of this page for access to full archive details.

11.0 Appendix 2: Assessment of Biological Remains

Palaeoecology Research Services, PRS 2008/29
Alexandra Schmidl, John Carrott, Deborah Jaques and Alex Beacock

11.1 Summary

Twelve sediment samples, organic spot finds of nut shells and a very small quantity of hand-collected bone, recovered from deposits encountered during excavations at Ladybridge Farm, Nosterfield, North Yorkshire, were submitted for an assessment of their bioarchaeological potential. Three areas of the site, designated as 'The Haul Road, 'Area 1' and 'Area 2', were investigated and the features encountered included prehistoric pits (all in 'The Haul Road' area), sinkholes (all in Area 2) and occasional 'natural' features.
Ancient biological remains recovered from the subsamples were largely restricted to charcoal fragments which were mostly too small to be identifiable. Charred fragments of hazelnut shell and a single indeterminate charred cereal grain, from prehistoric pit fills in 'The Haul Road' area, probably represented human food waste, but were too few to be of any real interpretative value. Almost all of the samples showed evidence of recent intrusions and bioturbation in the form of modern rootlets, seeds and fruits, earthworm egg capsules and shells of the burrowing land snail Cecilioides acicula.

Waterlogged ancient plant remains were recovered from one of the sinkhole deposits. Most of the material was unidentified rotted wood and bark, but there was also a single waterlogged hazelnut shell fragment and several bud scales. These remains were too few for detailed interpretation but showed that the organic component of this deposit did not originate as peat as originally thought in the field.
The few identifiable vertebrate remains were of very poorly preserved horse bone of no interpretative value.

The charred fragments of hazelnut shell, the single charred cereal grain and the waterlogged hazelnut shell fragment could provide suitable material for radiocarbon dating, if required.

Overall, the scarcity and generally poor preservation of the organic remains recovered during this excavation suggests that any future interventions in these areas are unlikely to recover assemblages of any significance or interpretative value.

KEYWORDS: LADYBRIDGE FARM; NOSTERFIELD; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ASSESSMENT; PREHISTORIC; PLANT REMAINS; CHARRED PLANT REMAINS; CHARRED CEREAL REMAINS; CHARRED HAZELNUT SHELL; INVERTEBRATE REMAINS; LAND SNAILS; VERTEBRATE REMAINS

11.2 Introduction

Archaeological excavations were undertaken by AD Archaeology at Ladybridge Farm, Nosterfield, North Yorkshire during 2007. The works were undertaken as part of the planning process associated with Tarmac's revised application to extend their current quarrying operations into the Ladybridge Farm area.

The site has been divided into eight excavation areas located in the western, south-western and southern parts of the site, with watching briefs proposed for the north-western, northern and south-eastern parts. Interim reports are to be prepared on completion of each of the excavation areas and this report presents the results for three of these; designated as 'The Haul Road' (NGR SE 28919 80734), 'Area 1' (NGR SE 29100 80693) and 'Area 2' (NGR SE 29239 80665).

Sampled deposits from 'The Haul Road' area consisted largely of fills of prehistoric pits, with occasional samples also collected from 'natural' features. All of the spot finds of nut shells were also recovered from deposits in 'The Haul Road' area. Only one sample was collected from 'Area 1' deposits; from a shallow feature thought to be of relatively recent date. Four samples were collected from sinkholes in 'Area 2' and there was also a small quantity of hand-collected bone from one of these features; however, two of the samples were discarded prior to processing on the instructions of the excavator.

In total, twelve sediment samples ('GBA'/'BS' sensu Dobney et al. 1992), eleven bags of organic spot finds of nut shells and a small quantity of hand-collected bone, were submitted to Palaeoecology Research Services Limited (PRS), County Durham, for an assessment of their bioarchaeological potential.

11.3 Methods

11.3.1 Sediment samples

The lithologies of the samples were recorded, using a standard pro forma. Subsamples from each were processed for the recovery of plant and invertebrate macrofossils, broadly following the techniques of Kenward et al. (1980). Prior to processing, the subsamples were disaggregated in water for 24 hours or more and their volumes recorded in a waterlogged state.

Plant and invertebrate remains in the processed subsample fractions (washovers and residues) were recorded briefly by 'scanning' (using a low-power microscope where necessary), identifiable taxa and other components being listed on paper. All of the residues were primarily mineral in nature and were dried prior to recording. The washovers were initially examined wet.

During recording, consideration was given to the suitability of the remains for submission for radiocarbon dating by standard radiometric technique or accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS).

Nomenclature for plant taxa follows Stace (1997) and snails follow Kerney (1999).

11.3.2 Organic spot finds

All of the organic spot finds were examined and identified as closely as possible.

11.3.3 Hand-collected vertebrate remains

For the hand-collected vertebrate remains, subjective records were made of the state of preservation, colour of the fragments, and the appearance of broken surfaces ('angularity'). Other information, such as fragment size, dog gnawing, burning, butchery and fresh breaks, was noted, where applicable.

Fragments were identified to species or species group using the PRS modern comparative reference collection. The bones which could not be identified to species were described as the 'unidentified' fraction.

11.4 Results

Details of the results of the assessment of the sediment subsamples are presented in Table 5 to Table 7. Table 8 records the organic spot finds (all from deposits in 'The Haul Road' area) and Table 9 details the hand-collected bone (all from Area 2).

11.4.1 The Haul Road

11.4.2 Area 1

A single sample from this area produced only a few tiny fragments of wood charcoal (see Table 6) and was mainly of modern intrusive/contaminant material including waterlogged rootlets and seeds and fruits of chickweed (Stellaria media (L.), Vill.), knotgrass (Polygonum aviculare L.) and orache/goosefoot (Atriplex/Chenopodium).

11.4.3 Area 2

Hand-collected vertebrate remains

A very small quantity of hand-collected bone was recovered from just two deposits; Contexts lbf07031165 and lbf07031166, the secondary and primary fills of sinkhole lbf07031167 in Area 2 (Table 9). The remains were very poorly preserved, with severe erosion of the exterior cortical bone, but some fragments could be identified; all of these were of horse. A proximal shaft fragment from Context lbf07031165 showed evidence of dog gnawing.

11.5 Discussion and statement of potential

Ancient biological remains recovered from the subsamples were largely restricted to charcoal fragments which were mostly too small to be identifiable. Charred fragments of hazel (Corylus avellana L.) nutshell (Contexts lbf07031002, lbf07031004, lbf07031010 and lbf07031031 in 'The Haul Road' area) and a single indeterminate charred cereal grain (Context lbf07031004 also from 'The Haul Road' area) probably represented human food waste, but were too few to be of any real interpretative value. Almost all of the samples showed evidence of recent intrusions and bioturbation in the form of modern rootlets, seeds and fruits, earthworm egg capsules and shells of the burrowing land snail Cecilioides acicula.

Waterlogged ancient plant remains were recovered from one of the sinkhole deposits in Area 2 (Context lbf07031194). Most of the material was unidentified rotted wood and bark, but there was also a single waterlogged hazelnut shell fragment and several bud scales. These remains were too few for detailed interpretation but showed that the organic component of this deposit did not originate as peat as originally thought in the field.

The hand-collected bones were too few and too poorly preserved to be of any interpretative value.

The charred fragments of hazelnut shell and the single charred cereal grain from deposits in 'The Haul Road' area, and the waterlogged hazelnut shell fragment from sinkhole lbf07031190, could provide suitable material for radiocarbon dating (via AMS), if required.

Overall, the scarcity and generally poor preservation of the organic remains recovered during this excavation suggests that any future interventions in the area are unlikely to recover assemblages of any significance or interpretative value.

11.6 Recommendations

The small numbers of poorly preserved biological remains warrant no further consideration.

On the evidence from this assessment, further excavations of these areas of the site are unlikely to encounter deposits with interpretatively useful assemblages of organic remains.

11.7 Retention and disposal

All of the remains recovered from the evaluation subsamples, the organic spot finds and the small quantity of hand-collected bone should be retained for the present.

Unless required for purposes other than the direct study of biological remains (e.g. the possible recovery of additional material for radiocarbon dating), the remaining unprocessed sediment may be discarded.

11.8 Archive

All material is currently stored by Palaeoecology Research Services (Unit 8, Dabble Duck Industrial Estate, Shildon, County Durham), along with paper and electronic records pertaining to the work described here.

11.9 Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Anthony Dickson, of AD Archaeology, for providing the material and the archaeological information.

11.10 References

Dobney, K., Hall, A. R., Kenward, H. K. and Milles, A. (1992). A working classification of sample types for environmental archaeology.

ircaea, the Journal of the Association for Environmental Archaeology 9 (for 1991), 24-6.

Kenward, H. K., Hall, A. R. and Jones, A. K. G. (1980). A tested set of techniques for the extraction of plant and animal macrofossils from waterlogged archaeological deposits. Science and Archaeology 22, 3-15.

Kerney, M. (1999). Atlas of the land and freshwater molluscs of Britain and Ireland. Colchester: Harley Books.

Stace, C. (1997). New flora of the British Isles: 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Table 5. Ladybridge Farm, Nosterfield, North Yorkshire - The Haul Road: Summary of the biological remains recovered in the washovers from processed bulk sediment samples, with notes on any material suitable for submission for radiocarbon dating. Key: ‘Con’ = Context, ‘Sam’ = Sample, ‘kg/l’ = amount of sediment processed in kilograms and litres; ‘wo’ = volume of washover in ml; ‘IDs’ = identifiable charcoal; ‘A’ = suitable material for radiocarbon dating via AMS present (NB: in most cases charcoal fragments are not considered as suitable material for this purpose); ‘D’ = further detailed recording recommended.

Con	Sam	Context description	Sediment description	kg/l	wo	Ancient plant remains (charred and waterlogged)	IDs	Notes including on likely modern contaminants (waterlogged)	A	D	Other
1002	97	single fill of prehistoric pit 1001; fragments of collared urn, possible grooved ware, flint and polished stone axe were recovered	Just moist, mid to dark yellow-brown to mid to dark olive-grey, soft to unconsolidated, silty sand. The sample was very stony (stones 2 to over 60 mm were abundant) and modern rootlets were present	3/2	100	some charcoal (to 15 mm), ~100 charred fragments of hazel nutshell (Corylus avellana L.), residue: ~30 charred fragments of hazel (Corylus avellana L.) nutshell	No	mostly rootlets	Yes	No	-
1004	98	single fill of prehistoric pit 1003; fragments of collared urn, possible grooved ware, flint and polished stone axe were recovered	Moist, mid olive-grey to dark brown (with a pale yellow cast throughout), unconsolidated (working soft then crumbly), very stony (stones 2 to over 60 mm were abundant), silty sand, with some modern rootlets and a little ?charcoal present	3/2.5	200	some charcoal (to 10 mm), 28 charred fragments of hazelnut shell, one unidentifiable charred cereal grain	No	mostly rootlets	Yes	No	a few stones (to 10 mm)
1008	99	probable natural feature; no artefacts	Just moist, mid yellowish-brown to mid to dark olive-brown (with an olive cast throughout and tinged with pale yellow in places), unconsolidated, very stony (abundant stones 2 to over 60 mm), silty sand, with some modern rootlets	3/2	100	a few fragments of charcoal (to 5 mm)	No	mostly rootlets, two seeds of orache/goosefoot (Atriplex/Chenopodium)	No	No	sand, a few stones (to 10 mm)
1010	94	secondary fill of prehistoric pit 1009; over 200 sherds of collared urn representing at least three vessels were recovered	Dry, mid to dark olive-brown to dark olive-grey (with a distinct olive cast throughout), crumbly to unconsolidated, sandy silt. Stones (2 to over 60 mm) were abundant	3/2	100	a little charcoal (to 5 mm), one charred fragment of hazelnut shell, two unidentified charred vegetative plant remains (?bulb/rhizome)	No	mostly rootlets, eight seeds of orache/goosefoot (Atriplex/Chenopodium), one mericarp of fool's parsley (Aethusa cynapium L.), one floret of grass family (Poaceae), one Cecilioides acicula (Müller)	Yes	No	sand, stones (to 10 mm)
1010	100	secondary fill of prehistoric pit 1009; over 200 sherds of collared urn representing at least three vessels were recovered	Dry, mid grey-brown (with a slight orange-brown cast), unconsolidated, silty sand, with a little ?pottery and charcoal present	0.175/0.2	15	some charcoal (to 10 mm)	No	modern rootlets	No	No	sand, undisaggregated (indurated) sediment lumps
1029	95	primary fill of prehistoric pit 1009; no artefacts	Just moist, mid to dark olive-brown to dark brown, unconsolidated to crumbly, very stony (stones 2 to over 60 mm were abundant), sandy silt	3/2	50	a few fragments of charcoal (to 5 mm)	No	mostly rootlets, two seeds of orache/goosefoot (Atriplex/Chenopodium), three earthworm egg capsules, one Cecilioides acicula (Müller)	No	No	sand, a few stones (to 10 mm)
1031	96	fill of possible prehistoric pit 1030; no artefacts	Dry, mid to dark olive-brown to mid to dark olive-grey, unconsolidated to crumbly, very stony (stones 2 to over 60 mm were abundant), slightly silty sand	3/2.5	125	a little charcoal (to 5 mm), two charred fragments of hazelnut shell	No	mostly rootlets, one seed of chickweed (Stellaria media (L.) Vill.), one achene of common fumitory (Fumaria officinalis L.), two seeds of orache/goosefoot (Atriplex/Chenopodium), one seed of red/bladder campion (Silene dioica (L.) Clairv./S. vulgaris Garcke), one earthworm egg capsule	Yes	No	some sand

Table 6. Ladybridge Farm, Nosterfield, North Yorkshire - Area 1: Summary of the biological remains recovered in the washovers from processed bulk sediment samples, with notes on any material suitable for submission for radiocarbon dating. Key: 'Con' = Context, 'Sam' = Sample, 'kg/l' = amount of sediment processed in kilograms and litres; 'wo' = volume of washover in ml; 'IDs' = identifiable charcoal; 'A' = suitable material for radiocarbon dating via AMS present (NB: in most cases charcoal fragments are not considered as suitable material for this purpose); 'D' = further detailed recording recommended.

Con	Sam	Context description	Sediment description	kg/l	wo	Ancient plant remains (charred and waterlogged)	IDs	Notes including on likely modern contaminants (waterlogged)	A	D	Other
1061	107	fill of shallow feature 1163; small fragments of coal were recovered and the feature was though to be of fairly recent date	Wet, mid olive-grey to dark brown, soft and sticky (working very sticky) moderately ?humic (in places; darker patches), slightly sandy clay silt. Stones (2 to 20 mm) were present	3/2.5	75	a few fragments of charcoal (to 5 mm)	No	mostly rootlets, two seeds of chickweed (Stellaria media (L.) Vill.), six seeds of orache/goosefoot (Atriplex/Chenopodium), two achenes of knotgrass (Polygonum aviculare L.)	No	No	sand

Table 7. Ladybridge Farm, Nosterfield, North Yorkshire - Area 2: Summary of the biological remains recovered in the washovers from processed bulk sediment samples, with notes on any material suitable for submission for radiocarbon dating. Key: 'Con' = Context, 'Sam' = Sample, 'kg/l' = amount of sediment processed in kilograms and litres; 'wo' = volume of washover in ml; 'IDs' = identifiable charcoal; 'A' = suitable material for radiocarbon dating via AMS present (NB: in most cases charcoal fragments are not considered as suitable material for this purpose); 'D' = further detailed recording recommended.

Con	Sam	Context description	Sediment description	kg/l	wo	Ancient plant remains (charred and waterlogged)	IDs	Notes including on likely modern contaminants (waterlogged)	A	D	Other
1165	108	'peat' from sinkhole 1167	Just moist, mid olive-brown to dark brown (with a slight reddish cast throughout), brittle to crumbly (working soft),?humic, slightly sandy silt	3/3	100	-	-	one seed of chickweed (Stellaria media (L.) Vill.), two earthworm egg capsules	No	No	sand, undisaggregated sediment lumps
1194	112	'peat' from sinkhole 1190	Waterlogged, dark brown to black (with a reddish cast), soft and sticky (working very sticky), humic, slightly clay silt. Some small twig fragments and other woody detritus were present in the sample	2.2/2.5	200	mostly bark fragments and wood fragments (to 50 mm), several waterlogged budscales, one waterlogged fragment of hazel (Corylus avellana L.) nutshell	-	-	Yes	No	-

Table 8. Ladybridge Farm, Nosterfield, North Yorkshire - The Haul Road: Details of remains from organic 'spot' samples. Key: 'Con' = Context, 'Sam' = Sample'; 'wt/g' = weight of material in grammes; 'A' = suitable material for radiocarbon dating via AMS present; 'D' = further detailed recording recommended

Con	Sam	Context description	Notes on submitted remains	wt/g	A	D
1002	22	single fill of prehistoric pit 1001; fragments of collared urn, possible grooved ware, flint and polished stone axe were recovered	one silted fragment of hazel (Corylus avellana L.) nut shell (to 10 mm)	<1	Yes	No
	24		two silted fragments of hazelnut shell (to 10 mm)	<1	Yes	No
	28		one silted fragment of hazelnut shell (to 10 mm)	<1	Yes	No
	30		one silted fragment of hazelnut shell (to 10 mm)	<1	Yes	No
	32		one silted fragment of hazelnut shell (to 10 mm)	<1	Yes	No
	34		two silted fragments of hazelnut shell (to 10 mm)	<1	Yes	No
	36		two silted fragments of hazelnut shell (to 10 mm)	<1	Yes	No
	35		three silted fragments of hazelnut shell (to 10 mm)	<1	Yes	No
	38		sand and undisaggregated sediment lumps, with 11 silted fragments of hazelnut shell (to 10 mm)	1	Yes	No
	37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47		sand and undisaggregated sediment lumps, with 33 silted fragments of hazelnut shell (to 15 mm)	4	Yes	No
	78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 90, 92		sand and undisaggregated sediment lumps, with 29 silted fragments of hazelnut shell (to 15 mm)	4	Yes	No

Table 9. Ladybridge Farm, Nosterfield, North Yorkshire - Area 2: Hand-collected vertebrate remains.

Context	Context type	Fragments	Preservation	Notes
1165	secondary fill of sinkhole 1167	28	The preservation of the small number of bones (28) recovered from this deposit was extremely poor. Erosion of the exterior cortical bone was extensive with much of the original surface being lost or damaged	Horse: 1 pelvis fragment (of slightly better preservation than most other fragments), including the acetabulum and the ischium; 1 humerus with proximal articulation missing. Proximal shaft showed evidence of dog gnawing; 1 metatarsal shaft, proximal articulation completely eroded, distal articulation absent. Unidentified: 25 fragments of shaft, probably all representing the same bone but extremely fragile and extensively damaged by fresh breakage
1166	primary fill of sinkhole 1167	1	Poor preservation showing similar damage to the bones recovered from Context 1165. Several fragments representing one bone, broken during excavation or post-excavation processes	Horse: 1 femur shaft fragment (in several pieces)

12.0 Appendix 3: Assessment of Lithics

Antony Dickson, AD Archaeology

12.1 Introduction

The lithic assemblage recovered from the excavations along the route of the haul road at Ladybridge Farm, North Yorkshire consisted of a total of twenty-two individual pieces of worked stone (see Figure 23). The total assemblage comprised twelve pieces of flint, three pieces of worked chert, six flakes of volcanic tuff and a probable flake of unidentified stone. Two stratigraphic contexts contained stone artefacts, while two pieces of flint were recovered from unstratified contexts. The material from the stratigraphic contexts was recovered during hand excavation of features and they were 3D located using a total station theodolite.

Figure 23. Total number of diagnostic tool types and other worked stone making up the whole assemblage

Tool forms and technological characteristics imply that the assemblage was concordant with that of a Neolithic/early Bronze Age date. Furthermore, the worked stone was chiefly recovered from two archaeological features which based on a provisional analysis of the pottery also recovered from the same features have been ascribed a late Neolithic/early bronze Age date.

This report has been prepared in accordance with the guidelines set out in the English Heritage document: Management of Archaeological Projects (specifically pages 15-19).

12.2 Factual Data

12.2.1 Introduction

Twenty-two pieces of worked stone were recovered from features provisionally dated to the early Bronze Age (on the basis of the pottery recovered from the features) and unstratified contexts (Appendix 1).

The worked stone was chiefly recovered from two contexts: (1002), the fill of a pit lbf07031001, and context lbf07031004, the fill of pit lbf07031003. Also recovered from both features was an assemblage of pottery, which has been provisionally identified as late Neolithic/early Bronze Age in date. This indicated that the flint was recovered from stratified deposits.

12.2.2 Context lbf07031002

The assemblage recovered from context lbf07031002 comprised two blades, one chip, four flakes, two scrapers and two other stone flakes, one of which is volcanic tuff.

The majority of the flint artefacts were made on raw material which varied from brownish grey and greyish brown in colour. One flake was made on brown flint which had been worked thin enough for the piece to take on a translucent quality. This flake also had a patch of thin brown worn cortex along one edge, which appears to have been worn through wave or glacial action. Overall the quality of flint is good with few flaws and inclusions detected. Most of the blades and flakes show evidence for light edge damage. On the utilised pieces this probably resulted from use, but other processes, such as post depositional action should not be ruled out.

The colour and quality of the raw material suggests that it may have originated from a number of sources, possibly local till and gravel deposits. However, the material is very similar in colour, grain size and texture to that found on the east coast of Yorkshire, which comprises nodules eroded from the glacial till deposits found along the Holderness coast as beach flint.

One flake was struck from a dark grey chert. This material may have been procured from the local fluvio-glacial deposits or possibly from chert bearing rocks further a field in the Pennines.

Finally the assemblage also contained two other stone flakes. One was of volcanic tuff; material which may have derived from the north of England, Wales or northern Scotland (Bradley and Edmonds 1997). The other was from an unidentifiable stone type, but is possibly a sandstone.

The two blades were small and regular in form and were from the tertiary stage in the reduction process. One of the blades also had edge use gloss along one of its lateral edges. It is quite possible that the latter also had micro-denticulation along the same edge, however this may have also been a product of edge use damage.

Two of the flakes associated with core reduction were complete: one made on flint and one on chert. The flint flake was small regular and narrow in form and had a distinctive edge use gloss along one lateral edge indicating that it had been utilised. The chert flake was of larger dimensions, but still retained a regular form. The chert flake was a tertiary removal while the flint flake belonged to the secondary stage of the reduction process. The broken flint flakes comprised a fragment and the proximal end of another.

The two other stone flakes comprised a flake of volcanic tuff which had been struck from a polished implement such as an axe. The flake was fairly large size, regular in form and 75% of the dorsal face was polished, the latter indicating that the flake was removed from one of the faces of the implement. The thin curving profile of the flake was reminiscent of a thinning flake so it is possible that the flake was detached during modification of a damaged implement. The second other stone flake was larger in dimensions and irregular in form at the proximal end. Given the flakes irregularity it is possible that the flake represented a natural removal, however, the dorsal face exhibited three characteristic flake scars and a small area with a relatively smooth surface reminiscent of polishing/grinding. If the latter is the case then the flake may have been struck from a larger implement, although the smooth surface may represent the glacial/fluvial wear of a natural stone.

Other than the utilised pieces outlined above two scrapers were also recorded from the assemblage. Both scrapers were small in size and reminiscent of thumbnail forms. One was made on a thin curving flake and the presence of small irregular flake scars on the implements obtuse end suggested that it had been used. The other example was made on a slightly larger thicker flake which bore characteristics of a core rejuvenation tablet. It too had irregular scarring around the obtuse end.

The presence of the thumbnail scrapers in the assemblage suggest a date range spanning the late Neolithic/early Bronze Age. However the presence of two narrow, ridged blades with linear butts, diffuse platforms and feathered terminations indicate a stone working technology usually associated with Mesolithic/early Neolithic communities. However, that said blades are known to be an integral part of many later Neolithic worked stone assemblages from the region (P Mackay, pers. comm.). Nevertheless, a more precise date for the pottery recovered from the pit may help to tighten the dating of the worked stone assemblage.

Due to the small size of the assemblage it is difficult to assign any use to the components of the assemblage other than that the majority of the chert and flint flakes and blades were probably produced as waste during stone working activity. The blade and flake with edge use gloss could have been used in a variety of tasks associated with the harvesting of plant resources. Furthermore the volcanic tuff and other stone flake possibly indicate the maintenance and or the reworking of axes.

It was clear from the provisional analysis that no one reduction technology was represented in its entirety in the assemblage. This obviously limits the depth of technological discussion concerning the stone working practices represented by the assemblage. However that was more likely to be a manifestation of depositional activity in the past rather than biases in collection of the material during excavation.
The extent of plough damage to the assemblage is deemed to be negligible as the artefacts were recovered from a stratified archaeological deposits.

12.2.3 Context lbf07031004

The small worked stone assemblage from context lbf07031004 comprised three flakes one scraper and five flakes of volcanic tuff.

The flint and chert pieces were within a similar range of colour and quality as that outlined above for the material from context lbf07031002. The same can be said about the volcanic tuff, although the material from this assemblage is a lighter greyish green colour than the flake from context lbf07031002, possibly indicating that the material contained within each assemblage represent the working of two different implements.
Two flakes were complete (one flint and one chert) and they represented small secondary removals probably detached during core reduction. The flint flake was also burnt. The remaining broken chert flake was possibly a fragment of a natural removal.

The five flakes of volcanic tuff comprised a flake removed from the tip of an axe evidenced by the presence of polished surfaces either side of the surviving blade. In that respect the flake may have been produced during an attempt to re-sharpen the axe blade as small irregular scars running along the edge probably represent edge damage from use of the original implement. The four remaining flakes (one of which is broken) are of smaller dimensions, but the same colour and texture as the larger flake. Two show slight evidence for polished surfaces and therefore may have been removed during further reworking/sharpening of the original implement.

Other than the flakes from the axe described above the only other tool represented in the assemblage was a side and end scraper. It is also possible that the scraper was made on a core rejuvenation flake. Like the scrapers from context lbf07031002 this example had also been used but not with the same rigorousness as the other examples.

Due to the small size of the assemblage and the lack of artefacts with recognizable diagnostic attributes it is difficult to assign a specific date to the assemblage. That said, though, given the presence of the flake from a polished stone axe the assemblage is likely to be Neolithic/early Bronze Age in date. However, a more precise date for the pottery recovered from the pit may help to tighten the dating of the worked stone assemblage.

It is difficult to assign any use to the components of the assemblage other than that the majority of the flakes were probably produced as waste during stone working activity. The scraper was probably utilised in the processing of animal and plant resources. The flakes of volcanic tuff indicate the maintenance and or the reworking of axes.

It was clear from the provisional analysis that no one reduction technology was represented in its entirety in the assemblage. This obviously limits the depth of technological discussion concerning the stone working practices represented in the assemblage. However that was more likely to be a manifestation of depositional activity in the past rather than biases in collection of the material during excavation.

The extent of plough damage to the assemblage is deemed to be negligible as the artefacts were recovered from a fairly deep stratified archaeological deposit.

12.2.4 Unstratified Material

The two unstratified flint objects comprised a flake and a double edged knife made on a large long regular flake with a scraping edge present on the distal end of the piece. Both pieces were made on flint: the flake on dark grey material and the knife form on a reddish brown type. The colour, texture and grain size of the both types of material suggest a provenance, like the rest of the flint component of the overall assemblage, from till and or gravel deposits, most likely from the glacial till deposit on the east Yorkshire coast.

The flake is a secondary removal of slightly irregular form. The double edged knife is made on a broad, long flake. The piece has semi acute, semi invasive retouch down both lateral edges. One edge has some edge damage which probably accrued through the use of the implement. Secondary working, forming a crescent shape, has been applied to the distal end of the flake. This comprises abrupt retouch forming a scraping edge. The presence of small irregular scars on the scraping edge testifies to the use of the tool.

Due to the small size of the assemblage and the lack of artefacts with recognizable diagnostic attributes it is difficult to assign a specific date to the assemblage. That said, though, the assemblage is likely to be Neolithic/early Bronze Age in date. Double edged knives have been recorded in association with Collared Urn from excavated contexts in the region can be assigned to the early Bronze Age (Manby et al 2003).

The knife form with the end scraper is a unique tool type and was probably utilised in the processing of animal and plant resources.
It was clear from the provisional analysis that no one reduction technology was represented in its entirety in the unstratified material. This obviously limits the depth of technological discussion concerning the stone working practices represented in the assemblage. However that was more likely to be a manifestation of depositional activity in the past rather than biases in collection of the material during excavation.
The flake showed some evidence for slight edge damage which presumably resulted from post-depositional processes.

12.3 Statement of Potential

12.3.1 Introduction

Assessment of the lithic assemblage involved the examination and identification of all pieces. They were grouped according to (a) their tool type (b) their stage in a general reduction sequence. The assessment sought to gain a general understanding of the technologies represented in the whole assemblage without reference to stratigraphic or spatial relationships. Integrated analysis of the flint alongside more detailed examination and identification of individual pieces would form part of a fuller analysis of the material. Apart from the unstratified material the assemblage was collected as context groups.

Two features, both interpreted as pits, produced the bulk of the assemblage (91%). The artefacts were retrieved from stratified deposits associated with probable late Neolithic/early Bronze Age occupation activity. Furthermore, the feature also produced pottery provisionally dated to the same period so there appeared to be a strong association between the two material categories. The initial assessment of the reduction technologies suggested that most of the assemblage would fit within a broad Neolithic/early Bronze Age date.

Two pieces of worked stone, amounting to 9% of the total assemblage, were recorded as unstratified finds. The material was residual and the assessment of reduction technologies identified in the assemblage indicated that the material could date to the Neolithic/early Bronze Age.

Due to the similarities in composition and a, presumed, broadly similar date range suggested by the physical attributes of the worked stone and ceramic styles the potential of contexts (1002) and (1004) will be discussed below as one assemblage. The unstratified material will be treated separately.

12.3.2 Potential

12.3.2.1 Stratified Contexts

The small size of the Worked stone assemblage and the paucity of diagnostic tool forms indicate that only a limited amount of information can be conveyed about the nature of occupation that the assemblage might reflect. As it stands the assemblage indicates the working of several different types of stone, the simple utilisation of a few of the flakes and blades and the use of scrapers. The depositional environment of the material may also be indicative of the nature of occupation: pits containing worked flint are common finds to the local area and the region as a whole and are viewed as evidence for occupation (Manby 1975; Mackay 1996, Harding 2006).

Further analysis of the assemblage will refine these preliminary suggestions by defining the relative importance of worked stone production and use of tools more clearly. In addition it will seek to examine the relative emphasis on domestic and specialised tool use and production; the latter represented by the presence of flakes of volcanic tuff which appear to reflect the maintenance and or reworking of polished stone axes. This could be closely collaborated with the pottery assemblage in order to see if any corroboration can be made between pottery and stone technology, densities and diagnostic types of worked stone.

The stylistic worked stone technologies evident at the site should not be used as a hard and fast means of dating. However it has been noted from initial analysis of the material that the technology represented here is predominantly characteristic of the Neolithic/early Bronze Age. Particularly relevant is the presence of thumbnail scrapers and imported polished stone axes. A fuller analysis of the flint assemblage and a clearer assessment of the relationship between diagnostic forms and the stratigraphic record (and other datable material) will help to clarify the question of the date of the material.

12.3.2.2 Wider Aims

Analysis of material should also involve the identification of refits at all levels of site interpretation. This should include material from the same features and material across the site as a whole. If it is possible to re-fit flakes and blades from the same context together, it could help to establish the existence of flint knapping on site. This analytical tool will also provide information on the styles of stone working employed by particular traditions or even individual workers in the past. The identification of refits between the tuff flakes would also help to confirm whether the maintenance and or reworking of more than one axe were undertaken.

Further analysis will also seek to record the raw materials selected and used for the production of flint and other stone artefacts. This will further our understanding of the procurement strategies employed and the provenance of materials.

The assemblage should be analysed alongside excavated material from similar sites in the local area and the wider landscape. Within the region a limited amount of research has already been undertaken towards understanding the nature of flint working and procurement strategies during the Neolithic and early Bronze Age (Durden 1995; Manby 1975). The final interpretation of the flint and utilised stone assemblage will be compared with assemblages from contemporary sites within the local and regional area to understand the role of the site within the local network of flint procurement and production. This will be particularly relevant to building on the role of stone axes in the Thornborough landscape.

12.3.2.3 Recommendations

The following recommendations are made:

Comprehensive examination, description, measurement and identification of individual pieces
Description of raw materials and their possible provenance
Re-fitting of flakes from common stratified context and the locality
Targeted technological analysis of components of the assemblage
Integration with the stratigraphic record
Comparative studies with other local/ regional assemblages

The analysis and interpretation of the worked stone assemblage will be comprehensively illustrated. The collection of drawings however will not be an exhaustive figurative record of the whole assemblage but a series of illustrations designed to support specific interpretative arguments. The artefacts to be drawn will largely be selected during analysis and interpretation.

12.3.2.4 Unstratified Material

Even though the material is from unstratified contexts the diagnostic artefacts that are directly attributable to a Neolithic/early Bronze Age date could have further information to add to the results from the overall analysis of the worked stone assemblage and the general interpretive discussion of stone working on the site as a whole.

12.3.2.5 Wider Aims

The unstratified material should also be considered when attempting refits across the features from the site and the wider site area.

12.3.2.6 Recommendations

The following recommendations have been made at a general level for the residual component of the assemblage.

Comprehensive examination, description, measurement and identification of individual pieces
Description of raw materials and their possible provenance
Re-fitting of flakes from common stratified contexts and locality

12.4 Method Statement

12.4.1 Introduction

The methodology of the worked stone analysis can be divided into two components: levels 1 and 2. Level 1 constitutes the process of examination, description, measurement and identification of the assemblage and its components. Level 2 represents a targeted technological analysis of selected components of the assemblage alongside the integration of the findings with the rest of the site and other similar flint assemblages from the local area. Appendix 2 includes a key to the database created for the flint assemblage and details every technological, physical and typological aspect recorded during analysis.

12.4.2 Level One Analysis

Each individual component of the worked stone assemblage (total twenty-two) will be examined, measured, weighed and described.
Each individual component of the assemblage will be identified according to: (a) their stage in the reduction sequence, (b) tool type (where appropriate) and (c) raw material

Flakes and tool types will be quantified.

The typological attributes of diagnostic tools and flakes will be described and recorded.

A database will be created to catalogue the physical, technological and typological characteristics of the assemblage. (see Appendix 2 for key to the database).

The analysis and interpretation of the lithic assemblage will be comprehensively illustrated. The collection of drawings however will not be an exhaustive figurative record of the whole assemblage but a series of illustrations designed to support specific interpretative arguments. The artefacts to be drawn will largely be selected during analysis and interpretation. A representative sample of all tools and utilised flakes will be drawn but emphasis will be placed on those pieces with most academic value in relation the interpretation of this assemblage. This academic value will depend on the association and context of the artefact as well as its particular technological or typological significance.
The drawings will be produced to scale. Those pieces with a depth of less than 25mm may be scanned using a flat bed scanner. The drawings of these artefacts will then be created digitally using Photoshop. Otherwise drawings will be produced by hand.

12.4.3 Level Two Analysis

Flint flakes and waste will be analysed for evidence of skill involved in knapping techniques: the presence and frequency of core rejuvenation flakes and hinged or stepped termination against feathered termination on flakes will be considered.

Analysis of flake removals will be undertaken to detect whether standardisation in preferred methods of working cores was taking place, this will include observations on the presence and direction of flake scars on the dorsal face of flake removals (after Durden1995).
The refitting of worked material will be attempted.

The spatial distribution of individual worked stone artefacts will be analysed and related to the results of the technological analyses.
The results of the technological and spatial analysis of the worked stone assemblage will be integrated with the results of the stratigraphic record.

The worked stone assemblage and the results of analysis will be compared with assemblages recovered from the local and regional area.
A written report will be completed after all levels of analysis have been undertaken. The compilation of the report will include consultation of relevant academic journals and publications.

The report will be broken down as follows:

Flint catalogue/ data base
Technological attributes of assemblage
Spatial distribution of activities
Flint production and use of tools
Line drawings
Distribution plots of technological categories and tool types.

12.5 Bibliography

Bradley, R. and Edmonds, M. 1993. Interpreting the Axe Trade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Durden, T 1995. The production of specialised flint work in the later Neolithic: a case study from the Yorkshire Wolds, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 61: 409-432.

Harding, J. 2006. Pit Digging, Occupation and Structured Deposition on Rudston Wold, Eastern Yorkshire, Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 25 (2): 109-126.

Manby, T. 1975. Neolithic occupation sites on the Yorkshire Wolds. In The Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 47: 23-59.

Manby, T. G., King, A. & Vyner, B. 2003. The Neolithic and Bronze Ages: a time of early agriculture. In T. G. Manby, S. Moorhouse & P. Ottoway (eds.). The Archaeology of Yorkshire. An Assessment at the beginning of the 21st Century. Leeds: Yorkshire Archaeological Society Occasional Paper No. 3.

Makey, P. 1996. The Flints. In P. Abramson (ed.) Excavations along the Caythorpe Pipeline, North Humberside, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 68: 1-88.

12.6 Appendix 1: Catalogue of Worked Stone Artefacts

Unique_ID	Site Code	Intervention	Artefact No.	Material	ArtefactID	Artefact Type
u/s	lbf07	3	lbf07030001	flint	utilised	double edged knife/scarper
lbf07031004	lbf07	3	lbf07030005	stone	utilised	flake
lbf07031004	lbf07	3	lbf07030006	stone	utilised	flake
lbf07031004	lbf07	3	lbf07030008	stone	utilised	flake
lbf07031002	lbf07	3	lbf07030009	flint	utilised	blade
lbf07031002	lbf07	3	lbf07030010	flint	waste	blade
lbf07031002	lbf07	3	lbf07030011	stone	utilised	flake
lbf07031004	lbf07	3	lbf07030012	flint	utilised	scraper
lbf07031004	lbf07	3	lbf07030013	chert	waste	flake
lbf07031004	lbf07	3	lbf07030014	flint	waste	flake
lbf07031004	lbf07	3	lbf07030017	stone	utilised	flake
lbf07031004	lbf07	3	lbf07030018	stone	fragment	flake?
lbf07031004	lbf07	3	lbf07030019	stone	waste	flake
lbf07031002	lbf07	3	lbf07030020	flint	utilised	flake
lbf07031002	lbf07	3	lbf07030023	flint	waste	flake
lbf07031002	lbf07	3	lbf07030048	chert	waste	flake
lbf07031002	lbf07	3	lbf07030073	flint	utilised	scraper
lbf07031002	lbf07	3	lbf07030081	flint	waste	chip
lbf07031002	lbf07	3	lbf07030086	flint	utilised	scraper
lbf07031002	lbf07	3	lbf07030088	chert	waste	flake
lbf07031002	lbf07	3	lbf07030091	flint	waste	blade?
u/s	lbf07	3	lbf07030102	flint	waste	flake

13.0 Appendix 4: Assessment of Prehistoric Ceramics

Blaise Vyner

13.1 Introduction

Assessment has been undertaken in order to obtain preliminary information on the chronology and nature of the pottery assemblage, the range of pottery fabrics present, and to provide information on the extent and nature of any further required examination of the material. The pottery was washed and examined on 28th and 29th December 2007.

13.2 Assemblage significance

This assemblage is an important addition to the record of early Bronze Age activity in the Vale of Mowbray, as this area is better known for later Neolithic monuments and finds assemblages. With the exception of a small quantity of sherds of probable Grooved Ware, this assemblage presents a contrast with others from the Nosterfield area in that it contains fragments from a number of early Bronze Age collared urns.

In addition to being a relatively unusual find in the Nosterfield area, this appears to be an unusual deposition of pottery. Collared urns are usually found containing cremation burials, or if incomplete, interpreted as the damaged remains of burial depositions. The assemblage from context lbf07031010, however, appears to have been a deposit comprising fragments of broken collared urns unassociated with cremated remains. Further analysis of the excavation results, as well as this pottery, may throw further light on the nature of the principal components of this assemblage. Other recent discoveries of early Bronze Age collared urns from the region may also contribute to establishing the chronology of the pottery in this assemblage.

13.3 Ceramic content

Assemblage quantities in terms of the regional early prehistoric ceramic sequence: very small, 1-10 sherds; small, 11-25 sherds; medium-sized, 25-100 sherds, large 101 sherds plus. At around 100 sherds, this is a medium-sized assemblage.

Much of the pottery derives from a pit, context lbf07031010, with a few individual and small sherds from other contexts.

Context lbf07031010, the fill of a pit, contains what preliminary analysis suggests are three collared urns, two of which are represented by up to 20 sherds, with other small sherds and fragments present. The third vessel appears to be represented by a single large rim sherd. The fabric is all friable and few joining pieces are recognisable, in particular, there are no clear joins between the collar fragments and body sherds, so it is possible that more detailed analysis might identify further vessels.

A number of contexts, but seemingly principally the fill of a pit, produced small sherds: finds 64, 65 and 69 are sherds with decoration similar to that on the collared urns present in 1010, while other sherds also appear to be of early Bronze Age type – finds 4, 62, 63, 66, 67, and 68. Other undiagnostic ceramic fragments are also likely to be of early Bronze Age date: finds 26, 27, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 59, 60, 61, 70, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 84, 87, 89 and 111.

There is no clearly identifiable Neolithic material in this assemblage, but a few sherds may be residual in the generally early Bronze Age horizon suggested by the collared urns. Sherd 7 appears to bear a short length of incised groove and while the collared urns bear similar incised decoration the fabric of this sherd appears to be softer and thinner, prompting the suggestion that it may be Grooved Ware. Finds 15, 16, 21, 25, 29, 31, 49, 50, 52, 57, 58 and 71 are thin-walled sherds in a vesicular fabric, but it is not immediately clear whether the thin wall is actual or the product of spalling. Further consideration of the contextual information may be helpful in establishing the nature of this material.

13.4 Chronology

Setting aside the few putative sherds of Grooved Ware, which if present may be residual, the collared urns appear to be late in the series and suggest a date probably within the bracket 1800-1650 cal BC. If there is securely stratified associated carbonised material which is likely to have been deposited together with the pottery then a radiocarbon date, preferably two or more, should be obtained.

In view of the possible presence of Grooved Ware sherds, however, the possible presence of other residual material should be considered.

13.5 Nature of the assemblage

The principal component of the assemblage comprises the remains of (probably) three collared urns which had been contained in a pit. Fragments of vegetation roots in some of the cavities and cracks in the sherds suggests that ploughing or other recent disturbance had reached to the near vicinity of the sherds. The quantity of pottery present in context lbf07031010 might initially suggest that the vessels had originally been deposited complete, as is frequently the case since collared urns were commonly used as the receptacle for cremation burials. However, the presence of both base and rim sherds from one vessel contradicts the possibility of plough damage to cremation burials, as this characteristically would remove either the upper or lower parts of vessels, depending how they had been set in the ground. Damage had almost certainly been caused by ploughing, however, and it is likely that more of the vessels had originally been present, albeit perhaps in broken form.

13.6 Range of vessel fabrics

The most common fabric employed in the early Bronze Age pottery has quartz dust in the matrix and includes small and medium-sized angular quartzitic chunks as well as small cavities from which calcitic or other soluble grits have leached. A few sherds, including one large rim sherd from lbf07031010 and a body sherd which, perhaps significantly, has slight carbonised accretions, contained little or no calcitic grits.
A number of thin-walled sherds, perhaps Grooved Ware, also have numerous small and medium-sized angular cavities from which soluble grits have leached, surviving traces suggest that these were of gypsum.

13.7 Other ceramic material

Find 3, a small and featureless lump of hard-fired, but light, material appears to be fired clay.

13.8 Accretions

With the exception of a single sherd from context lbf07031010, which is in a different fabric from most of the material, no accretions have been noted.

13.9 Other material

C1004, find 2 is a piece of wood charcoal.

13.10 Illustration

Some seven or eight sherds, some joining, should be illustrated to show the form and decoration of the three identified collared urns.

13.11 Conservation

The larger sherds - virtually all of those with a surface area over 10 by 10 mm - have been carefully washed and allowed to dry thoroughly before re-bagging. The sherds are friable and should be handled carefully during further analysis and illustration. Provided that the material is carefully handled, packed and stored there is no immediate requirement for conservation.

13.12 Further analysis

The Nosterfield area has produced relatively little early Bronze Age pottery. The present assemblage has the potential to contribute usefully to the further understanding of the site and its regional context.
Consideration should be given to further examination to include:

The identification of the pottery fabric fillers to enable confirmation, if possible, of the number of individual vessels represented in context 1010 and to provide information on local and regional ceramic technology in the early Bronze Age.
Identifying and articulating the contribution of this ceramic assemblage to the interpretation of site status and function within the Nosterfield archaeological context.
Review of the pottery in the context of the monument complexes in the Vale of Mowbray and its region.

archaeological planning consultancy > thornborough > ladybridge farm assessment report (interim)