Printed from the APC web site: navigation and non-essential images removed.
Please view on-line for full content (URL at end of document).
The Nosterfield area lies at the northern end of a complex prehistoric landscape on the low lying land between the Swale and the Pennines, extending southwards at least as far as Boroughbridge and the Devil's Arrows. The known elements of this landscape include henges, barrows, cursuses, and pit alignments. They represent the most extensive complex of this type of monument in the British Isles.
These features belong to the Neolithic and Bronze Age and all four examples can be found in the immediate vicinity of Nosterfield. An area of 4 km by 3 km centred on the three henges is currently the subject of an investigation by Jan Harding, from Newcastle University. It involves a programme of extensive fieldwalking, small-scale geophysical survey and limited excavation. So far it has identified a number of Neolithic occupation zones (1) around the henges, one of which is probably part of the area identified in the 1975 watching brief. The scheme of research work is planned to continue for two more years. It currently excludes the area of the quarry.
As part of the pre-planning evaluation of the area proposed for gravel extraction, a limited investigation of the peat areas was carried out in October 1991 by West Yorkshire Archaeology Service (Berg 1991). This identified the peat deposits as essentially Early Flandrian in date. It was considered that further study would be required if mineral extraction was approved. A small group of flints was also found exposed on the surface of the peat during the survey. Originally identified as possibly Mesolithic they are now assumed to be of Neolithic date and represent manufacturing cores.
Trial excavations in Phase 5b and 1a of the proposed quarry were undertaken by AOC Archaeology Ltd. in January 1995 (Dalland 1995). This investigation produced a number of features of possible archaeological interest. Four of these occurred in the area of Phase 1a and two were located at the southern end of the haul road.
The two features in the haul road, and that at the northern end of Phase 1a were small pits. The features at the southern end of Phase 1a lay only partly within the trenches and were interpreted as pits or possible ditch terminals. Wet sieving of samples from the haul road produced some flint fragments as well as charcoal and some hazelnut shell. This suggested a date of not later than Bronze Age. No other dateable material was found.
The planning permission granted by North Yorkshire County Council requires that all areas of topsoil stripping should be the subject of an archaeological watching brief and, if archaeological deposits are revealed a consequent scheme of recording and reporting. Acting on the instructions of Tilcon a watching brief was arranged for the topsoil stripping of the area known as Phase 1a. For recording purposes this was subdivided into two areas hereafter referred to as Areas 1 and 2. A watching brief was also maintained on the construction of the haul road, referred to as Area 3.
Mechanical excavators, under archaeological supervision, stripped areas 1 & 2 in Phase 1a of topsoil. All features of possible archaeological significance were identified and marked as they were revealed. Initially they were all planned and excavated in half section. When it became clear that the number of features was considerable, that they were distributed across the whole site, and it was not possible to delay the topsoil stripping to permit full recording, a sampling strategy had to be developed.
The majority of the features were either pits or hearths which displayed some variety in size at the surface. Where obvious groups existed at least one of each size of feature was planned at the surface and sectioned. The others were located, and sectioned when working conditions allowed, or were quickly dug out to recover material evidence.
Due to the very soft nature of the marl in Area 3, both topsoil and marl were stripped in one operation. This limited the potential to recognise archaeological features but any that were noted were recorded.
This occupied the north west edge of a low ridge extending southwards across the B6267. It had a clear view of the barrow sites to the south, and of the henges to the south east of Nosterfield. At its western edge there was a sharp break of slope down towards the edge of a lake occupying the site of a former gravel pit.
Topsoil stripping revealed a surface that was mainly covered in a layer of orange-brown sub-soil. This was variable in thickness, reaching a maximum depth of 500mm. The bulk of this material was a very stony, silty sand, but there were also patches which were more silty or sandy and less stony. Below this were clean grey sands, grits, and gravels that were exposed in patches where the overlying subsoil was absent. This was particularly the case on the slope towards the lake. At the base of this slope was a curving strip of desiccated peat, marking the shore of a relict lake, inlet, bog, or mere. Almost the entire surface exposed on removal of topsoil revealed parallel lines of disturbance c.200mm wide and 500mm apart. These are likely to have been the result of recent, 20th century, sub-soiling.
A large number of archaeological features were also revealed. The most modern of these was a series of stone filled drains occupying a lens of clay within the glacial gravels, an area of about 5Om E-W, and 3Om N-S. These produced no dating evidence but are assumed to be Post Medieval.
A second group of features was of considerably more archaeological significance. These features have for the purposes of discussion been described as pits and hearths. The hearths were very shallow and generally amorphous in shape, often lacking a defined cut. The pits were much more regular in plan, and generally deeper. They had a well-defined cut. All of the hearths and many of pits contained some burnt material. In total 83 of these types of feature were found within Area 1. Of these 13 were classified as hearths, the remaining 70 being pits.
The pits and hearths were distributed widely across Area 1, forming two loose groups. The northern group was centred on 1940/2870 (2), the southern on 1910/2670. The pits and hearths were not found on the clay lens described above, nor did they occur far down the slope towards the band of peat marking the edge of the shallow ancient lake or mere at the western edge of Area 1. Due to the inevitable time constraints of a watching brief and the limited range of features, a sample of 38 features was excavated and recorded in detail. The remainder were surveyed, described and photographed; the majority of these were dug roughly with a spade or trowel to retrieve any finds.
The hearths have currently been divided into three types, A, B & C. This is based primarily on size though they also differed in the intensity of burning, and presence of a cut.
Type A was the smallest, consisting of an ill-defined area of subsoil, burnt bright orange, generally between 500 to 800mm in diameter. Features of this type were approximately oval or circular in shape and lacked a defined cut. No finds were associated with this type of feature (3).
Type B hearths, of which there were only two examples, differed from type A hearths primarily in having a well-defined cut. The fill of this was mottled, silty and stone free with patches of soil burnt a dull brick red. Both features of this type measured about 800mm across (4).
Type C hearths were more variable. They were generally larger and more amorphous than either Type A or B. One had a definite cut (5) whereas it was less well defined, or possibly not present in the case of others. Two examples (6) may have represented the slightly heat affected soil beneath a fire, into which some slight disturbance had introduced patches of charcoal. At least one example (7) appeared to be made up of a series of features, the number of and relationships between which, could not be distinguished with any confidence.
Hearths of this type appeared to be less intensely burnt than types A or B. Charcoal was present in all cases, though its frequency varied considerably. The fills of one (8) produced charred hazelnut shell and burnt bone. Many also produced burnt stone. A number of much smaller hearths (9) were also been assigned to this type because of the charcoaly nature of the fill, the lack of intense burning, and their amorphous shape.
In the case of the pits three distinctive types stood out, 1,2 and 3.
Type 1 examples were the most common and usually formed a regular bowl or cone shape. Between 800 and 1200mm in diameter, they ranged from 200 to 800mm in recorded depth. They typically had three fills. The upper fill was either virtually stone (10) or contained frequent burnt stones (11). Only occasional charcoal flecks were present. The second fill was charcoal rich and formed a shallow bowl shape filled by the uppermost fill. The primary fill was very pebbly and stony, but usually free of burnt stone. Charcoal flecks though often present were very infrequent. The primary fill closely resembled the natural subsoil. Finds of worked flint were frequently found in the upper two fills; small sherds of ceramic material were also found in some of these pits. Finds were uncommon in the primary fills (12). They have been dated to both the Middle and Later Neolithic periods.
Type 2 pits lacked the charcoal, bowl shaped second fill of Type 1. Otherwise they were similar, tending to be cone shaped, and varying between 600 and 1300mm in diameter and between 400 and 800mm in depth. Of the two fills typical of Type 2 pits the lower was a stony, gravelly sand very similar to that found in the base of Type 1. The upper fill was darker, more silty, and contained occasional burnt stones and charcoal flecks. Finds of flint, and especially pottery tended to be more common in this type of pit. The material also tended to be concentrated in the top third of the features, mainly within the upper fill (13). Pits of this type were difficult to identify without careful excavation as they lacked distinctive surface features. It was not therefore possible to assign any of the pits which were not excavated and recorded in detail to this type.
Type 3 pits were smaller, between 450 and 800mm in diameter and from 250 to 450mm deep. They were sub-circular, or sub-rectangular in plan, with steep sides that were sometimes undercut. The base was level or slightly dished (14). Pits of this type had two fills. The upper was sandy and virtually stone free, with few charcoal flecks. The lower was slightly siltier, with occasional fragments of burnt stone and more charcoal. Ceramic material was very common, particularly in the lower fill (15). Worked flint tended to be less common in this type of pit. Again examples have been dated to both the Middle and Later Neolithic periods.
Of the remaining 50 pits the majority were small, 250 to 600mm in diameter and 50 to 250mm in depth. They all had a single fill but this displayed considerable variety (16). Some of these features are almost certainly truncated versions of Type 1 pits (17).
A small number of pits contained unique elements, in site terms, and require describing in some greater detail.
Feature 1004 was a cone shaped pit l000mm in diameter and 660mm deep. Its basal fill occupied the lower two thirds and the outer edges of the pit. It was very stony, similar to the basal fills of Types 1 and 2. A second fill formed a sub-rectangular shape 600mm in length and 450mm in width in the approximate centre of the pit. It occupied a possible re-cut that was steep-sided to the south, but rather less so to the north and east. Sandstone slabs were positioned in the base of this re-cut. A third stone was positioned upright against the south side. The sandstone slabs appeared to have been split from a glacial boulder of local origin.
Some of the stones in the fills were fire reddened, though not the slabs. Both pottery and flint were found in this pit. Two important features, the re-cut and the basal slabs, may be reflected in some of the other pits (18).
Feature 1305 was unlike any other pit on site. It was not only the largest but also had a distinct stratigraphy. The pit was ovoid in shape, 2270mm long, 2000mm wide and 800mm deep. The sides were mostly steep except to the north where it sloped very gently near the top, becoming more steep towards the base. The primary fill was composed of a loose, fine, ashy material with frequent small stones and gravel. It darkened gradually towards the base from grey to almost black. Much of the stone was burnt. The upper fill appeared to re-deposited natural sub-soil and contained the only finds, a small amount of worked flint. To the north this had been removed by re-cut which was filled with a grey to black deposit consisting of a1most pure charcoal. Rounded stones up to 300mm across, extensively reddened and cracked with heat, were common in this fill, particularly towards the base
Two further features are worth mentioning. These were large and almost perfectly circular. Both were sectioned by machine. The most northern(19) was vertical sided, 2000mm across, and exceeding 1500mm in depth. It was filled by mid brown loamy sand with rather less small stone and pebbles than the surrounding natural, a clean grey gravel. The southern (20) was 3000mm across and more than 1000mm in depth. It was a broad U shape with several fills. The upper fill was a mid brown sand 400mm deep. Below this were successive bands of stony material. A thin discontinuous layer of interleaved charcoal and burnt soil occurred at the surface of 1117. There were no finds from either 1117 or 1118.
Area 2 was in an area of undulating ground to the south of the Flasks, and west of the old gravel pit. The southern half crossed the eastern flank of a distinct rise, while the north dipped towards the Flasks. Topsoil stripping revealed a similar surface to that on Area 1. At the southern end there was an orange brown subsoil overlying glacial gravel. To the north the gravel was largely exposed, occasionally overlain by patches of more peaty material in the lower lying northern half. Just three features of possible archaeological interest were revealed in area 2.
At the southern end of the area there was an ill-defined oval feature (21) with an irregular base. It measured 700mm north-south, 450mm east-west, and was 170mm deep. It was filled by brown sandy silt with occasional small stones and charcoaly patches. There were no finds.
Some 70m further north was sub-circular feature (22), which had steep sides and a rounded base. It was 750mm in diameter and 600mm deep. There were two fills. Stone and pebbles were common but unburned, becoming larger towards the base. Two very small abraded pot sherds were found in the upper fill.
About 15m north of this there was a small, superficial, spread of charcoal and burnt stone (23). The charcoal formed three very small discrete patches. The total diameter was about 300mm. A small flint spall was found in association with this feature.
Once again these features occurred solely on the better-drained, higher, ground.
Area 3 occupied an area of marl at the western edge of the new gravel-processing site in the Flasks. Here the topsoil was peat, mixed with a small amount of marl due to ploughing. The underlying marl was extremely wet and soft, reaching a depth of more than 4000mm in steep sided channels at the south and north ends of the area. In the centre it overlay waterlogged glacial gravels to a depth of c. l000mm. As discussed above both marl and ploughsoil were recovered in a single operation in order to prevent the excavator from sinking into the soft marl. As a result features were generally seen in section rather than in plan. Accurate recording was hampered by safety considerations where features were exposed in deep, unstable, sections.
The excavation of Area 3 revealed several features. At the western edge of the south end was a low bank of rounded stone, aligned approximately north-south. A mature ash tree was growing on this close to its northern end. North of, and on a similar axis to this was a shallow flat bottomed ditch. These features were interpreted as a modern field boundary, probably a hedge and ditch.
To the east of this were four circular, steep sided pits. One of these was at the southern end of Area 3, the remainder were grouped at the north end. These were between l200mm and l500mm in diameter, and varied in depth from 700mm to over l500m m. The fill was a dense, dark brown peat in all cases.
The pottery has been subjected to an initial spot dating undertaken by T Manby. He has concluded that the date range represented by the ceramics, and therefore the associated features, spans the Neolithic period, and are presumably contemporaneous with the phases of development of the nearby cursus and henges. Examples of Grimston Ware, Peterborough Ware and Grooved Ware were all represented in considerable quantities, as were their associated lithic industries. See Appendix 1.
The ceramic assemblage has been examined by J Donet to determine its fragility and the form of potential treatment. She concluded that they were extremely fragile and required treatment if they are to be handled.
Soil samples for macro-fossil analysis were taken from a number of pits and a single hearth in Area 1. J Huntley has examined a small number to determine their potential for further study. The most significant discoveries were the presence of cereal grains, probably barley, in two of the samples along with apple/pear seeds and hazelnut. She considers that all the samples should be processed. See Appendix 2.
Charcoal samples for radiocarbon dating were taken from several pits and from the burnt deposit on the surface of the southern sinkho1e in Area 1. No further work has been undertaken to date.
As stated above it is the pits and hearths in Area 1 which are of greatest archaeological interest. Both the pottery and lithic traditions imply dates between 4300 and 2000 BC and they currently constitute the largest group of Neolithic features of this type so far recognised in the North of England. Given their proximity to the henges, which are currently the subject of nationally funded research by Jan Harding, their significance is greatly increased.
Despite many years of study the nature of Neolithic occupation throughout the British Isles remains poorly understood. Recent published academic works have questioned many of the traditional theories particularly with reference to the level of agriculture practised, the degree of settlement permanency and the role of ritual monuments. The discoveries made during the 1995 watching brief and the potential for the remaining area of planning permission to produce more, make it one of the most important areas for study yet identified.
The results of the watching brief have yet to undergo detailed study and the comments below represent the first tentative thoughts by the excavator.
Interpretation
The stratigraphy and the apparent random distribution of the pits rules out postholes as an obvious interpretation. A small number of paired pits, some in close proximity to hearths, may represent short-lived structures such as windbreaks, tentage, or racks.
Three further possibilities remain for the majority of the features; storage pits, cooking or fire pits, and rubbish pits. The first of these may be particularly apposite to Type 3 pits. These were small and steep-sided. They frequently contained large quantities of pottery and this was usually less weathered and in larger fragments than in other types of pit. Although the pottery from Type 3 pits varied considerably in date, it usually represented the remains of large vessels probably used for storage. Type 3 pits were of a suitable size and shape to have contained and supported a single storage vessel of this kind.
Type 2 pits may also have performed a storage function, though not involving pottery vessels. The primary fill of these pits was extremely sterile, yielding few finds, very little charcoal and no burnt stones.
Rubbish and cooking pits are ruled out. The fact that this type of pit was dug deeply into the well-drained glacial gravels might have helped to keep the contents dry. The primary fill probably represents a back-filling episode when the pits went out of use. This might have been necessary to avoid injury to humans or stock. The upper fill may represent accumulated occupation debris, or rubbish disposal, in the remaining hollow.
Several Type 1 pits have a similar form and basal fill to the Type 2 pits. This suggests that they may have served a similar primary purpose. The upper stratigraphy may therefore relate to the re-use of the hollow left after back filling. The characteristic stratigraphy of a dished charcoaly horizon overlain by a less charcoal rich layer, suggests cooking or fire pits intentionally extinguished after use with hearth-stones or soil. For some of the Type 1 pits, cooking may have been the original purpose as they lack a deep sterile basal fill.
Two further pits (24) may have started as Type 2 style storage pits, but in these cases the sequence of re-use appears to be more complex. After one was back-filled a new pit was dug into its centre, perhaps an enlargement of an existing hollow. This was at least partly lined with stone split from local boulders. Again both rubbish and cooking pits can be ruled out. A rubbish pit is unlikely because of the care taken to line it with stone, a cooking pit because the basal flags were unburned. This leaves storage as a reasonable interpretation.
A different sequence of re-use appears to be illustrated by the second. The hypothetical sequence of events is as follows. A Type 2 style storage pit was back-filled leaving a slight hollow. This was re-used as a cooking pit which was extinguished with soil, resulting in the mottled fill and the incorporation of some pottery and other rubbish. A new pit was later dug into the top of this. The function of this re-cut is uncertain but storage again seems the most likely option
Another pit (25) is most likely to have been made for cooking. Its basal fill consisted almost entirely of ash and charcoal dust. A re-cut filled with charcoal and burnt stone implies reuse.
The variety of different types of hearth may not be significant. Differing conditions such as wind or duration of use might have given rise to differences in form and intensity of burning independent of function. Alternatively the smaller, more intensely heat affected Type A hearths may reflect the presence of some activity requiring intense heat. In the absence of independent dating evidence it seems reasonable to suggest that the hearths were contemporary with the pits. The relative scarcity of hearths is likely to be the result of a greater susceptibility to destruction by ploughing.
The degree of truncation of the site by ploughing and sub-soiling was probably variable. The orange-brown sub-soil is likely to be the iron enriched B horizon of a podzol, or podzolised brown earth, which would have covered the whole area before ploughing. The pattern of exposure of the gravel must therefore partly reflect undulations that were smoothed out by ploughing. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the hearths were restricted to areas where the sub-soil remained.
Considered as a whole the pits and hearths are evidence for a domestic site in use at various times throughout the Neolithic period, between 4300 and 2000 BC. The rather diffuse distribution of features, and the lack of evidence for substantial structures, may indicate temporary or seasonal occupation. It is possible that the later occupation of the site was linked to seasonal gatherings at the henges. Jan Harding's research suggests that a number of similar areas may have existed around the henges though most of these will have been destroyed by medieval and later cultivation and 20th century gravel extraction.
The two large circular features (26) were probably natural features, sinkholes; the result of the solution of the underlying limestone, which caused the glacial gravels to subside into the resulting hole. Features of this kind are common where glacial outwash deposits overly calcareous bedrock. The archaeological significance of such features in this area lies in the fact that occupation surfaces may sometimes be preserved from destruction if they are dragged down out of reach of the plough. A layer of burnt material noted in one of these hollows may represent such an occurrence. One possibility is that it represents the clearance of woodland or scrub from Area 1 using fire.
Though only three features were found in this area they are similar in form to others found in Area 1 and have produce similar ceramics. They presumably represent part of the same general area of Neolithic occupation.
The only features of archaeological significance in Area 3 were the four circular peat-filled pits. Possible interpretations of these include marl pits, tree holes, and water holes or wells. Of these the first is unlikely because such features tend to be more extensive and quarry-like. Tree holes can also be discounted because of the regular, steep sided shape of the holes, and the lack of root disturbance around them. This leaves water holes as the most probable interpretation.
At the time of excavation the marl was certainly very wet in spite of a long drought and recent drainage. Spring lines within the marl could easily have supplied water holes with a more than adequate water supply. Such features might have been dug at any time to water stock during drought, but in view of the evidence for Neolithic domestic activity on the surrounding gravels a Neolithic date might tentatively be suggested.
In the light of the results obtained from the 1995 watching brief it is clear that the results obtained from previous work requires re-interpretation. The pits discovered in the AOC evaluation clearly belong to the same general period and type of occupation, and suggest that it extends into other areas of proposed extraction.
Equally the discovery of the possible 'watering holes' and collection of flint from the surface of the peat suggests that the reed swamp was not ignored or avoided, rather exploited. It was probably dry and stable enough at the surface to allow people to move across it and possibly even camp on it.
1 The major zone so far identified extends over more than a square kilometre.
3 Type A hearths included features 1085, 1095, 1100, and 1102.
4 Type B hearths consisted only of features 1041 & 1115.
9 Features 1051, 1061, 1081, 1090 & 1315. 1070 & 1214.
12 Examples of this type of pit which were recorded in detail included features 1005, 1015, 1057, 1066, 1210, 1216, 1313 & 1321. 1030 was also assigned to this type, in spite of its small size. Other pits belonging to this type included l092, l099 & 1112. Features 1052, l089 & 1398 may also have been type 1.
13 Examples of this type of pit that were recorded in detail included Features 1009, 1010, 1012, 1016 & 1017.
14 Examples included Features 1069, 1074, 1114, 1307.
15 The extreme example of this was pit 1307 that contained fragments of at least three separate pots.
16 Feature 1078 had a charcoaly fill packed with burnt stone whereas 1105 had a silty fill with little stone of any kind and few charcoal flecks. Feature 1076 was unusual in containing a large amount of burnt bone.
17 Examples of this are Features 1018, 1309 & l063
18 Feature 1009, a Type 2 pit, had a flat, fire-reddened stone placed horizontally close to the surface. Possible re-cuts were observed in Features 1011 and 1305.