Council for British Archaeology FORUM YORKSHIRE Vol 4 2015 by CBA Yorkshire

The Archaeological Forum Journal | CBA Yorkshire

FORUM

ISSN 2051-8234 Print 2051-8242 Online

NEW SERIES

Volume 4 2015

The Journal of Council for British Archaeology

YORKSHIRE

CBA Yorkshire Annual Review

Council for British Archaeology

Research, Fieldwork and Excavation

Education, Community and Commercial

www.cba-yorkshire.org.uk

FORUM

NEW SERIES

Volume 4 2015

The Journal of Council for British Archaeology

YORKSHIRE

Published by the Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire Edited by Christiane Kroebel ÂŠ 2015â&#x20AC;&#x201C;16 Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire (CBA Yorkshire) and Individual Authors. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without prior permission of the copyright holders. Requests for such permissions must be addressed to forum-editor@cba-yorkshire.org.uk. Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

ISSN 2051-8234 (Print) 2051-8242 (Online)

Responsibility for opinions and statements contained in the papers, notes, correspondence, reviews and discussions is that of the authors and not the editor, the Committee or Trustees of CBA Yorkshire, or the Council for British Archaeology.

Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire is a registered charity number 519581. A copy of the constitution may be obtained from the secretary or found on the CBA Yorkshire website. Printed by Alphagraphics, Stockton-on-Tees | www.agnortheast.com Published June 2016.

www.cba-yorkshire.org.uk

Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire CBA Yorkshire is a charitable organisation funded entirely by our members' and affiliates' subscriptions. This organisation aims to advance the education of the public in archaeology, to advance and assist in research, to provide information and to encourage widespread participation in archaeology throughout society. It brings together those interested in archaeology in Yorkshire and accordingly supports local societies, works with other partners in heritage and environmental conservation, encourages and publicises relevant research and advertises opportunities for education and participation. It sponsors, undertakes research and supports other individuals or organisations through modest grants. The organisation also provides advice and information, and campaigns on heritage issues within the historic Ridings of Yorkshire, from the Tees to the Humber, and from the Pennine moors to the east coast, in order to raise the profile of archaeology in the minds of decision makers. These aims are fulfilled through advocacy, working behind the scenes to protect and enhance the historic environment, together with our annual symposium, other meetings, newsletters, a website, electronic communications, and the FORUM journal. Charitable Status | Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire is a registered Charity number 519581. A copy of the constitution may be obtained from the secretary or found on the CBA Yorkshire website. Officers 2015–2016 | The Organisation is run by a management committee and overseen by trustees. These are elected at the AGM and meet four times each year. Trustees | Steve Bence, Paul Brayford, John Cruse, Ian Drake, Christiane Kroebel, Trevor Pearson, Shirley Thubron Management Committee Chairperson Vice Chairperson Hon. Secretary Hon. Treasurer Hon. Editor Associate Editor Membership Secretary Programme Secretary Individual Members’ Representative Education Officer Museums Officer Website and Social Media Officer

2015 Paul Brayford Christiane Kroebel Trevor Pearson Ian Drake Christiane Kroebel Spencer Carter Paul Brayford Louise Mallinson Eric Houlder Peter Robinson Paul Brayford

2016 Steve Bence Paul Brayford Trevor Pearson Ian Drake Christiane Kroebel Spencer Carter Trevor Pearson Louise Mallinson Eric Houlder Jonathan Auty Peter Robinson Paul Brayford Spencer Carter

Appointed Representatives North York Moors National Park Authority Archaeology Group Yorkshire Archaeological and Historical Society

Terry Manby John Cruse

Join the Committee—and help promote archaeology in Yorkshire!

Cover image credits Front cover

Local CITiZAN project volunteers recording a section of prehistoric trackway on the foreshore at Cleethorpes. © Museum of London Archaeology (MoLA).

Back cover

Left | Conisbrough Castle Research Group excavations. © Christine Eames. Right | Wessex Archaeology excavations at the Humber Bridgehead (Phase 2), Hessle, East Riding of Yorkshire. © Wessex Archaeology.

FORUM

Volume 4

The Journal of Council for British Archaeology

YORKSHIRE

2015

Contents Proceedings Editorial Thematic Index Members’ Call to Action: Do we have your email? CBA Yorkshire Annual Review 2015–16

i ii iii v

Feature Article

Behind the Scenes

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: Historic Graffiti at St Oswald’s Church, Filey, North Yorkshire. John Buglass 1

Finds Beneath Your Feet: A Review of the Portable Antiquities Scheme in North and East Yorkshire in 2015. Rebecca Griffiths

Communities in Action

Archaeological Notes and Reviews

Cuts to Archaeology and Heritage: Call to Action. Rob Lennox 19

Extending the Boundaries of Known Locations for Prehistoric Rock Art within the North York Moors and Yorkshire Dales. Paul Brown and Barbara Brown 57

CITiZAN: Community Archaeology Around the English Coastline. Andy Sherman

The Hanging Grimston Community Archaeology Project. Marcus Jecock, Steve Bence, Christopher Hall and Trevor Pearson 29 Upper Wharfedale Heritage Group and The Kilnsey Project: History from Vernacular Buildings. Alison C. Armstrong

Nidderdale Chase Heritage Group: The Ashelby Pasture Project 2015 interim report. Marie-Anne Hintze and Janis Heward 39 Identifying a Victorian Mortuary Chapel: Raikes Road Burial Ground, Skipton, 2015 interim excavation report. Jean Robinson and Janis Heward

Neolithic Peat Formation and 18th-Century Land Reclamation at Goole Fields, East Riding of Yorkshire. Ashley Tuck and Andrea Burgess 65 Excavations in the South Transept of St Mary’s Abbey, York. Adam Parker

Archaeological Register Recent Work in Yorkshire by John Buglass Archaeological Services. John Buglass

Recent Work in Yorkshire by Wessex Archaeology. Ashley Tuck and Andrew Norton

About FORUM Yorkshire FORUM is an annual archaeological journal where community, independent, professional/commercial and academic archaeologists (and practitioners in complementary fields) can report their research or extend discussions about archaeological and allied issues. A range of contributions is invited including long (4000â&#x20AC;&#x201C;8000 word) or short (2000â&#x20AC;&#x201C;4000 word) articles, shorter notes (up to 2000 words), site summaries, and preliminary or full research fieldwork and project reports. Longer papers may be considered and requests should be submitted to the editor. We also accept reviews of books or articles related to the archaeology and heritage landscape of Yorkshire. Contributions are welcomed from students, voluntary and community-based groups, independent practitioners, providers of training and education, commercial organisations and academics. Contributors (and the editor) may request independent, specialist review of articles that are submitted for consideration. FORUM is dated and published retrospectively for the prior calendar year and distributed to subscribed members. The geographic scope of this journal is Yorkshire including areas that were part of Yorkshire prior to the 1974 boundary reorganisation. Contributions on archaeology which is not located in Yorkshire (or its previous boundaries) but is immediately adjacent or pertinent to it may be considered. Authors are requested to contact the editor prior to writing such an article. Contributions may be on any period of archaeology and the human past relevant to the geographic scope outlined above. A copy of the full editorial policy may be obtained from the editor. However, it should be noted that the editor reserves the right to request changes to the paper, to make changes that maintain the house style and to request feedback from independent (anonymous) reviewers as considered appropriate. Authors are responsible for obtaining written permission to use any copyrighted material in their paper including Ordnance Survey mapping or derivatives thereof, and any material which is the intellectual property of any person(s) other than the author. A copy of the relevant permission(s) must be forwarded to the editor. Contributions for a particular volume/year are conditional upon available space and may be deferred to a subsequent issue. Upon publication, authors receive a PDF soft copy of their paper(s). The editor will contact the corresponding (primary) contributor to confirm inclusion, specify any required amendments and relay any feedback provided by reviewers. All communications concerning the publication should be directed to the editor at: forum-editor@cbayorkshire.org.uk.

Citation example Jecock, M. Bence, S., Hall, C. and Pearson, T. 2015. The Hanging Grimston Community Archaeology Project. Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire 4, 29â&#x20AC;&#x201C;31.

Open access and electronic distribution FORUM is distributed primarily as a hard-copy publication. Upon publication of the current edition, the prior volume is made available online as an electronic version in PDF and browser-readable formats.

Back copies A very limited supply of New Series back copies is available to newly subscribed CBA Yorkshire members and nonmembers. Please visit the CBA Yorkshire website for details about older Foundation Series copies. Enquiries, including overseas customers, should be emailed to: secretary@cba-yorkshire.org.uk.

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

Volume 4 | 2015 (i–vi)

Editorial Christiane Kroebel, Hon. Editor 2015–16

forum-editor@cba-yorkshire.org.uk

This latest volume once again showcases the variety of activities around Yorkshire in 2015, from graffiti to vernacular buildings, and from excavations to recording. John Buglass’ paper, our Feature Article, illustrates the huge value of historic graffiti recording and insights into some of the people who carved their names and images. The articles grouped together under Communities in Action show what can be achieved when individuals feel strongly about their local area and want to make a difference, be that by digging, recording, researching or by making sure local authorities do not overlook the archaeology underneath. In this issue, we have included the article on the Portable Antiquities Scheme in Yorkshire under a new Behind the Scenes section. Rebecca Griffiths highlights a few fascinating finds which, along with the many more mundane objects reported to the scheme, are changing our understanding of the past across Yorkshire. The data in the PAS online database allows anybody to research the objects, their distribution and significance. The Archaeological Notes, Reviews and Archaeological Register tell us much about our ancestors, from their rock art legacy to building churches, working the land and 20th century industrial heritage. The breadth of subjects is matched by the number of people involved, whether archaeologists or passionate volunteers. It is nice to see, too, that many archaeologists volunteer their expertise in retirement. The publication of this volume could not have been done without the tremendous work by Spencer Carter, Associate Editor, to finalise the articles and, in particular, to include the many illustrations into the standard FORUM format. Readers will notice that we are returning to the original (new series) volume 1 journal title in order to maintain British Library requirements for periodicals. I am most grateful for Spencer’s assistance over the last year in helping me to understand the production of FORUM and more recently to complete the work while I was unwell. I would also like to thank Sue Carter (who runs a young archaeologists’ group in Perth, Australia!) and Trish Neilson, especially, for proof-reading the articles. We are also endebted, of course, to all the contributors for their submissions and look forward to hearing more about many of these projects as they continue this year and into the future. As already alluded to last year, and again at CBA Yorkshire’s AGM in February this year, for financial reasons we need to make significant changes to FORUM in the near future. A combination of factors over the last four years has meant that the expense of printing and posting the journal cannot be sustained. The ever-increasing cost of producing FORUM is currently taking up over 80% of our annual income, leaving very little for other activities related to our charitable aims. Therefore, the next volume will come in two parts: a modest printed booklet containing CBA Yorkshire proceedings and article abstracts, with a full journal available online. Both the booklet of abstracts and the full journal will be produced to the same high quality format that our readers have come to expect, and every effort will be made to ensure that the full journal is easily accessible online. We hope to launch the next volume of FORUM at our February 2017 AGM in York. As is customary, with the publication of this present volume, FORUM volume 3 (2014) becomes fully open access. Visit http://www.cba-yorkshire.org.uk/forum to download as a PDF file or to read online in magazine format.

Write for FORUM Yorkshire—we’ll help you spread the word! © Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

Period

Themes:

Method

Local Society | Group

Academic Research

Commercial | Developer

Education | Training

Community | Voluntary

Thesis | Synthesis

Desk-Based Research

Excavation

Remote Sensing

Building Recording

Landscape Survey

Post-Medieval | Modern

Late Medieval

Early Medieval

Roman

Iron Age

Paper title Authors

Bronze Age

Palaeolithic | Mesolithic

Thematic index of article content

Neolithic

Proceedings

Engagement

Feature Article The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: Historic Graffiti at St Oswald’s Church, Filey, North Yorkshire | Buglass

              

Communities in Action Cuts to Archaeology and Heritage: Call to Action | Lennox

       

CITiZAN: Community Archaeology Around the English Coastline | Sherman

Multi-period

Advocacy

  

    

The Hanging Grimston Community Archaeology Project | Jecock, Bence, Hall & Pearson

          

Upper Wharfedale Heritage Group and The Kilnsey Project: History from Vernacular Buildings | Armstrong

             

Nidderdale Chase Heritage Group: The Ashelby Pasture Project 2015 interim report | Hintze & Heward

            

Identifying a Victorian Mortuary Chapel: Raikes Road Burial Ground, Skipton, 2015 interim excavation report | Robinson & Heward

              

Behind the Scenes Finds Beneath Your Feet: A Review of the Portable Antiquities Scheme in North and East Yorkshire in 2015 | Griffiths

Multi-period

Recording

   

Archaeological Notes and Reviews Extending the Boundaries of Known Locations for Prehistoric Rock Art within the North York Moors and Yorkshire Dales | Brown & Brown

              

Neolithic Peat Formation and 18th-Century Land Reclamation at Goole Fields, East Riding of Yorkshire | Tuck & Burgess

             

Excavations in the South Transept of St Mary’s Abbey, York | Parker

              

Archaeological Register Recent Work in Yorkshire by John Buglass Archaeological Services | Buglass

Multi-period

    

Recent Work in Yorkshire by Wessex Archaeology | Tuck & Norton

Multi-period

     

Chronology | Dating nomenclature for British archaeological periods as defined by Historic England: Post-Medieval Late Medieval Early Medieval Roman Iron Age

After 1540 cal AD 1066 – 1540 cal AD 410 – 1066 cal AD 43 – 410 cal AD cal BC 600 – 43 cal AD

Bronze Age Neolithic Mesolithic Palaeolithic

2500 – 600 cal BC 4000 – 2500 cal BC c. 10,000 – 4000 cal BC Until c. 10,000 cal BC

Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

Call to Actionâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;do we have your email address? We want to make sure that we can communicate with you on a regular basis. We send out periodic

news about events, fieldwork opportunities and exciting finds, plus our refreshed e-News Bulletin

exclusively for CBA Yorkshire members.

Email addresses often change. We therefore ask that you send us an email today so that we can keep our records up to date. Rest assured that your contact details are stored securely only for CBA Yorkshire activities and are never passed to any third parties.

Please send an email to web@cba-yorkshire.org.uk using your preferred contact account as

follows:

Subject:

CBA Yorkshire Email Confirmation 2016

Individual Members:

Please include your first and last name, and postal address.

Joint/Family Members:

Please include all associated first-and-last names, postal address and

Affiliate Members:

Please include your primary email address(es) and the postal address

any additional email addresses associated with your membership.

you use for your CBA Yorkshire subscription.

We need your postal address with post code in order to cross-check with our existing records.

Thank you! Follow us on Twitter

www.twitter.com/YorksArch

www.facebook.com/YorksArch

iii

Proceedings

Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

CBA Yorkshire Annual Review 2015–16 Paul Brayford, Chair 2015

chair@cba-yorkshire.org.uk

This is the last of my Chair’s reports. After three years, I step back with mixed emotions: a sense of relief, combined with a sense of a job unfinished. The one thing that I feel most proud of in the last three years is the new format of this FORUM journal. All I can claim is the reflected glory, the hard work was done by our editor Spencer Carter and we must be thankful for his endurance. His successor, Christiane Kroebel, with Spencer’s continued support, has produced the volume you are now reading. During 2015 your committee have started the process of working out what we should be focussing on as a CBA regional group in the context of the changing environment for heritage and archaeology. The process started when the former Editor and I attended the annual national CBA Regional Groups Network Forum meeting at the Wessex Academy for Field Archaeology near Blandford Forum. The meeting was an excellent opportunity to maintain contacts with other CBA regional groups and included open discussions around key topics such as skills and issues sharing, the role of regional CBA groups, advocacy and capacity building. All the attendees came away with an ambition to improve the position of CBA regional groups through collaboration, sharing knowledge and, in particular, strategic development. As I reported last year, the committee continues to be concerned about the threats to publicly-funded heritage resources. Across England, under pressure from cuts to government funding, many local authorities have eliminated expenditure on non-statutory services such as libraries and museums, and even statutory services such as archaeological planning advice. As yet, no authority in Yorkshire has made swingeing cuts like those over the Pennines in Lancashire, but we can be in no doubt that they will come. As well as potentially putting archaeological deposits and landscapes under greater threat than they have been for some 25 years, because construction and development is accelerating rapidly, such cuts also affect the ability of amateur and community groups to carry out research. Important resources such as reference libraries, museum collections and historic environment records could become virtually inaccessible. Rob Lennox has written an excellent article for us in this volume Cuts to Archaeology and Heritage: Call to Action, expanding on the issues. The question facing your committee is what can we do? In the autumn, the CBA Local Heritage Engagement Network ran a workshop in York, attended by several groups and part of their regional engagement. That has led us to think about whether CBA Yorkshire might be in a position to co-ordinate a network of regional and local heritage groups to try and respond proactively to potential threats to heritage services, perhaps with other regional organisations such as the Yorkshire Archaeological and Historical Society. We have engaged a master’s student from the University of York to carry out a small piece of research with a sample of groups to see what the appetite is for building a Yorkshire heritage network. The outcome of that research will feed in to the committee’s deliberations over the next few months on the direction that CBA Yorkshire should take in the next few years. We have also commenced conversations with our peers at Yorkshire Archaeological and Historical Society about possible areas of collaboration whilst maintaining our distinctive identities. Nationally, the CBA is developing the Archaeology Matters branding with a new The Power of Archaeology campaign. This invites all of us to speak up for our heritage and tell our elected representatives about the power and importance of archaeology. The campaign is focussed on two current heritage concerns: the cuts to local government that I have mentioned above; and the threat of planning deregulation where the Government’s reforms are weakening protections for archaeology and damaging the sustainability of the planning system. v

Proceedings MPs are responsible for scrutinising and voting on legislation in Parliament. They also represent their constituents and have a responsibility to question ministers about current issues, and should have an interest in the lives and concerns of their constituents. Therein lies an opportunity. If we all write to our MP (and our local elected councillors) and tell them how important our heritage, especially archaeology, is, then we should raise the profile of heritage in their minds. We should tell them, not just about the obvious heritage – the castles and stately homes – but also the more hidden archaeology around them and how much it matters to people. You can find much more advice and guidance on writing to MPs and other elected representatives online at www.archaeologyuk.org/localheritage-engagement-network/. The committee is keen to receive any thoughts, advice and other help you can offer to help develop our thinking into a programme of action. In the meantime, we have continued to do what we can to represent Yorkshire’s archaeology. In September, we co-hosted a Home Front Legacy 1914–18 Day School in Sheffield with national CBA and Historic England. Running from 2014 to 2018, the Home Front Legacy project is supporting community groups in researching local places associated with the Great War with an online toolkit and guidance for recording the remains of surviving sites, structures and buildings around Britain. If you missed the workshop but are still interested in participating, you should visit the project website at http://www.homefrontlegacy.org.uk/. Our Vice Chair, Christiane Kroebel, has continued to represent us at the Yorkshire and the Humber Historic Environment Forum. This sponsors the Heritage Counts report which was published in November and, in 2015, focussed on reporting on the views and experiences of those responsible for looking after the local historic environment. The report highlighted that there are 34,200 entries in the National Heritage List for England from Yorkshire and the Humber, including 31,431 listed buildings and 2,624 scheduled monuments. That indicates the richness of Yorkshire’s built and archaeological heritage. In July, many of our affiliates took part in the Festival of British Archaeology which provides an opportunity to involve with the wider population and give them the opportunity to engage with their archaeological heritage. The programme for 2016 is now published and I urge our affiliates and individual members to actively consider taking part if you have not done so before: see www.archaeologyfestival.org.uk for more information. Similarly, there is an opportunity to take part in the English Heritage sponsored Heritage Open Days in September: see http://www.heritageopendays.org.uk/. The group continued its excursions programme in May 2015 with a trip to Richmond Castle and Richmondshire Museum which was thoroughly enjoyed by all who attended. We hope to extend the schedule of excursions and other events in 2016. Members will be interested to know that Richmondshire Museum is hosting an exhibition, until October 2016, of finds from excavations at Roman Catterick as part of the A1 upgrading works between Barton and Leeming, including exciting discoveries at Scotch Corner. As a closing note, and in handing over the Chair to Steve Bence for 2016, I would like to thank the officers, trustees and other members of the management committee for their hard work and support during the 2015 and the previous two years. In particular, I would like to thank our Hon. Secretary, Trevor Pearson, for his hard work in organising committee meetings during the year, and our Treasurer, Ian Drake, for keeping us under financial control.

Join the adventure today—and help spread the word!

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

Volume 4 | 2015 (1–18)

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: Historic Graffiti at St Oswald’s Church, Filey, North Yorkshire John Buglass Corresponding author John Buglass Archaeological Services (JBAS) johnbuglass@yahoo.com

Keywords

Filey, Graffiti, Post-medieval, Hands, Ships, Shoes, Declarations of love, Plague doctor ‘The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.’ From Edward Fitzgerald's 1859 translation of the poem The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám, amongst a selection of poems attributed to Omar Khayyám (AD 1048–1131), a Persian poet, mathematician, and astronomer.

Abstract Following the discovery of a large collection of historic graffiti on the roof of St Oswald’s Church, Filey, Historic England funded a project to use this collection to develop an advice and guidance note on the recording of such graffiti. As part of this project, a detailed study was undertaken on the graffiti and a significant amount of information has been obtained not only about the age and form of the graffiti but also on the social history of those who created it, and the events happening around them. This paper presents some of the significant evidence, including the identification of particular people, their occupations, literacy levels, the rise of tourism in Filey, developments in coastal shipping, and a possible record related to 17th-century plague.

Introduction Graffiti is often a common sight in urban areas and we are probably familiar with graffiti on historic buildings. This can range from contentious modern spray painting through to historic examples of incised names and dates with, on occasion, images and other information. Graffiti, in its many forms, can be found on almost any surface (Richardson 2013, 57) and is an activity that has been recorded from classical times, and it is arguable that prehistoric ‘cave art’ may simply be very early graffiti. The reasons for individuals creating graffiti are many and varied but the commonest appears to be the desire to record their presence at that particular location at that moment in time. Other reasons may include political commentary/cartoons, insults, curses, artistic endeavour, votive/devotional practices and declarations of love. A significant number of graffiti can be found to include some form of iconography such as images of people, animals, ships, buildings and even vehicles (Richardson 2013, 65). © CBA Yorkshire and the Individual Authors

John Buglass

The Grade 1 listed St Oswald’s Church lies to the north of Church Ravine in Filey (NGR TA 11778 81065) and still retains a significant portion of its 12th to 13thcentury fabric (Figs 1 and 2). As part of a related Historic England project, access was obtained to the tower roof where a large collection of extensive, wellpreserved graffiti was discovered. This covered the roof from its bottom edge up to c. 0.3–0.4m from the apex with many overlapping examples. Due to the nature of the collection, and as a result of many discussions, it was decided that this graffiti would be used as a test case to develop an Figure 1 advice and guidance note for recording historic graffiti (Historic England, forthcoming). In addition to producing the guidance notes, a detailed study of the graffiti was also made and some of the results are presented here. In order to produce a permanent record of the graffiti, the roof was systematically recorded using multiple, overlapping, 24megapixel resolution images. The resulting 1737 images were processed by Historic England using Structure from Motion (SfM) software (see Bibliography) in order to produce a high-resolution three-dimensional photomosaic of the roof surface. The Figure 2 photomosaic was then used for the detailed study of the graffiti.

St Oswald’s Church, Filey.

General view of the tower roof, looking east.

The graffiti The study recorded 1482 legible graffiti, which ranged from sets of initials through to complex images of fully rigged sailing vessels. With such a large collection it is not possible to discuss them all in detail here and so this paper will concentrate on some of the more significant aspects of the collection. 2

Historic Graffiti at St Oswald’s Church, Filey, North Yorkshire Table 1

Overall summary of recorded graffiti. Shoes (toe type)

Hands

Panel

Rounded

Square

Pointed

Left

Right

Initials / Date

Names / Date

Ships

North Side

−

258

100

Cross Heart with arrow Heart ?Flag Profile of shoe Inscription 23 Cartouches

East Side

188

?Heart 15 Cartouches

South Side

137

3x Heart on glove ?Bird/plague doctor Crown 17 Cartouches

West Side

126

148

Triangulation mark Profile of shoe Cross with bars on arms 8 Pointed star ?Church or lighthouse 9 Cartouches

Totals

323

731

227

5 Hearts 2 Profile shoes 3 Crosses 64 Cartouches

Other

The commonest graffiti comprise sets of initials (731 examples) followed by outlines of shoes (432) which, like the initials, are occasionally dated. Full names, some with dates, form the next group (227) with the number of hand and ship images being surprisingly similar (45 and 47 respectively). The remaining images tend to occur in very small numbers – e.g. five ‘love’ hearts, two crosses and two shoes shown in profile (see Table 1 for details). In terms of distribution, the majority of the graffiti are situated on the more easily accessible parts of the roof, with a noticeable reduction closer to the apex and in the corners where the space available is greatly reduced. There are few graffiti on the roll joints between panels and what there are seem to be derived from the reordering of once flat sheets. Three of the four sides have similar numbers of graffiti: East – 372; South – 351 and West – 337 whilst the North side had the most at 422. This reflects the location of the access hatch in the northeastern corner such that people may not have ventured far from there. There is no particular pattern to the distribution of the types of graffiti apart from a degree of clustering of similar images. This may be due to people seeing one type of image and then deciding to add their own to the ‘collection’. However, any apparent patterns and groups should only be considered in relation to the potential for the re-ordering of the sheets in the past. Names and initials Where initials occur in isolation there is little that can be learnt from them beyond noting stylistic changes in fonts. Names and initials develop significance when they are accompanied by dates as these help provide a chronological framework for the structure, though the re-use of building materials needs to be borne in mind.

John Buglass

Over 200 individual names were recorded and, if the assumption is made that each visitor only records their presence once, then by combining this with the numbers of initials means that there have been at least c. 1000 visitors to the roof since the earliest identified date of 1608. With names, particularly those associated with dates, it may be possible to establish further biographic details from archive research. One assumption is that the people with the easiest access are the most likely to leave graffiti. This group Figure 3 Fish graffiti with fish merchant J.W. Bulmer. Width of rectangle: 0.15m. would include the various church officials (the incumbent, church warden, parish clerk and bell ringers), which could be confirmed by cross referencing relevant parish records. This could be clearly seen in two graffiti relating to bell ringers from 1998 and 2008 where the latter also included the notation for a peel. The repeated occurrence of the name Fox (1808 onwards) with various initials relates to a well-known local family who supplied several generations of parish clerks (Brigham pers. comm. in Buglass 2015). Another group with access to the roof comprises those engaged in repair and maintenance (lead workers, steeplejacks and stone masons). This can be seen in J Hill 18.8.1947 Plumber Hunmanby (sic) who is presumably there to repair the lead, a situation which was also recorded repeatedly at All Saints Church, Wath upon Dearne (Richardson and Dennison 2014). Other occupations that were noted, or could be inferred, included a coachman (RM. Coachman. Tickton Grange with an X for his mark) and a soldier of the Green Howards (TATE C THE CROFT FILEY GREEN HOWARDS). Research on the named graffiti by Trevor Brigham (Brigham 2015) identified information about almost every named individual, often including occupation and place of residence. An interesting example of this can be seen in the single graffiti, which shows an animal. An outline of a fish is depicted with the inscription J.W. Bulmer Filey 1872 (Fig. 3). Brigham established that John Webster Bulmer (1813–90) was a fish merchant of King Street, Filey, in 1861 and by 1871 had moved to West Parade. It would seem possible that the fish was an attempt to show his occupation, and the fact that the ‘7’ in the date is reversed may show a degree of illiteracy and hence the use of a symbol for occupation rather than text. As well as a fishmonger, the research provided evidence for a further 22 occupations ranging from schoolmaster to shoemaker, boat builder to chimney sweep. Gender Although it is commonly assumed that the creation of graffiti was a male activity for most of the graffiti at Filey, it has not been possible to determine if they were created by a male or female. However, by using Christian names it has been possible to identify 36 males compared with 16 females and, in addition, it is reasonable to assume that (from the dates) the plumber, coachman and soldier described above would all be male. Moreover, the research carried out by Brigham (ibid.) has confirmed that graffiti creation is generally a male pursuit. 4

Historic Graffiti at St Oswaldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Church, Filey, North Yorkshire

The dated female names belong to the 20th century, with two exceptions from the 19th century: Winnie Trousdale 1851 and Ada Harris 1875 (the latter part of a graffiti including W Harris 1875 Leeds). The occurrence of the Harris name from Leeds provides strong evidence for tourist visits to Filey. Interestingly, a second example of a visitor to the town is also seen in another female name: Minnie Middliss, Morpeth 1921. Dates A total of 185 dates that referred to identifiable years were recorded, with a further 21 in an abbreviated form. The earliest dates are from between 1608 and 1697, which shows that some of the lead sheets on the roof are at least 400 years old. The numbers of dates from the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries are all very similar, although the second half of the 19th century saw a marked increase in dated graffiti â&#x20AC;&#x201C; particularly in the 1870s and 1880s. The 20th century has an even distribution of dates but is notable that this century has the only two decades (1930s and 1960s) in the last 400 years where there were no dated graffiti whatsoever. Much time can be spent speculating on the distribution of dates and the significance of certain clusters or absences of dates in relation to local and even national events. However, in reality the frequency of dates is probably more closely tied to the position of the church authorities with regard to access to the roof. There will also be a direct link between literacy levels of those visiting the roof and the ability to create dated graffiti. The changing levels of literacy can be glimpsed in the frequency of reversed letters and numbers, particularly with S, F, 6, 7 and 9. This said, there are some local events which may be tied to the increase in graffiti in the later 19th century. The first of these is the construction of the iron bridge over Church Ravine in 1847 which improved access to the church from the town. The second is the opening of Filey railway station in October 1856. These two events can be linked with the increase of tourism to Filey (particularly in the form of day trips from nearby Scarborough and Hull) and may have resulted in visits to the tower roof in order to admire the view across the bay, possibly in return for a donation to church funds. It is also interesting to note that there is a large amount of graffiti on various parts of Filey Brigg to the east, which date to the latter half of the 19th century (Buglass and Brigham 2011; Brigham 2014). Although some of these undoubtedly related to stone extraction along the Brigg, there are examples which are similar to ones seen on the roof and identify the authors as having come from Beverley and Hull (ibid.). In addition to the increased visitor numbers, the opening of the Wesleyan school (1857) and the Church of England school (1873) will both have raised literacy levels. Potentially, this would have allowed those people who previously might only have left the outline of a shoe or a hand to now inscribing their names or initials as well. Places Thirty-one graffiti have a named location, which include 12 towns or cities. Unsurprisingly, the commonest was Filey (16) to which can be added at least another seven examples where the letter F is placed so that it appears to represent Filey. Of the other locations the majority are either close to Filey (Humanby and Hull) or within the north-east of England (Darlington, Leeds, Morpeth, Pudsey, Ripon and Sheffield). The most distant location is London (1858). Interestingly, all of the dated non-Filey place names, except one, post-date the opening of the railway in 1856 and therefore may well represent tourist visits of various forms â&#x20AC;&#x201C; day trips for the more local places and longer holidays for the more distant. 5

John Buglass

Events The recording of notable events is also a periodic occurrence in graffiti and the collection at St Oswald’s includes two specific examples. The older of the two relates to a birth: F HANSON WAS BORN DECEMBER 28 1862. The second is VJ Day (15th August) in 1945. Both of the graffiti are in simple cartouches with a list of names: I WRIGHT, D HORNER, D BANHAM, V H??? and KB HO?ROY, DOREEN HARRIS. Declarations of love One of the commonest forms of graffiti is a declaration of love, and the roof of St Oswald’s is no exception. The ‘traditional’ way of showing this as a ‘love heart pierced with Cupids’ arrow’ was only seen in a single example (1953 for FB=BS). However, there were eight other heart motifs, which all appear to be declarations of love, although the faintness of some probably means that we are not seeing the full inscriptions or that they were not cut with a huge degree of conviction in the first place. There are three examples of a heart motif on a cuff or sleeve of a hand outline which appear to refer to the expression ‘to wear your heart on your sleeve’; this is not a new concept as the earliest reference dates to c. 1440 (Jones 2002, 196 and 200–201). What is probably the most well-known early usage is in the opening scene Figure 4 from Othello (first performed in 1604) where there is the phrase ‘I will wear my heart on my sleeve...’ (Fig. 4).

Heart motif on the cuff of a glove. Height of glove: 0.35m.

Within the declarations of love there are two examples of relationships which appear to have ended. In the first of these, dating from 1953, the letters GC and GCW have been arranged ‘crossword fashion’ so that the G is common to both sets of initials. Subsequently, the ‘across’ letter C has been deliberately scored out with nearly a dozen diagonal lines. In the second example the lower of two names has been very deliberately, and deeply, scored out (Fig. 5). Both of these examples show that the aggrieved party had the opportunity to return to the roof in order to deface the original graffiti; this in turn suggests that local people were involved. Iconography and artistic endeavour One of the striking features of the St Oswald’s graffiti is the large number of pictorial objects. The commonest were shoe outlines (432), followed by sailing ships (47), then hands (45), and with 15 other assorted images. The original reason for the creation of the images will never be known, but some suggestions can be offered. The shoe and hand outlines can be seen as a statement of I’m here, whilst the images of ships may well relate to the person’s occupation. What is harder to interpret is the reason for the creation of images such as shoes in profile. The one thing that can be said for these images is that they had a meaning or significance to the person who created them. 6

Historic Graffiti at St Oswald’s Church, Filey, North Yorkshire

Figure 5

Possible failed relationship. Panel width: 0.55m, graffiti width 0.20m.

The quality of the graffiti is variable and, whilst many of them have been created with considerable care and attention to detail (particularly some of the ships), the majority would appear to be the result of a more spontaneous impulse, and as such are less well formed. The fact that there are many well-formed, complex graffiti indicates that far from being an impulsive and clandestine activity there are some individuals, already prepared to create the graffiti, gaining access to the tower roof. This preparation could either be in the form of having a concept of the image, or having a tool or implement with them to create a particular effect. This can clearly be seen in the significant amount of ‘wrigglework’ (see Glossary at the end of this article) used in both images and names (e.g. Fig. 8). Shoes Of the shoe graffiti, rounded toes are the commonest form (323), followed by a square toes (77) (Fig. 6) and finally those with pointed toes (32). Thirty-four of them have legible dates between 1624 and 1974, with the majority dating to the 18th century, particularly the 1770s. It would be anticipated that the style of shoes would change through time, but an examination of the date ranges showed that there is a considerable overlap in dates between the three types. The only possible observed trend was in square-toed shoes, which predominantly date to the late 17th century, with four of the six dated examples falling between 1624 and 1697. A number of shoes have embellishments which appear to represent constructional details, including hobnails (Fig. 6), welt stitching and the join of the heel block. Some of the shoe outlines have the mid-section of the shoe or the heel block shown in an exaggerated form, though it is uncertain if this is a literal representation of a fashion style or artistic licence. From the size of the shoes, it would appear that the majority had been created by tracing around the shoe placed on the sloping roof and thus are slightly over life-sized and almost all appear to be for adult males. The exceptions are two small, pointed shoes (one dated 1709) which, if life-sized, represent children’s shoes. As well as the realistic portrayal of some shoes, there are a few with a complex geometric pattern within the sole which appears to be a purely decorative device around the person’s initials. In addition to the shoe outlines, there are two depictions of shoes in profile. The first of these is the simpler of the two and consists of a basic outline of a block-heeled, square-toed shoe with what appears to be an undone 7

John Buglass

buckle as the fastening. The second is a more complex and detailed representation which is composed of two outlines. The original image was cut as a ‘wrigglework’ design and then, at a later date, scored over with a simple line, possibly with the aim of enhancing the original image. Close examination shows that the original ‘wrigglework’ design is the more detailed of the two (Figs 7 and 8), in the form of a high-tongued shoe with a bow or other decoration on the front. The scored outline is a simpler rendition of the image and appears to add a buckle or strap across the front. Both of the images would appear to be of 18th-century, square-toed shoes with wooden block heels and probably buckle-fastened. Although the majority of the shoe graffiti are well formed, it is difficult to determine if they are of the left or right foot. This is probably a result of a difficulty in tracing around the shoe whilst leaning on the roof. In addition, historically, there would appear to have been relatively little differentiation between left and right shoes. In the majority of the shoe outlines the toe is pointing towards the apex of the roof. This shows that the person would have been standing facing the roof and simply placed their foot on the roof and lent forward to trace the outline. There are, however, a small number of images where the toe is either pointing down or across the slope. There are further examples where the outline is on the roll joint between lead sheets or on the curved edge of the roof. In the case of all of these exceptions to the normal ‘toe up’ orientation, it would seem that the lead sheet has been re-positioned in an orientation different to the point in time at which the graffiti was originally executed. Therefore, it should be possible, by examining the location and dates of these graffiti, to establish when some of the repairs to, or reordering of, the roof may have occurred. Unfortunately, none of the non-‘toe up’ examples were dated. 8

Figure 6

Square toe with hobnails. Height of shoe: 0.25m.

Figure 7

Shoe in profile. Width of panel: 0.55m, shoe 0.20m.

Figure 8

Transcription of ‘wrigglework’ shoe. Width of shoe: 0.20m.

Historic Graffiti at St Oswald’s Church, Filey, North Yorkshire

Hands Of the 45 hand images, 39 were left hands and six were right (Fig. 4). As with the shoe images, the most likely way of creating the outline would be for the person to lean onto the roof and trace around one hand with a suitable tool in the other hand. This implies that the person would use their normal ‘writing hand’ to do the outlining and therefore the majority of outlines were created by right-handed people. This is seen in a ratio of left to right hands of 1:7 (13%) which is approximately the same ratio as seen in the population today. The hand images varied from simple crude outlines to ones with considerable detail and decoration, including three with heart motifs. Six of the graffiti included various portions of either a cuff or part of the forearm and two which depicted the whole arm. The majority of the hands are shown with the five fingers and thumb splayed which allows identification of which hand has been depicted, though a few are shown with the fingers together but the thumb splayed. Other details include the marking of the joints of fingers, fingernails and the crease at the base of the fingers where they join the palm – although this could be the seam in a glove. See Glossary at the end of this article.

Ships

A total of 48 ship images were recorded along with two further possible partial images of the topmost portions of sails on a mast. Of these images, the majority are depictions of two-masted vessels (25), with single and threemasted vessels being almost equally represented (10 and 8 examples respectively). In addition, there were three images of what appear to be bare hulls with no masts. All except one of the images are shown in profile with the bows of the majority pointing to the left. There is a single example of a bow pointing down the slope of the roof, which would appear to be as a result of the re-laying of the sheet. The one ship that is not shown in profile is a single-masted vessel that has been shown in perspective as if the vessel were approaching the observer who is looking towards the forrard starboard quarter (Fig. 9). This three-dimensional representation of a ship is very unusual and no other examples are known by the author. This image shows considerable flair for artistic representation, created using a minimal number of lines to give a strong impression of a sailing vessel at sea, likely a Yorkshire fishing coble. What is striking about many of the images is that they have been created with a considerable amount of detail relating to the shape of the hull, the manner of sail construction, standing and running rigging, as well as constructional details of strakes, rudders, the shape of the stem and stern and, in one case, possible gun ports. This shows that they must have been created by people with a good working knowledge of ships – either from first-hand on-board experience or from a long-term observation of sailing vessels. This level of detail can often allow for a reasonably accurate interpretation to be made of the type of vessel depicted and, in some cases, a broad chronology. Figure 9

Yorkshire coble under sail. Top to bottom 0.30m.

John Buglass

Figure 10 Sailing barge/coaster (centre-right). Panel width: 0.69m.

When attempting to interpret the images of ships, the limitations of the graffiti should always be borne in mind, both in the ability of the creator and the medium upon which it was created. The nature of the graffiti will limit the ability of the creator to reproduce as many details as accurately as they would like and a degree of latitude needs to be used when trying to determine what was being portrayed. Typically, ship types are determined by the arrangement of the sails over a number of masts. The classification of a ship can be changed by simply re-arranging the sails in a different configuration – known as a sail plan. This can often mean that the definitions of what constitutes, for example, a brig-rigged ship may not always be reflected in real life. In the interpretations below an attempt has been made to ‘best fit’ the ship graffiti into recognised types, based on the various sail plans and, as such, there will always be a degree of ambiguity. The graffiti of single-masted vessels show three different types of ships – three topsail cutters, two sailing barges and a hulk. The best example of a topsail cutter not only shows the sail plan but also clearly depicts the reefing lines hanging down on the lower edge of the main sail along with the rudder. The two strikingly similar images (Fig. 10) both show a vessel with a very low freeboard (suggesting it is heavily laden) and a mast set well forrard with a large square-rigged sail. All of these characteristics are typical of sailing barges, although an aft mizzen mast, a common feature on sailing barges, seems to be lacking. However, what appears to be shown as a flag staff at the rear of the vessel could well be a poorly represented mizzen mast. The occurrence of a sailing barge on the north-east coast would seem to be unusual since sailing barges are more commonly associated with the south coast and Thames Estuary area. A possible reason for its presence is given in the Rapid Coastal Zone Assessment of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire (RCZA) (Brigham 2014, 61). The RCZA survey records a small dock called Dulcey Dock cut into the rocky foreshore platform below Speeton Cliff at the southern end of Filey Bay. It was apparently named after the coaster Dulcey which used the site to collect mineral rich nodules from the beach and cliffs. It is possible that the vessel shown in these graffiti is a representation of that coaster working out of Dulcey Dock. If this is the case then it dates this image to the first half of the 19th century, as the nodules were being collected from around the 1830s onwards and Dulcey Dock is present before the OS first edition of 1854 (ibid.). Both of these graffiti show details of the sail construction with a series of parallel lines representing the individual strips of sail cloth that would have been sewn together to produce the required size of the sail.

Historic Graffiti at St Oswald’s Church, Filey, North Yorkshire

Figure 11 Armed sailing vessel (left). Panel width: 0.69m.

The final single-masted vessel is a very faint image and appears to show a hull formed from four strakes with a very up-turned bow and stern giving it a distinctive crescent shaped appearance. The narrowing of the image to one end would seem to show the bows, whilst approximately amidships there is a single mast with a crossed yard. The crescent shaped hull, single mast and yard are all considered to be very characteristic of a type of vessel known as a hulk (Hutchinson 1994, 10 ff. and Friel 1995, 21 ff.). This type of vessel is usually dated to the 13 or 14th centuries and, if this was the case, then this section of the roof, at least, is considerably older than had previously been assumed. However, as the image is faint and quite simplistic it is possible that it is a more recent and naive representation of a ship (or indeed not of a ship at all). The images of two-masted vessels show a wide variety of detail in sail plans, rigging and hull forms. The commonest graffiti have a simple sail plan of two triangular sails, one on each mast, with some of the vessels also having a single foresail which is rather akin to a lugger rig. This type of rig, with variations, is very similar to that of a Scarborough yawl or a Hull duster which were both common types of fishing vessel operating in the area. The remainder of the representations of the two-masted ships are divided between brig rigs and square sailing rigs, though it is possible that the square rig could simply be a ‘generic’ rendition of a person’s idea of what a sailing ship should look like. One very noticeable feature on several of the two-masted vessels is that the masts were set well forrard and aft. This arrangement appears to be a deliberate portrayal and not simply artistic licence as this spacing of the masts would leave a large area of deck space left clear for either working in (e.g. for nets or access to hold space) or to accommodate a feature such as a moon pool. The moon pool was typically a large sea-water filled tank used to keep the catch live until return to port. The base of the tank was often perforated to allow the sea to flow freely in and out of the tank to keep the catch live (Buglass 1997, 50 ff.). A further possibility is that the central area was used to carry smaller fishing vessels, such as cobbles, which could be off-loaded once the main fishing grounds, such as the Dogger Bank and Silver Pit, had been reached. Of the eight representations of three-masted vessels, four appear to show three different types of sail plan. The remaining four images do not show any detail of a sail plan as the images are of masts only. One example 11

John Buglass

with a very limited sail plan does show considerable detail on the standing rigging including shrouds, ratlines, crossed sail yards and stays, as well as the typical stem and stern of a schooner. The image appears to show two topsails and the ship may well have been rigged as a topsail schooner or ketch. Although it is one of the poorer representations of a ship, Figure 11 shows one of the more interesting examples, a three-masted vessel with what appears to Figure 12 Detailed hull construction. Vessel width: 0.15m. be a ship, or square, sailing rig. The image also includes details of some of the standing and running rigging. The running rigging can be seen in the partially furled sails hanging from three of the spars, two on the main mast and one on the foremast. Elements of the standing rigging can be seen in the shrouds that support the main and foremasts, along with the horizontal rat lines used to climb to the upper rigging. There are also what appear to be backstays running between the hull and the masts and from the foremast down to the bowsprit. Within the hull there is a suggestion of a raised quarter deck to the rear of the ship and under the bowsprit there is a possible beakhead depicted. Probably the most striking feature of this graffiti is the chequer-board pattern given to the hull with a central dot in many of them. It is possible that this is intended to represent guns in gun ports and that overall the image is supposed to be a warship, though the lowermost row of guns would seem to be perilously close to the water line. The square rig, possible quarter deck and beakhead could place this image in the later 17th to early 18th centuries. Interestingly, this is one of only two images which show the surface of the sea either as a line or, as in the case here, as waves. Probably the most significant representation of a ship shows a vessel with considerable detail for the hull, whilst the masts and sail plan are sketchier (Fig. 12). This may suggest that whoever created this image was more familiar with the construction of the hull than the operation of the sails, as seen by the foremast apparently piercing the sail. The constructional details of the hull that are shown include: the keel with stem and stern posts; the garboard strake followed by nine sets of strakes, all of which rise toward the stem and stern; a rudder with what would be iron straps holding the sections together; a bowsprit with a clamp to join the next section; the main mast is set in to the keelson whilst the fore and mizzen masts stopping at what would be the orlop deck; possibly netting over the quarter/poop deck area; a raised fo’csal with a possible ladder at the front of it; a crow’s nest on the main mast (obscured under the next sheet); and backstays to support the masts but interestingly no shrouds. The image comprises a vessel with a very vertical stem and stern with the curves of the strakes portraying a ship with a large cargo capacity. As such, this appears to be a representation of a ‘Whitby cat’ which was a very common type of merchantman that was usually brig-rigged. Overall, the various details date it to the later 18th or 19th century.

Historic Graffiti at St Oswald’s Church, Filey, North Yorkshire

The last graffiti of a three-masted vessel had originally been created as a two-masted ship, with an extra section of hull and mast subsequently added to the stern. Whether this was an addition by the original person or by another hand cannot be determined. However, as there is very little difference between the two parts of the image it would seem to suggest it was all created by the same person, perhaps reflecting a move to a larger vessel. The sail plan of the vessel is that of a brigantine with details of the sail construction being clearly shown, although there is no sign of the standing rigging. The hull details include a rounded stern, the rudder and possible crow’s nests. As with the image described above, the bow and stern are generally quite vertical suggesting a merchantman. The image is probably of 19th-century date. Within the collection of images there are several features of note in addition to the details of hull types and sail plans. One of these is that most of the graffiti show the hull down to the keel. If the ship was being observed whilst underway then one would expect either a water line to be shown part way up the hull or only part of the hull to be visible. However, if the ships were beached for loading then it would be possible to see the whole of the hull and it is possible that many of these representations are of coastal traders off-loading on the sands in Filey Bay. A further feature is that all the vessels depicted are sailing ships. There are no steam ships, unlike at St Mary’s Church, Whitby, where there are at least two steamers (White 1994, 31 and 34). The absence of images of steam ships is probably due to the fact that Filey Bay lacked a suitable harbour to accommodate them. Possible plague doctor A faint graffiti shows a profile view of what appears to be a bird’s head with a very pronounced curved beak (Fig. 13). Since the beak has a line along its centre representing the upper and lower portions it is not a caricature of someone with a large nose. It has a large, forward-facing, inverted D-shaped eye and what appear to be strands of feathers or hair on the top of the head, along with a possible hat. There are two possible interpretations for this image. The first is that it is of a bird, though it is not obvious if it was supposed to be a particular species; if it were, the shape of the beak would seem to have a passing resemblance to that of a flamingo or a dodo. The appearance of what seems to be a hat and hair, however, would seem to discount this suggestion. The second interpretation is that this may represent a plague doctor. Plague doctors were individuals who were hired by a city or town to take on the role of treating plague victims in times of epidemics. They were often not medically trained and have been considered as second-rate doctors or simply opportunists looking to exploit the situation financially. The practice of plague doctors has been noted from medieval plagues onwards, but the wearing of a distinctive costume with the beak-like mask appears to have been restricted to the 17th and 18th centuries. This distinctive costume is thought to have been developed in Paris by Charles de L’Orme in 1619 and its use subsequently spread throughout Europe. Typically the protective clothing consisted of a waxed, heavy fabric overcoat, hat and gloves with the most distinctive feature being a mask with glass eyes and a beak shaped nose. The ‘nose’ was typically stuffed with straw and sweet smelling herbs in order to filter the air. Probably the best known image is an engraving of 1656 by Paul Furst (Boeckl 2000, 15; 27). The image here, whilst faint, does appear to record many of the features of the mask with the curved beak, large (?glass) eye and hat. The last significant outbreak of plague in England was in 1665 and is well known from the many accounts centred on London, although other plague years were recorded throughout the 17th century in 1603, 1625 and 1636 (Roberts and Cox 2003, 332). The 1665 outbreak was recorded as having spread into northern England (most famously at Eyham in Derbyshire) but was also recorded in Hull and across the North Riding, as well as 13

John Buglass

Figure 13 Possible plague doctor (centre, ‘beak’ centre left). Width: 0.17m.

Bradford and Newcastle upon Tyne in the period 1665 – 1667. In North Yorkshire there is a report of London ships at Whitby being quarantined for plague in 1665 (Barker 2011, 80). Earlier outbreaks were recorded in the Yorkshire coastal parishes of Hinderwell, Runswick, Staithes and Whitby in 1603 (ibid., 28), which was a ‘plague year’ nationally. From the occurrences of plague described above, it would seem quite possible that the disease was spread from port to port by shipping. Creighton (1891, 681 ff.) noted the earliest accounts of plague in the provinces as coming from Yarmouth in November 1664. It is said to been introduced from a ship from Rotterdam and then by the spring of 1666 it is recorded at Lynn, Norwich, Ipswich and Harwich – all significant ports with Harwich having particularly strong links to Whitby (Barker 2011). He also noted the Tyne valley as having a minor epidemic in July 1665 said to have originated from the colliers returned from the Thames. This would appear to coincide with the quarantine of London ships in Whitby. It would not be surprising, therefore, to find minor outbreaks locally derived from contact with passing shipping when in port, which was then spread via the movements of the fishing fleets on a much more local basis (ibid., 85). It would seem highly unlikely that a small fishing village such as Filey would have been wealthy enough to hire a plague doctor. However, the relative proximity of Filey to Hull, Scarborough and Whitby, all of which were wealthy ports in the 17th century, could mean that a plague doctor had been seen in one of the larger

Historic Graffiti at St Oswald’s Church, Filey, North Yorkshire

ports. It is even possible that one may have passed by Filey when travelling between Hull, Scarborough and Whitby. The presence of the possible plague doctor graffiti on the roof may have two explanations. Firstly, the creator might merely have been recording an unusual observed occurrence. Secondly, it is possible that the image may have been part of a ‘devotional act’ in order to extend the protection of the church to the plague doctor and their activities. The graffito is located at the lower edge of the panel; the very bottom part of the image is curved around the edge of the roof, which suggests that the panel has been re-positioned at some point. This repositioning, coupled with a date of 1696 further up the panel, means that the panel is almost certainly contemporary with the various plague outbreaks described above.

Discussion The inclination to create graffiti and the urge to leave a mark of one’s presence probably extends throughout human history, from the earliest cave paintings to the present day. In this context the majority of graffiti at St Oswald’s can be seen as a continuation of the practice. In addition to this, the St Oswald’s collection also contains a wide range of other information. This information records not only an individual’s presence, and on occasion occupation, but also information related to social history, changes in fashion, literacy, the rise of tourism and the nature and changes in coastal shipping; all within its closely-dated 400 year span. The graffiti can also be a starting point for further research into archive sources, as exemplified by the biographic detail that Brigham’s research (Brigham 2015) produced on the 200 named individuals at St Oswald’s. This research established considerable detail on their identities, occupations, where they were living and, in some cases, has given reason to their presence on the roof – for example the Fox family supplying parish clerks. As well as the more prosaic details of people’s lives, the graffiti here have recorded significant events such as plague in the 17th century and VJ Day in the 20th century. The sheer number of individual names and initials is testimony to the long term popularity of visiting the church roof, for whatever reasons. Some of the motivations appear to have changed over time, such as with the advent of tourism into Filey in the latter part of the 19th century when the church and its tower become a site to visit on days out to the seaside – and to leave one’s name and home town scratched into the roof. From the care and detail taken with many of the graffiti, it is clear that these images had a particular significance to the individuals who created them. This can be clearly seen in some of the sailing ships where the level of detail shows that the person was not only well acquainted with ships but also that they probably formed a significant part of their lives. One suggestion relating to the creation of ship images is that it was a form of devotional act in order to extend the protection of the church to ships at sea. This concept is seen more readily in the numerous ship images in specific areas within, as opposed to on the roof, of medieval churches (see Bibliography ‘Medieval graffiti’ weblink). Thus, in the case of St Oswald’s, the ships on the roof are probably more a commentary on what was familiar to people than any desire for divine intervention. Although there are nearly 1500 legible graffiti on the roof (Fig. 14), there are many more, apparently random, lines and letters which may well be part of other now unreadable graffiti. This clearly illustrates the vulnerable nature of the graffiti and how they can be lost through time and, with that, there is a corresponding loss of potential information that can yield detailed insights into a building – and the users of that building in the past.

John Buglass

Figure 14 Ortho-rectified montage of St Oswaldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Church roof generated from 1737 overlapping digital images. Image created by Nick Hannon ÂŠ Historic England.

Archive The original high resolution images, resulting photomosaic and the full report on the St Oswald's graffiti has been curated by the Archaeology Data Services (ADS) and can be consulted online (see Bibliography).

Acknowledgements I would like to thank Bob Briggs for obtaining the original access to the tower roof which started the whole investigation into the graffiti. I would also like to thank Marcus Jecock of Historic England for suggesting a method that would result in the successful recording of the collection. I would particularly like to thank Ann Platt for opening up the church for me, and Rev

Historic Graffiti at St Oswald’s Church, Filey, North Yorkshire Andrew Allington for allowing me access to the roof. Special thanks must also go to Roz Buglass for putting up with the graffiti project and to Janet Phillips who spotted the possible plague doctor.

Glossary Beakhead

Protruding part at the front of a ship to allow work on the bowsprit.

Coble

Type of north-east fishing vessel particularly associated with North Yorkshire.

Dogger Bank

Very productive fishing grounds in the southern North Sea.

Fo’csal

Short deck in the front part of a ship, derived from forecastle in much older (medieval) warships.

Forrard or forward

The fore part of ship, so forrard starboard quarter becomes front right portion of the bows of a ship when looking from the stern (back) straight ahead.

Garboard strake

The strake immediately adjacent to the keel.

Hulk

Type of 13th to 14th century ship.

Hull duster

Common type of vernacular fishing vessel operating out of Hull.

Keelson

Large longitudinal timber directly over the keel which clamps in place the lower end of the ships frames.

Mizzen mast

Rear-most mast on a sailing vessel.

Moon pool

Either an opening in the bottom of the hull giving access to the water below, or a large seawaterfilled tank used to keep the catch live until return to port.

Ratlines

Name of the ropes that run horizontally between the shrouds that forms steps to climb the rigging.

Reefing lines or ropes

Short lengths of rope set in the sails used to partially roll up (furl) a sail to reduce the area of the sail in strong winds.

Running rigging

Those elements of the rigging which are used to hoist and trim the sails.

Sail plan

Name for the shape, size and arrangement of sails on the masts; the arrangement is particular to the type of rig, e.g. brig rig is typically a two-masted vessel with square sails.

Scarborough yawl

Common type of vernacular fishing vessel operating out of Hull.

Serif

Small line attached to the end of a stroke in a letter or symbol; without is sans serif.

Shrouds

Part of the standing rigging that supports the masts.

Silver Pit

Very productive fishing grounds on the edge of the Dogger Bank in the southern North Sea, discovered in the 19th century.

Standing rigging

Ropes which are used to support the masts and keep them in position.

Starboard

Right-hand side of a ship when facing the bows.

Stays

Strong rope running form the top of the mast to the stem to prevent excess movement in the mast, part of the standing rigging.

Stem

The foremost piece of wood uniting the bows.

Strakes

A set of planks running longitudinally from bow to stern in a wooden vessel; typically comprising numerous planks running end to end.

Wrigglework

A wriggled or zigzag cut, made by a flat ‘scorper’ or graver tool as it is moved quickly from side to side and at the same time pushed forward (Maryon, 1971, 153).

Yards or sail yards

Name for the spars or horizontal timbers from which the sails hang.

John Buglass

Bibliography Barker, R. 2011. The Rise of An Early Modern Shipping Industry: Whitby’s Golden Fleet, 1600–1750. Woodbridge: Boydell. Boeckl, C.M. 2000. Images of plague and pestilence: iconography and iconology. Kirksville, MO:Truman State University Press. Brigham, T. 2014. Rapid Coastal Zone Assessment Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Project Overview. Thematic Discussion of Selected Aspects. English Heritage Project 3729, Phase 3. Humber Archaeology Report 422. Brigham, T. 2015. Personal Communication on the Research into the Biographies of Named Individuals in the St Oswald’s Graffiti, in J. Buglass, Historic Graffiti on the Tower of St Oswald’s Church, Filey, North Yorkshire. Unpublished Contractors Report to Historic England Project No. 6701. Buglass, J. and Brigham, T. 2011. Rapid Coastal Zone Assessment, Yorkshire and Lincolnshire: Whitby to Reighton. English Heritage Project 3729, Phase 2, Humber Archaeology Report 327. Buglass, J. 1997. The Remains of Six Sailing Ships and Other Inter-tidal Archaeological Features Between Sutton on Sea and Mablethorpe, Lincolnshire. Unpublished Contractor Report. Buglass, J. 2015. Historic Graffiti on the Tower of St Oswald’s Church, Filey, North Yorkshire. Unpublished Contractor Report to Historic England Project No. 6701. Creighton, C. 1891. A History of Epidemics in Britain. Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Friel, I. 1995. The Good Ship: Ships, Shipbuilding and Technology in England, 1200–1520. London: British Museum Press. Jones, M. 2002. The Secret Middle Ages: Discovering the Real Medieval World. Stroud: Sutton. Historic England, forthcoming. Historic Graffiti: Advice and Guidance on Recording. Historic England: publication anticipated in 2016. Hutchinson, G. 1994. Medieval Ships and Ship Building. London: Leicester University Press. Maryon, H. 1971. Metalwork and Enamelling (Revised 5th Edition). New York: Dover Publications Inc. Richardson, S. 2013. The Archaeological Recording of Graffiti in Yorkshire. The Archaeological Forum Journal: CBA Yorkshire 2, 57–68. Richardson, S. and Dennison, E. 2014. Church Of All Saints, Wath Upon Dearne, Rotherham, South Yorkshire: Archaeological Recording of Graffiti. Final Report. Unpublished Contractor Report 2013/452R.01. Roberts, C. and Cox, M. 2003. Health and Disease in Britain from Prehistory to the Present Day. Stroud: Sutton. White, A. 1994. Carvings of Ships in Whitby Parish Church. Privately published booklet.

Online resources [Last accessed: 17 February 2016] Archaeology Data Service (ADS) | http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/ Historic England specialist survey techniques | https://historicengland.org.uk/research/approaches/research-methods/terrestrial-remote-sensing/specialist-survey-techniques/ Medieval graffiti | http://www.medieval-graffiti.co.uk/page14.html Structure from Motion software | http://agisoft.ru/

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

Volume 4 | 2015 (19–48)

Cuts to Archaeology and Heritage: Call to Action Rob Lennox Corresponding author Local Heritage Coordinator, Council for British Archaeology roblennox@archaeologyuk.org Keywords

Advocacy, Funding cuts, Influence, Planning, Museums

Archaeology and heritage are seriously threatened by cuts to local government budgets. This short article considers why local archaeology services, historic environment records and museums are worth protecting. It issues a ‘call to action’ for local groups and individuals to get involved with advocacy to ensure that, when the cuts bite in their area, local decision makers are aware of the value of the past, and the services that protect and enhance access to it. Editorial note | This article is accurate, in terms of risks to local services, as of time of writing in late 2015. A number of resources subsequently issued by Historic England and the Council for British Archaeology which relate to the advocacy topics discussed may be of interest to readers:  Power of Archaeology Campaign – A Council for British Archaeology initiative to encourage and structure public advocacy and raise awareness of archaeological issues with MPs and Councillors [June 2016]. http://new.archaeologyuk.org/the-power-of-archaeology  Heritage and Society – facts and figures which illustrate the benefits the historic environment brings to society [May 2016]. http://hc.historicengland.org.uk/heritage-and-society/  Assessing the Value of Community-Generated Research – details of a project which looked at the potential value of communityled research, carried out by voluntary groups, for understanding wider research questions and for providing evidence to be included in local Historic Environment Records [April 2016]. https://historicengland.org.uk/research/support-and-collaboration/research-resources/assessing-community-generated-research/  Heritage Champions Handbook – Heritage Champions are normally local councillors who have been nominated by their authority to carry out the role. This handbook is a guide for all Heritage Champions. It provides information on what they can do in their role, how they can do it, and outlines contacts and sources of information [May 2016]. https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/heritage-champions-handbook/

Introduction A familiar refrain in the news over recent years has been the impact of cuts to public services. This is certainly true in the archaeological and wider historic environment sectors which are seeing services eroded to the point of collapse across the country. The Council for British Archaeology works with local and national government as part of a wider coalition of national bodies advocating for archaeology and heritage. However, in order to be effective, we need the support of our members and the much wider section of the population who value archaeology and heritage to help raise the profile of these issues with their local democratic representatives. A recent poll by ComRes (2015) showed that 74% of British adults think that the Government has a moral obligation to protect the historic environment, with a majority also saying that heritage is important to them personally. Despite this, as threats to heritage play out in budget consultations now, our worn-out plea for local grassroots action threatens to come too late for many services. More and more around the country, local authority museums, Historic Environment Records (HER), the network of Portable Antiquity Scheme (PAS) Finds Liaison Officers (FLOs), and archaeology services which advise on impacts to archaeology arising through the planning process and thereby maintain a huge, comprehensive safeguard against damage to archaeology and heritage, are being weakened. Some local museums are already facing closure (or have closed), with many more seeing reduced access for the public and researchers, and unsustainable archive storage issues. National cuts to the PAS

Communities in Action are being compounded by local authority partnerships collapsing due to lack of funds, and planning advisory services are struggling to maintain comprehensive screening over all planning applications, with advice often rushed, inconsistent, or unsatisfactorily researched. Senior members of staff with decades of experience are replaced with cheaper entry level posts filled by individuals who do not have the necessary experience, and some services are being cut altogether – passing archaeological advice to non-specialist planners without archaeological training – forced to accept developer’s archaeological reports without question, or rely solely on existing HER data to cobble together inexpert judgement on archaeological potential. In turn this slows the planning process down and makes it less reliable to developers and local people who see delays due to unexpected discoveries, and leads to an upturn in appeals due to poor decision-making. The Government announced its Comprehensive Spending Review settlement in late November 2015, and the headline news was that culture and heritage had been saved from the harshest cuts. The Chancellor noted that it was a false economy to cut the comparatively small investment in culture and heritage, since these areas deliver large benefits for a relatively tiny cost. This was excellent news, but with the majority of our country’s archaeology and heritage protected at a local level, it is also important that this logic is recognised by local councils, for whom budgets are still being cut, albeit at a slightly slower rate than before last May’s general election. At this important local level, recognition of the value of archaeology and heritage is not universally in evidence. Local authorities in particular remain in a critical phase of change: change in the way that services are funded and delivered; change in the nature of those services; and changes in the ultimate decision over whether any particular service is one which the authority needs to deliver. In many cases, historic environment services are failing this internal test. Arguably, this is because many of the protective services that the historic environment relies upon are ‘non-statutory’ and are therefore viewed by some councils as discretionary. There are few legal ramifications for authorities who fail to employ sufficient specialist advisors, or close museums, and while the National Planning Policy Framework contains an explicit requirement for local authorities to have access to an up-to-date HER, i.e. the database of known information on sites and places of historic or archaeological significance. Several local authorities have, over the past few years either, ignored these requirements or undermined their effectiveness through inadequate resourcing.

What are we facing? In 2014 the borough council of Middlesbrough withdrew from the shared Tees Archaeology service. Months later Redcar and Cleveland followed them. Information since then has been very difficult to come by, with limited access to the HERs and no obvious archaeological advice. In January of 2015 West Sussex announced that it would no longer deliver archaeological advice to local planning authorities, leaving district councils scrambling to find alternative ways to deliver on their planning responsibilities. The solutions – to buy-in services from neighbouring authorities or to outsource advice to contractors – generally amount to services with a lower capacity, higher per-assessment cost, and which are potentially less resilient to future cuts, with some also failing to provide the basic function of adequate screening. Lancashire County Council voted in December 2015 to follow a similar path – with no public consultation – cutting the county-level advisory and HER service completely and forcing the district authorities to find their own solutions. In addition, the Council is proposing to close five local museums in a move, wiping out virtually all heritage provision in the county. The Lancashire service currently provides advice to Cumbria (excluding the Lake District National Park), which also stands to lose its coverage. Further cuts in Manchester, with discussions on the delivery of archaeology advice services and wider cultural heritage in Merseyside and Cheshire West and Chester, complete a picture of worrying decline across the vast majority of the North West. December 2015 also saw the announcement that Norfolk would be cutting its heritage services back to their perceived statutory minimums – continuing to fulfil development control but stopping all public engagement programmes, and stopping its agreement to part fund the county’s FLO. These examples are by no means unique, with many authorities progressively ‘salami-slicing’ services year on year since 2010. For example, the City of York, North Yorkshire, and West Yorkshire have all undergone cuts to archaeology in 2014 and 2015. Moreover, these cuts are likely to be the tip of the iceberg through 2016. 20

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

Volume 4 | 2015

Why should we save these services? Many councils are in desperate positions and are looking at every possible avenue to cut budgets across the full spectrum of responsibilities. Why then, when services such as social care and education are being cut, should we be standing up for archaeology and heritage? There are several reasons why we must. Firstly, all local authority services are likely to be capable of delivering efficiency savings and these should be targeted universally. Of course, after five years of cuts, such saving opportunities are largely exhausted, particularly in smaller local authorities where it is harder to absorb progressive ‘salami-slicing’: lower capacity, also means less resilience. Conversely, larger services, even those on the front lines, are more likely to tolerate reduced budgets. Similarly, opportunities to assess whether present provision is good value for money should apply to both core (protected) and discretionary council services. Just because a service delivers a ‘non-essential’ function, does not necessarily mean that it does not deliver excellent value for money in terms of levering other funding (e.g. developer contributions to archaeology) or achieving added-value benefits such as facilitating community empowerment and strengthening local identity. The CBA perceives local authority archaeologists to be posts which serve a widespread public interest in archaeology. Archaeological and historic environment specialists in local authorities do a huge amount to enhance the public benefits resulting from the heritage resource. Activities typically include the provision of outreach and education to schools or local groups, helping to facilitate community projects, digs, or exhibitions, feeding into wider local authority roles, or simply providing advice to local people on their historic environment and assisting with research. These types of services are particularly at threat as councils seek to cut back to core responsibilities. Likewise, museums are a potential focal point for community values and identity, as well as an exciting educational resource and research facility. A final reason why it is important to stand up for heritage and archaeology services is that they account for only a tiny percentage of local government spending. Whereas a large county service may spend £10 million on adult social care, many historic environment services may cost less than £75,000 per year and maintain only one or two full time staff. Small services have a small critical mass and are less able to accommodate cuts without risking the viability of the service. In these cases, there may be better options than simply to apply uniform cuts.

What can we do about it? There are various ways in which well-designed and adequately resourced heritage services can be transformed into sustainable operating models for local authorities. Wider sharing of services is one option to generate savings without compromising capacity or expertise. Both planning advice and museum services can look at charging structures, or diversification in income streams – whether from outsourcing commercial work or providing premium services at extra cost. Working together with other services, such as merging libraries, archives, and museums, may provide better opportunities to deliver diverse services at lower cost. It is entirely possible that the best model for a particular service would be to out-source to a third-party contractor who is able to attract this type of commercial work, provided, of course, that its core services are adequately resourced and protected through contracts of a length sufficient to not unfairly increase the risk on the service provider or impede the possibility of sustainable operation. Many successful museum trusts operate in this way, and a number of archaeology planning advice services do too. However, even before a suitable solution is designed and put in place, a base level of support and understanding for these services is needed. Part of the problem is that the threats to local authority archaeology services and museums often only generate strong responses from local people after cuts are announced, by which point it is often too late to do anything. Many authorities will currently be discussing these issues privately and so it is important that those who value their services be proactive in their approach – to make their voices heard. At the point where a cut is announced it is often too late to affect any real change – even if budget decisions are put forth in public consultations. Early, proactive campaigning is far more effective as it puts the important issues and values in the minds of those responsible for debating proposals in the council chamber.

Communities in Action Local advocacy needs to be considered less an additional responsibility, but rather more as a natural product of individual or group activity, which can be maximised through prior planning – ask yourself ‘how can we increase the impact of our activities?’ © Council for British Archaeology.

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

Volume 4 | 2015

Do you or your archaeology group or society make efforts to highlight what you do to local councillors? Are they aware of how much you rely on your local archaeological officer, or your HER? Do they know how valuable museum visits and outreach are to schools in the area and how much they mean to local identity, inward investment and tourism? Almost any individual or group has the power to put heritage and archaeology into the minds of local decision makers by way of a letter telling them why they value a service and are concerned for its future. You may, however, be able to do more. If your local group has a community project, make sure that the local media know about it, and try to get issues facing the local services covered in the press. Invite councillors to your site, lecture or guided walks. Politicians appreciate opportunities to hear something unique or positive about their area: archaeology is an excellent vehicle for this. Essentially, anything that you can do to make your activity more public and more influential, the more likely decision makers are to realise the potential and importance of heritage and archaeology during budget negotiations.

Local campaigning Excellent work is already being done in the Yorkshire region by a number of groups. In Teesside, a grassroots group called ‘Hands On Middlesbrough’ have built a social media following of 3000 people, initially to campaign against damaging development proposals affecting the borough’s only Grade I listed building, Acklam Hall, and now raises awareness of all heritage issues in the city. Through the effective use of digital media and by working with the local press, the group has become the go-to group for comment on heritage stories by local newspapers, and have also been featured on local radio. They have built contacts with local councillors who are keen to represent the group’s concerns.

Hands On Middlesbrough’s work brought increased scrutiny to bear on the Council’s Acklam Hall site, where invasive ground works in sensitive areas commenced without suitable archaeological oversight. © Scarlet Pink.

Communities in Action A different approach has been taken by heritage groups in Sheffield, who are lobbying the City Council over heritage and attempting to come together to show the Council the potential benefits of investing in heritage in the city. The groups are currently working to have a Heritage Champion appointed within the Council and are working towards proposals for a heritage strategy that would enable the council to leverage more funding from bodies such as the Heritage Lottery Fund. These are just two examples of local groups in the region who are working well to raise the profile of heritage in their area. If all interested people did only one thing, then the issue of heritage would be vaulted up the agenda and given far greater consideration in future budget decisions. Fundamentally, this is about making sure that the importance of archaeology and heritage is fully realised in this difficult era of change in how we deliver public services. It is only through proper consideration that we can avoid being plunged back 30 years into a system where archaeology is routinely destroyed through poor planning and a lack of pre-assessment, and where cultural services cease to exist in many places.

Local Heritage Engagement Network In order to help local groups and individuals to stand up for their archaeology and heritage, and improve how they provide ‘advocacy’, the CBA maintains the Local Heritage Engagement Network (LHEN) which seeks to provide guidance and advice on how to make their voices heard. This project will keep you up to date with changes in government and can work with you to design and run effective advocacy campaigns; from letter writing, to campaigning and working with the media. Regardless of what level of involvement you wish to have, you can get in touch with us at LHEN@archaeologyuk.org, or visit our website (http://new.archaeologyuk.org/local-heritage-engagement-network/) and we will be glad to assist you in working proactively to ensure that any future decisions on cuts to heritage in your area are the right ones.

References ComRes. 2015. What does the ‘H’ word mean for British adults? Available at: http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/comres-public-perceptions-ofheritage-poll/ [last accessed 14 December 2015]. Council for British Archaeology. 2015. Local Heritage Engagement Network. Available at: http://new.archaeologyuk.org/local-heritageengagement-network/ [last accessed 14 December 2015].

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

Volume 4 | 2015

CITiZAN: Community Archaeology Around the English Coastline Andy Sherman Corresponding author CITiZAN asherman@mola.org.uk Keywords

Intertidal archaeology, Community archaeology, Multi-period national project, England

The English coast is at constant risk of erosion from wind, waves and tides which can often destroy archaeological features before they have been identified or recorded. The CITiZAN project has been created in an effort to try and respond to these threats. Working in the area of the foreshore exposed between high tide and low tide and 200m in land from the high tide line, we are looking to recruit, train and support members of the public in discovering, recording and actively monitoring the erosion of some of the most vulnerable archaeology in England.

Introduction The Coastal and Intertidal Zone Archaeological Network, or CITiZAN for short, is a nationwide community project operating around England’s coast. Its aim is to provide members of the public with traditional archaeological recording skills and then help them to identify features at risk of erosion along the country’s shoreline, so they can be recorded before they are destroyed by the forces of nature. These features can cover a broad range of dates from the remains of prehistoric land surfaces inundated by rising sea levels in the past, to Second World War anti-invasion defences severely damaged by coastal erosion today. To complement the more traditional archaeological skills, CITiZAN is also developing a smart phone app (similar to the award winning app developed by the ‘Scotland’s Coastal Heritage At Risk’ project and used north of the border), which will enable volunteers to photograph, geo-locate and provide a written record for features they identify while picnicking or walking the dog on the beach. These records will then be uploaded to our interactive, web-mounted map (www.citizan.org.uk) and details of newly discovered features will be disseminated to the relevant Historic Environment Record (HER). CITiZAN is supported by a grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund and generously match-funded by the National Trust and the Crown Estate. The Project is hosted by the Museum of London Archaeology (MOLA), with a team covering the Southwest of England based at the Nautical Archaeology Society’s offices in Portsmouth, a team covering the Southeast of England operating out of MOLA’s London office, and a team in the north of England based at the Council for British Archaeology offices in York covering, on the east side of the country, the coast from the Wash to the Scottish border, and on the west that between the Solway Firth and the River Dee.

CITiZAN in the north of England The CITiZAN Project was established in March 2015 and for the remainder of the year my colleague, Megan Clement, and I have been working throughout the north of England helping to train community groups in recording intertidal and coastal features in Cumbria, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Northumbria, Tyne and Wear, and Yorkshire. In September, CITiZAN was working just across the Humber Estuary at Cleethorpes in Lincolnshire, where the remains of a Neolithic forest has been noted since at least the early 20th century. In 1954 the mayor and mayoress of Cleethorpes and Sheffield visited the preserved forest and removed a 1.5m length of timber. The wood was returned to Sheffield, carved with Cleethorpes coat of arms and hung in Weston Park Museum. When the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh visited Grimsby and Cleethorpes in 1958, they were presented with two caskets made from the wood of the preserved forest at the time described as 3000 year old oak. In 1986 a hafted stone axe-hammer was recovered from the peatshelf surrounding the forest, which was later dated to the Bronze Age. As part of Historic England’s Rapid Coastal Zone Assessment for Lincolnshire, three samples

Communities in Action were taken from the preserved land surface for radiocarbon dating. One was from a tree stump, one from an un-worked branch and a third from a possible worked timber. These features returned dates from the late Neolithic / early Bronze Age (2915-2299 cal BC) and the late Neolithic (2280-2500 cal BC and 2910-2670 cal BC), respectively. Analysis of an environmental sample taken at the same time suggested that a dense oak forest was present when the surrounding peatshelf was laid down (Brigham 2014, 42â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 43). During a guided walk through the preserved forest in May 2015, a short length of potential trackway was identified eroding out of the peatshelf (NGR TA 30534 09886). A second visit identified a small area of potential wattle-work eroding from the peatshelf slightly closer to Figure 1 Local volunteers recording a section of prehistoric trackway on the foreshore at Cleethorpes. the beach. In September we returned with a small group of volunteers to investigate the feature and begin recording the full extent of the preserved forest. Examination of the original feature identified a short section of trackway that measured approximately 1m by 1.5m in length and consisted of a single northeast-southwest orientated timber overlain by three eastwest orientated timbers (Fig. 1). All four timbers were roughly hewn and showed signs of working, with two of them being oak. The presence of the trackway suggested it was built in a wetter, marshier landscape than the oak forest. Investigation of the area of potential wattle-work revealed a concentration of small roundwood and brushwood. However, more work will be necessary in order to determine the exact nature of this feature. A sherd of prehistoric pottery was recovered during the examination of these features and several samples were taken for radiocarbon dating and environmental analysis. Further postexcavation analysis and fieldwork will be carried out in 2016.

CITiZAN in Yorkshire The coastline of Bridlington Bay acts as microcosm of coastal erosion seen across the United Kingdom. At the northern end of Auburn Sands, towards Bridlington Park and Ride, the anti-invasion defences have been subsumed by rows of large dunes that have buried the pillboxes under metres of sands. At the southern end of the Sands, the coastal defences are suffering from significant coastal erosion, which is particularly fierce in the area around Auburn Farm. Here the tide has eroded the low boulder clay cliffs that back the beach by over 40m, leaving the anti-invasion defences shattered and below the tide line, where once they would have stood on top or at the base of the cliffs. In the centre of the Sands, the level of the beach rises and falls on an almost yearly basis, and at times exposing the 1.5m high anti-tank cubes to their foundations, at times completely burying them. During the summer and early autumn CITiZAN worked on the anti-invasion defences that ring Bridlington Bay, recording new information about the defences as it was uncovered by the tide, as well as leading several guided walks along them. The anti-invasion defences at Auburn Sands remain some of the best examples of their type in Britain, consisting of both isolated clusters of First World War pillboxes (Fig. 2), some later pressed into service during the 1940s, and the more integrated defences of the Second World War. The defences from the Second World War are particularly impressive with rare surviving examples of in situ anti-glider posts, beach search-light batteries, barbed wire entanglements, anti-landing scaffolding and a pillbox design unique to the Yorkshire coast, amongst other obstacles that invaders would have had to overcome. The Second World War structures were first recorded archaeologically during the Defence of Britain Project (e.g. Lowry 1996) and more systematically surveyed during the regional Rapid Coastal Zone Assessment (Brigham et al. 2008), which also identified the presence of the First World War defences. During the guided walks and recording visits carried out by CITiZAN, several previously unidentified features were noted. While conducting a recording visit in early May, several instances of contemporary graffiti were identified on a row of anti-tank cubes (Fig. 3). A total of two sets of initials were recorded on monument 21020 (NGR TA 17080 63755), a north-south orientated row of cubes, approximately 60 in total. The initials â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;WDPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; appear once,

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

Volume 4 | 2015

Figure 2

A First World War pillbox with recut embrasures and the addition of aerial camouflage for service during the Second World War.

Figure 3

Contemporary graffiti drawn into the top of an anti-tank cube as they were completed.

Figure 4

Members of a guided walk inspect earwig villa and the anti-tank wall it had slipped into.

Figure 5

An eared pillbox destroyed by coastal erosion, the outline of its walls can be seen in the top of the foundation.

while the initials ‘GD’ appear twice, the second time accompanied by the date 1941. This confirms the long-held belief that the coastal defences were built in two phases, with contemporary aerial photographs showing the anti-tank wall and pill boxes having been constructed by the winter of 1940, with the anti-tank cubes being added some months later. Further down the beach, to the south of the anti-tank cubes, we were able to shed light on how the anti-tank wall associated with the pillbox known as ‘earwig villa’ (21027, NGR TA 17033 63347) was constructed. The pillbox is named after more contemporary graffiti, presumably commemorating the original inhabitants of the pillbox! Pillbox 21027 originally stood on top of a low cliff which had been eroded, leading to the pillbox sliding onto the beach and coming to rest against an anti-tank wall originally built below, damaging the wall and exposing the reinforcing bars at its centre (Fig. 4). During a guided walk in July the reinforcing bars were identified as barbed wire entanglement obstructions, with their distinctive spiral ends visibly protruding from the wall. During our final visit to the area in 2015 an unrecorded pillbox was identified. Coastal erosion has left the pillbox and its foundations sitting proud on the beach, where the seaward side of the foundation was scoured out by the tide, tipping the pillbox forward and cracking it in half. Eventually the pillbox’s wall collapsed and tumbled onto the sand around the base of the foundation. On previous visits to the area, the seaward side of the structure had been surrounded by sand. However, during October’s visit, the sand had been washed clear exposing the foundation’s crown. Preserved in the top of the foundation was a perfect outline of an eared pillbox (Fig. 5).

Communities in Action The archaeological record of Auburn Sands is not restricted to 20th-century anti-invasion defences. Several deserted medieval villages are preserved in the farmland behind the beach, while finds of Bronze Age flints and Roman pottery from the surface of the beach during our visits are a constant reminder of the presence of earlier archaeological activity eroding out of the cliffs. This constant erosion means that although Auburn Sands has been systematically surveyed on several occasions in the last 20 years the potential for new archaeological discoveries to be made is considerable. This situation is the same across the whole of the English coast, which is why the CITiZAN project was conceived.

CITiZAN in 2016 The first outreach talk and training session that we undertook in the north of England was for the East Riding Archaeological Society and we hope to continue this fruitful relationship in 2016, when we will be visiting Spurn Head to monitor the erosion of the First, Second and Cold War archaeology spread across the headland, and to provide smart phone app training. Having begun our programme of youth group engagement with the Filey Girl Guides in June, we intend to continue this throughout Yorkshire starting with the York and Leeds branches of the Young Archaeologists’ Clubs over the coming year.

Figure 6

Vessel remains at Earle’s Shipyard on the River Humber: CITiZAN plans to record the site in 2016.

In 2016 we are planning to carry out more work at Auburn Sands, where we intend to survey the newly identified pillbox and hope to investigate a smaller, inverted concrete structure. An initial examination of this feature with the Home Front Legacy project (one of our sister schemes based at the Council for British Archaeology) suggests that it is constructed from concrete too thin to be a World War Two structure, indicating that it may be a partially buried, upside down First World War Pillbox. Further afield in Yorkshire, we plan to record the remains of Earle’s Shipyard on the edge of the former Victoria Docks located on the banks of the River Humber (Fig. 6), where there are the remains of jetties, slipways and hards. There are also the remnants of three boats, one of which has been built into the coastal defences of the Humber, while the remaining boats appear to have been abandoned after the closure of the docks in 1932. These two boats were partially recorded in the late 20th century as part of an earlier community archaeology project and we hope to complete the recording and monitor the effects of erosion on the boats over the intervening years. We also intend to investigate an ambiguous timber structure eroding out of the prehistoric peatshelf at North Ferriby. Across the three years of our current funding programme, CITiZAN is organising three conferences on intertidal archaeology, each based in one of the Projects three regions. This year’s conference was held at Bridlington in October; the 2016 conference is being hosted by the Southwest team. If you are interested in attending the conference or joining us on the foreshore to investigate some of Yorkshire’s wonderful intertidal archaeology, please see our website for more details. We look forward to seeing you on the beach in 2016. References Brigham, T. 2014. Rapid Coastal Zone Assessment, Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, project overview, thematic discussion of selected aspects. English Heritage project number 379. Kingston-upon-Hull: Humber Archaeology Report 422. Brigham, T., Buglass, J. and George, R. 2008. Rapid coastal zone assessment: Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, Bempton to Donna Nook. Kingstonupon-Hull: Humber Archaeology. English Heritage Report 235. Lowry, B. (ed.) 1996 (Reprinted 1998). 20th Century defences in Britain: An introductory guide. York: Council for British Archaeology Report 112.

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

Volume 4 | 2015

The Hanging Grimston Community Archaeology Project Marcus Jecock†, Steve Bence, Christopher Hall and Trevor Pearson Corresponding author† Historic England, 37 Tanner Row, York YO1 6WP marcus.jecock@historicengland.org.uk Keywords

Iron Age, Romano-British, Ladder settlement, Medieval, Deserted village, Community archaeology

The Hanging Grimston Community Archaeology Project is a joint venture of the High Wolds Heritage Group and Scarborough Archaeological and Historical Society. Its principal aim is to test, mainly through excavation, ideas derived from recent earthwork and geophysical surveys about the phasing and history of medieval and earlier settlement remains at Hanging Grimston – a deserted village on the western scarp edge of the Yorkshire Wolds, just north of Garrowby Hill. The site is a scheduled ancient monument (National Heritage List for England 1019093).

Introduction and background The project has had a long gestation. In 2009 Mr Ian Grice, the tenant of Mount Pleasant Farm, which is now the sole occupied property on the site, made an application to Natural England under their Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) scheme. A normal part of accepting heritage sites into HLS is the commissioning of earthwork and geophysical surveys to inform management and public interpretation. Due to Government spending cuts, however, Natural England waived their normal requirements and Historic England stepped in to fund the earthwork survey element. The survey was carried out by the Archaeological Services arm of the West Yorkshire Archaeological Service (ASWYAS). The brief included the requirement to check for additional earthwork survival in adjacent pasture fields. The fieldwork, undertaken in 2011, duly identified a previously unrecognised block of village house sites surviving as slight earthworks to the south of the already scheduled area. Other findings included the identification of the earthworks of a late C-shaped building (termed ‘Farmstead 1’) overlying the village remains east of the main hollow way. The survey also restated a previous suggestion that earthworks within the scheduled area at the northern end of the village are those of a manorial enclosure (Pollington 2012a). Concurrently, the High Wolds Heritage Group (HWHG), a local heritage society, prepared a bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) to fund a community archaeology project to carry out further investigation of the site. HWHG had no prior experience of archaeological fieldwork, and the original vision comprised training its members in geophysical survey, fieldwalking of nearby ploughed areas and small-scale, targeted, excavation, to produce a fuller understanding of the site’s history and development for both lay and academic audiences. An additional objective was the production of interpretation panels to be placed on public highways and footpaths that cross the site. Unfortunately, the bid to HLF was unsuccessful. Towards the end of 2011, however, HWHG were informed that monies were available to fund a professional geophysical survey through the LEADER Coast, Wolds, Wetlands and Waterways Programme. This was carried out, again by ASWYAS, early in 2012. The results complemented and enhanced the earthwork survey, but also identified earlier buried features underlying the medieval village and fields. These were interpreted as a series of ditched enclosures and other anomalies (pits, etc.) belonging to one or more presumed late Iron Age / early Romano-British ‘ladder settlements’ (Harrison 2012). A summary of the archaeological work carried out by ASWYAS up to 2012 was published shortly after (Pollington 2012b). Following the failure of the HLF bid, HWHG began to explore other ways of investigating the site and testing the ideas and conclusions of the existing surveys. It was at this stage that the Scarborough Archaeological and Historical Society (SAHS) were invited to collaborate on the project as they were able to contribute excavation expertise and equipment as well as being willing to share costs, and accordingly the Hanging Grimston Community Archaeology Project proper was born. The first

Communities in Action season of excavation took place over a twoweek period in summer 2015 under the direction of the author, with anything up to 25 HWHG and SAHS members on site on any one day, many of the former gaining their first taste of archaeological excavation.

Excavation Four out of a planned five trenches were opened, although in the time available none could be excavated completely down to natural substrate. Where major stone walls were encountered, these have so far been left in situ and so none is yet securely dated. Trench 1 was located over the terminal of one of the ditches identified in the geophysics. Sherds of late Iron Age and Romano-British pottery, several of substantial size, were recovered, supporting the interpretation of the buried features as parts of ploughed-out ladder settlements. Trench 2 was opened to explore what appeared from surface evidence to be the ruined boundary wall of the large, subrectilinear enclosure (probably manorial) at the north end of the village. Excavation showed that within the area of the trench the boundary wall, if it ever existed, had been completely robbed away. However, an unsuspected but well-preserved buttressed wall was located at the north-western corner of the trench (Fig. 1). This lies within the enclosureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s interior and at right angles to its perimeter. It is currently interpreted either as part of a building or the revetment of a building platform terraced into the hillside, which here slopes down steeply to the south.

Figure 1

Buttressed wall in trench 2 (C. Hall).

Figure 2

Plan view of dovecote wall in trench 3 (C. Hall).

Trench 3 was opened to investigate a penannular earthwork in the northern half of the enclosure. A curving stone wall, some 0.9m wide and standing several courses high beneath rubble, was duly located. Finds have yet to be properly analysed, but mostly comprise the bones of small animals, including birds. Since the bones come from the robbing and collapse of the structure they are perhaps unlikely to relate directly to its original function, but the feature is currently interpreted as a medieval dovecote, largely on the basis of its circular plan (Fig. 2). Trench 5 was positioned to explore the C-shaped building that earthwork evidence suggested overlies, and therefore postdates, the medieval village. As in trench 2, excavation indicated that much of what had been interpreted from earthwork evidence as buried wall lines was rather debris left by the act of robbing out stone following the buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s disuse. The footings of a wall not indicated in the earthworks were revealed, low down, at right angles to the robbed wall, but further excavation is required to determine if this is part of the C-shaped building or evidence of an earlier structure.

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

Volume 4 | 2015

Future work It is planned to continue the excavations in the summer of 2016. Acknowledgements The project would like to thank Mr Ian Grice, the tenant farmer, the landowner (The Halifax Estate), Historic England and Natural England for permission to excavate. The dig was funded in part through the Council of British Archaeologyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Mick Aston Fund. References Harrison, S. 2012. Hanging Grimston Deserted Medieval Settlement, North Yorkshire: Geophysical Survey. Archaeological Services WYAS: Unpublished report 2416. Pollington, M. 2012a. Hanging Grimston Deserted Medieval Settlement, North Yorkshire: Archaeological Survey and Investigation. Archaeological Services WYAS: Unpublished report 2308. Pollington, M. 2012b. Questioning Medieval Settlement Desertion in the Wolds. Medieval Archaeology 56, 323â&#x20AC;&#x201C;329.

Communities in Action

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

Volume 4 | 2015

Upper Wharfedale Heritage Group and The Kilnsey Project: History from Vernacular Buildings Alison C. Armstrong Corresponding author Organisation Upper Wharfedale Heritage Group alisoncarmstrong@yahoo.co.uk Keywords

Late monastic, Post-medieval, Vernacular buildings, Kilnsey, Wharfedale

In 2014 members of Upper Wharfedale Heritage Group (UWHG) began a new project examining the township of Kilnsey in Wharfedale, in the Yorkshire Dales National Park. Vernacular buildings, probably one of the least investigated historical resources, form a prominent feature of the built landscape today and a start was made to record an identified 38 standing structures, most of which are barns rather than dwellings. The aims were to find evidence of rebuilding in the 17th century – a building phase seen throughout England – and to look for structural evidence of the older buildings they replaced, such as reused timber or older walling. So far, the buildings reveal a complexity that will only be fully understood when all the surveys are completed and analysed, but some initial examples are given here.

Introduction Kilnsey, in Craven, is well-known for its impressive over-hanging limestone crag framing a tiny hamlet built around a green. From the mid-12th century until the Dissolution, Kilnsey was an important grange of Fountains Abbey, situated on the eastern edge of the Abbey’s extensive sheep-grazing estates in the uplands of Craven (Coppack 2003). UWHG has been involved in surveys and excavations in the township for some years and the richness of the multi-phase landscape is clear. However, the vernacular houses and barns have not received much attention, although experts have dated the Old Hall gatehouse as possibly 14th or even 17th century. The investigation involved measured-survey drawings, at scale 1:100, as a method of collecting and recording the evidence from buildings. Funding for dendrochronology may be sought at a later date. Alongside building surveys, another UWHG team is transcribing Kilnsey documents from Yorkshire archives.

Some Kilnsey buildings Kilnsey’s vernacular buildings can be broadly grouped into three types. Firstly, there are dwelling houses, although one of these is a former lead smelting mill of 18th and 19th-century date, converted to residential use in c. 1910. Secondly, there are small field barns situated in distant meadows, where cows were over-wintered in shippons (cowhouses) with their hay fodder filling the loft and hay mew. Thirdly, there are larger, dual-purpose barns of five bays in length, built near a farmhouse and which include a cart entry and possible threshing floor as well as shippons and hay storage. Dwelling houses include the former monastic farms of North Cote and Chapel House (Whitaker 1812). North Cote housed ‘a ewe flock’ and ‘the Abbots sheep’ in 1456 (Walbran 1923) and Thomas Ward had a large house here with six hearths recorded in the Hearth Tax of 1672/3. This building was mostly demolished in the 19th century but maps indicate it had a Ushape arrangement suggesting a plan with a central hall or housebody and a wing at each end. Today only the 17th-century south wing remains (Fig. 1), along with a passage and some thick walls embedded in 19th-century modifications to the north. These features may mark the cross passage site, separating hall and wing. Kilnsey Old Hall has a different plan and is a puzzling three-storey 17th-century house, which was thoroughly surveyed in 1995 when roofless (Ryder 2004). Interpretation is still far from clear. The doorhead datestone ‘CW 1648’ records the 17thcentury rebuilding by Christopher Wade, although the house retains a medieval plan in its first floor entry over a basement, suggesting a possible rebuilding of the monastic courthouse at Kilnsey. The courthouse, where Fountains Abbey conducted the business of the manorial estates it had inherited in Craven, had walls still standing in 1598 (Whitaker 1812).

Communities in Action Further down the green is Crag Cottage of three linear bays and with a lobby entry beside the chimneystack. The mullioned windows and an arched fireplace are 17th century, but with some evidence that dressed stonework had been cut down and re-used to fit the spaces. The lower parts of two roof trusses were visible upstairs, where small wall posts and a stub tie beam might suggest a 15th-century roof reused. Also on the green, and facing east onto the main road up the dale, is the Tennant Arms public house of late 18th-century date with an added mid19th century hotel block. The southerly end of the frontage, however, exhibits some blocked-up earlier windows, a boulder plinth and a straight joint marking the end of an earlier building. Around the corner, on the south side (Fig. 2), the building is viewed from the green and exhibits a very different facade incorporating a 17th-century house, with a former housebody or hall in the centre and gabled wings at each side. The original 17th-century entry door is now blocked up but once formed a lobby entry beside the fireplace, as at Crag Cottage. Inside, the lobby fireplace no longer remains but part of a large, arched, stone fireplace, now placed in the public toilets in the upper wing, may well be part of it.

Figure 1

North Cote: the surviving 17th century south wing of the house.

Field barns, also called â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;field housesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; which are dotted about in distant meadows, are part of the postmonastic farming regime in the Dales, Figure 2 Tennant Arms: a 17th-century house is incorporated into the south side of a later when cow-keeping, milk and hay public house. production became a major part of the rural economy. Cows were over-wintered in the barn along with their hay fodder cut from the surrounding meadows. In summer, as the meadow grass grew, cows were moved up to the higher pastures. So far, surveys reveal that most field barns have been enlarged, reflecting periods of farming intensification and increased grass yields. Outgang Laithe, set in Outgang Meadow, is one of the highest barns, at 260m OD, and stands on the edge of extensive earlier earthworks. It began as a threebay building running down the hillside from west to east. There are some re-used cruck blades, quoins of limestone rather than sandstone, low and steep eaves for a thatched roof and a substantial boulder plinth, all indicating a former cruck-built barn of pre-1600 date. Further shippons were added to the south side. The low-end shippon was widened first, probably about 1700 with a fine wide-chamfered doorway, and the building received a heightened roof of sandstone flags, perhaps sourced from the 34

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

Figure 3

Volume 4 | 2015

Outgang Laithe: field drawing of the east gable showing four walling phases. [A] Barn with low eaves; [B] Extension with stone roof; [C] Shippon added c. 1720; [D] Roof heightened 1807.

Hard Rake or Bycliffe quarries across the dale. The addition gave standings for two more cows as well as a cart door. A little later, probably c. 1730, a further shippon was added to the south frontage with good chamfered stone doorways enclosing the porch. A major extension was added in 1807. This date is inscribed, and later emphasized with carpenter’s red chalk, on a roof truss made largely from imported Baltic timber but which incorporates some pieces from the older roof of about 1700. For this extension, the old west gable was demolished and a whole new end bay added to the upper end of both the original barn and 18th-century shippon. These phases can be seen on the east gable (Fig. 3). The overall number of over-wintered cow standings had thus increased from the original five or six to around 17. Heightening and extending is seen in other field barns. Renard Close Laithe, built at the edge of its meadow close, has documentary evidence for a 16th-century date. In 1582 James Rayner acquired the field closes here (Pacey 2015). One close already included ‘a house standing’ which is likely to be this building, with the field close now named after Rayner. In 1665 Cuthbert Wade had bought the Rayner property and must have set about modifying the old thatched cruck barn by heightening and adding a stone flag roof. ‘CW 1667’ is inscribed over the foddergang door. Wade seems to have made use of the old ashwood cruck blades and purlins for two new roof trusses (Fig. 4). The lap joint carpentry on four re-used cruck blades and some cruck purlins is well seen and the cruck structure fits

Figure 4

Renard Close Laithe: former cruck blades re-used in new roof trusses of 1667.

Communities in Action the dimensions and form of others measured in the Craven area (Armstrong and Pacey 2000). A number of documentary references in Wharfedale show that old timbers were often re-used on site in rebuilds of the 17th and 18th centuries. In nearby Cracoe, crucks of both ash and oak timber are recorded in 16th-century accounts for building new cruck barns and houses (YAS Skipton Castle Records 1557). Unfortunately ash, which is the main hardwood tree of the Craven Dales, is not yet dateable by dendrochronology. Jackson Close Laithe is a ruin that stands amongst the ridge and furrow of the former open field of Coulterlands, enclosed sometime before 1636 (Pacey 2015). The shippon lintel inscription Figure 5 High Laithe: the rear west wall with building phases. ‘LH 1715’ marks an addition to an older barn housing five or six cows. The earliest walling has a massive boulder plinth, as seen in other older barns, but here with some unusual walling above. This incorporates regular blocks of tufa between sandstone flag courses. Tufa is a calcareous deposit formed in watercourses in the area but, curiously, cut blocks of it are scattered around Kilnsey hamlet and are even seen recycled in 19th century rebuilding. John Jackson, ‘a waller’ in the early 17th century, was associated with this property and could have been recycling older building materials (Pacey 2015). A very weathered timber, which still lies over the porch, is re-used and retains brace mortices and pegholes. Measured drawing interprets this as a possible post with braces from a timber-framed building. Of the larger barns with cart entrances, two are of particular interest for their re-used timbers and earlier walling phases. The five-bay High Laithe near Chapel House (a former monastic farm) has stonework showing at least three phases of heightening (Fig. 5). Whilst the frontage has 18th-century features, such as the large cart arch and porch, the rear wall retains a massive plinth and lower walling of boulders whilst above there is some rather well-coursed walling reaching to a former low roofline for thatch. Evidence of low, steep-pitched, thatched roofs, probably of pre-1600 date, is not unusual in Craven as records of the Yorkshire Vernacular Buildings Study Group show. There are some regular vertical joints too, combined with unusual indentations through the wall. This is also seen at Scar Laithe and these features probably mark where full cruck blades and padstones have been pulled out of the wall during later rebuilding. Some oak cruck blades have been re-used inside, but the rectangular barn plan indicates the footprint of a rather large cruck barn, possibly of late monastic date. Recent dendrochronology of re-used oak crucks in nearby townships has produced late monastic felling dates of 1527 and around 1508 (Alcock and Tyers 2014) and perhaps that would apply here. The lack of any door entrances might suggest a storage barn rather than a barn with cow shippons. The building was heightened in the 17th or 18th century when the crucks were probably pulled out of the wall and a stone roof replaced thatch. The final phase came in 1840, a date inscribed on one of the 19th-century queen strut roof trusses, when the roof was heightened again, this time with masoned sandstone quoins on the exterior. The queen strut trusses are of Baltic timber that would have come by canal from the Humber to Leeds and, after 1777, to Skipton. A Baltic ‘shipping mark’ is inscribed on one timber. Scar Laithe, also of five bays, is another larger barn and stands on the flat riverside fields that were once part of the medieval open arable strips under the towering Kilnsey Crag (Fig. 6). Like High Laithe, this barn has a prominent boulder plinth with some vertical joints as well as phases of heightening from original low eaves. Inside, the four roof trusses are of a style common around 1700 but incorporate very large re-used cruck blades and cruck purlins, all of good quality oak, with characteristic lap joints. Recent dendrochronology has demonstrated that these are likely to date from before 1539 (Alcock and Tyers 2014). The 36

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

Figure 6

Volume 4 | 2015

Scar Laithe: field drawing showing the north wall and building phases. This elevation is now obscured by a lean-to shed.

Fountains Abbey leases (Michelmore 1981) record that the Abbey often supplied ‘large timber’ and that Kilnsey also had managed woodlands. Oak, however, does not thrive on limestone and it is possible that timber came from Nidderdale or perhaps from the Forest of Barden. Two re-used straight timbers, 7m long, have elaborate carpenter’s construction markings reaching numbers as high as ‘9’, which are formed from inscribed dots as well as chiselled Roman numerals. These are not unlike the construction markings seen in the Great Barn at Bolton Priory, where dendrochronology gave felling dates of 1517/18. In Kilnsey, there are documentary references to a ‘great barn’ amongst the fields below the crag that survived into the 17th century and the building survey reflects this as a former cruck barn. In 1622 Cuthbert Wade owned the north end of the ‘great barn’ (Pacey 2015). The name ‘great barn’ was also applied to a large surviving building on Sawley Abbey’s farm at Winskill in Langcliffe. It too had been divided into two occupancies in the 16th century, as is suggested at Kilnsey and also contained reused cruck timbers with lap joints (YVBSG 2002). In 1656 Wade bought further land under the scar at Kilnsey including fields near ‘two great barns at the west end of the highway leading under the scar’ (Pacey 2015). By 1664 Wade owned other land here including that ‘above two great barns of Cuthbert Wade abutting the highway leading under the scar.’ This highway, from Skirfare Bridge to Conistone, dates back to a charter of about 1156 (Farrer and Clay 1914). By 1674 the great barn was named ‘the new barn’ and perhaps this gives a date for the heightened walls and four tie beam trusses re-worked from timber salvaged from the old ‘great barn’. Only dendrochronology can confirm a date for the re-used oak timbers found in Kilnsey township but Scar Laithe would certainly be one candidate for a late monastic felling date. In conclusion, intensive recording of every standing building in Kilnsey township is not yet complete but this work, combined with the survival of the remarkable deeds, has had some unexpected results and has shown clues to the fascinating transitional phase of buildings and fields from medieval and monastic to private ownership. Archives Archives are currently held by UWHG. Acknowledgements UWHG is grateful to the people of Kilnsey who have supported the research and allowed access into private property for recording, especially Nicholas Carlisle, Mark Facer, Anthony and Jamie Roberts (Kilnsey Park Estate) and Mr and Mrs D. Harrison. Arnold Pacey has generously allowed permission to include unpublished transcriptions of Kilnsey deeds now housed in the Yorkshire Archaeological Society collection in the Brotherton Library, University of Leeds. References Alcock, N. and Tyers, C . (eds.) 2014. Tree-ring dates list 2014. Vernacular Architecture 45. Armstrong, A. and Pacey, A. 2000. Cruck buildings of the Central Pennines. Yorkshire Building 28. Coppack, G., 2003. Fountains Abbey: The Cistercians in Northern England. Stroud: Tempus.

Communities in Action Farrer, W. and Clay, C.T. 1914. Early Yorkshire Charters, Vol 7. The Honour of Skipton. YAS Record Series, Extra Series. Leeds: Yorkshire Archaeological Society (YAS). Michelmore, D.J.H. 1981. The Fountains Abbey Leasebook. YAS Record Series, Vol CXL. Leeds: Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Pacey, A. 2015. Kilnsey deeds from YAS MD 247. Deeds relating mainly to Kilnsey. Unpublished transcriptions. Ryder, P.F. 2004. Kilnsey Old hall. Archaeology and Historic landscapes of the Yorkshire Dales . Yorkshire Archaeological Society Occasional Paper No. 2. Leeds. Walbran, J.R . (ed.) 1923. Memorials of the Abbey of St Mary of Fountains. Vol 1, Surtees Society. Whitaker, T.D. 1812. History and Antiquities of the Deanery of Craven. London: Nichols. Yorkshire Archaeological Society (YAS). DD/121/31. Skipton Castle Records. Two surveys of Cracoe 1557. Leeds. Yorkshire Vernacular Buildings Study Group (YVBSG) 2002. Report no. 1625. Lower Winskill Farm, Langcliffe.

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

Volume 4 | 2015

Nidderdale Chase Heritage Group: The Ashelby Pasture Project 2015 interim report Marie-Anne Hintze† and Janis Heward Corresponding author† Nidderdale Chase Heritage Group majhintze@yahoo.co.uk Keywords

Nidderdale, Post-monastic, Agricultural heritage, Stone uses, Walls and floors

At the conclusion of the first phase of work, the Nidderdale Chase Heritage Group reported on the early stages of the Ashelby Pasture Project (see Hintze and Heward 2014). The excavation of earthworks situated on the north-eastern slope of the valley of the river Nidd overlooking Gouthwaite reservoir confirmed the existence of a hitherto unrecorded structure in this location. It also confirmed that the footprint of the structure was larger than suggested by the visible earthworks although no firm evidence of its nature, function or date was found at that time. A second phase of excavation commenced in the spring of 2015. This has made it clear that the structure is larger yet. The layout and survival of internal features also indicate a multifunctional and multiphase structure. Furthermore, floor surfaces, internal structures and several courses of walling survive in many areas. They have since been subjected to close scrutiny in order to determine the method of construction and the relationship between the different areas of the building.

Introduction In the spring of 2015, having been successful in securing further funding, the Nidderdale Chase Heritage Group resumed the excavation of the remains of a long narrow structure situated on a cut and fill platform overlooking Gouthwaite Reservoir. Earlier work had determined the existence of three subdivisions within the structure but the south-east wall remained elusive. The plan was to open up the whole site if possible, one bay at a time, in order to ascertain the total occupation surface, determine if any wall footings could be identified, and confirm the existence and characteristics of any possible surviving floor surfaces.1

Site history The site sits in what is now an agricultural landscape in the parish of Fountains Earth above an area of improved grassland on the lower slopes of the north-east side of the valley of the Nidd. It is documented as forming part of the lands granted to Fountains Abbey in 1175 by Roger de Mowbray on which the Abbey developed a succession of dairy granges. The presentday field formed part of the grange of East Holme, which lay lower down the slope between the granges of Sigsworth and West Holme. By the 18th century the Yorke family had added most of the former monastic lands in Fountains Earth to their existing estates in Nidderdale. Surviving tenancy records going back to the later 18th century do not mention a structure in this location. However, the pasture of 18 hectares in which it stood is named as Ashelby Pasture. The name of the project derives from this old field name.

Site geology The geology of the Nidd Valley, dominated as it is by strata of the Millstone Grit Series, has for centuries provided a source of building materials: high quality building stone; flagstones; roofing slates; and bakestones (Lucas 1892; Blacker 1996). William Grainge, writing at a time when a thriving stone industry existed in Nidderdale, commented in 1863 on the wealth of building materials in the area. There are no longer any working quarries in the immediate vicinity – most of the larger 19th-century quarries relating to an industrial use of stone closed in the early 20th century. However, given the quality of the stone and its 1 The term Cell was used in the previous report (Hintze and Heward 2014) but has since been replaced by the term Bay to describe the subdivisions of the structure.

Communities in Action

Figure 1

Site plan.

ready availability, it is likely that in the past, local stone was taken for various building purposes from small early quarries or even through the direct exploitation of outcrops of Brimham grit (Everett 2012, 6). In the light of this, as we uncovered more of our structure, we decided to pay particular attention to recording the surviving walls, floors and other stone built internal features.

Bays, walls and floors Bays The long narrow building lies on a north-west / south-east line. Its current extent is judged to be L 22m x W 4.1m at the north end. Four cells or bays have been exposed so far which, as illustrated on the site plan (Fig. 1), are numbered 1 to 4. The walls defining these are identified by letters: the outer walls are A, B and C; the inner dividing walls are D, E and F. Bay 1 is situated at the north-west end of the structure. It is defined by three external walls A, B, C, and by wall D, which separates it from Bay 2 as an internal dividing wall not tied in to the external Wall C. Bay 2 is bounded by outer walls B and C, and by D and E which are internal dividing walls. Bay 3 is bounded by outer walls B and C, and dividing walls E and F. Bay 4 is contained by walls B, C, and F. The internal dimensions of the bays, and the height and width of the surviving walls, are summarised in Table 1. External walls The walls are built of randomly coursed, locally available sandstone, being mainly Libishaw Sandstone and Lower and Upper Brimham Grit. Most of the building stones have been roughly hammer-dressed. This gives a rectangular face to the stones on the part that is visible. The sides, top and bottom are then tapered into the wall where the stone can be locked into position by the use of wedge-shaped infill stones. No more than four courses at the maximum have survived and, in most cases, only one. Aside from wall C, the other walls are 0.8m wide, built with an outer and inner skin and the cavity between infilled with small stones and rubble. Wall A runs in a north / south direction. It survives to a height of between 0.15m and 0.5m where it meets Wall C to form the corner of Bay 1. Wall A is not tied in with Wall C but merely abuts it.

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire Table 1

Volume 4 | 2015

Wall data. Bay

Wall

Length (m)

Width (m)

Height (m)

A B C D

4.1 4.1 4.6 4.2

0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

0.15 to 0.5 up to 0.2 0.3 up to 0.2

B C D E

1.6 1.5 4.3 4.2

0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

0.3 0.2 up to 0.2 0.3

B C E F

4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2

0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

0.2 0.8 to 1.25 1.0 0.25 to 0.35

B C F

5.2 5.2 4.2

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.7 1.0 0.2

Wall B is shared by all bays and runs along the full extent of the structure. Its exact length cannot be determined yet as the location of an end gable wall is not confirmed. Its height varies from ground level to 0.22m in Bays 1 and 2. In Bay 3 the wall is 0.2m in height and in Bay 4 the surviving walling reaches 0.7m (Fig. 2). In Bay 1, Wall B is double skinned with rubble infill and survives to a height of one course. In Bay 2 a straight joint is clearly visible as it abuts Wall E but otherwise it is constructed in the same manner as in Bay 1. In Bay 3 the wall is double skinned and consists of large stones. On the inside, the height of the wall is greater from the floor surface to the wall top than it is on the outside. The majority of the stone used in the construction of the walls are large blocks, roughly dressed to produce one or more flat surfaces to aid construction. At the junction between Walls B and E, and forming a second course, is a very large worked boulder L 1.5m x W 0.7m x H 0.45m, levelled at the northern side using flagstones. Using the acqua-calc formula for converting volume to weight (see References), the stone is estimated to weigh 1161.5 kg. In Bay 4 this wall is single skinned and is composed of four large, dressed stones, which make up the full thickness of the wall. Wall C, which forms the eastern elevation of the building, is a retaining wall supporting a steep earth bank. Apart from two stones on the northern outer corner in Bay 1, we have exposed a single skin wall 30cm wide, which extends through Bays 2, 3 and 4. Owing to its fragile condition only the internal face has been exposed. The height of the wall is 0.8m until it abuts Feature (c), described below (WS[B3]008) where two rows of six stones protrude from the hillside above the feature, providing evidence of a higher wall. At this point the height is 1.25m. This wall shows evidence of lime mortar as pointing in the gaps between the stones on the inner surface of the wall. In Bay 4, Wall C is 1m in height. This close examination of the walls makes it apparent that the different elements of the building are not perfectly aligned on the structure or tied in together and that, although all bays share Wall B, none of the walls share the same building technique. Floor surfaces In Bay 1 a paved floor surface (Fig. 3) under a thin layer of rubble had been exposed earlier (see Hintze and Heward 2014). The floor surface is divided into three areas by the use of different forms of hard standing. One area is formed by narrow millstone grit setts covering an irregular area 4m x 1.6m and 3.3m x 1.4m. At the northern end, and extending about one third of the way down, the setts are noticeably larger in size and randomly placed. Below these, the setts are narrower more tightly fitted against each other and carefully aligned east/west. At the base of the area of pitched setts sit three large settle stones. These are roughly dressed to a rectangular shape and uniform in size: approximately L 0.5m x W 0.15m standing 0.1m above the floor level. To the east, a narrow channel (L 3.3m x W 0.2m) runs parallel to Wall A and separates the area of setts from the next which is paved with smooth river cobbles. The area is shaped like an irregular parallelogram, from the dividing channel

Communities in Action to the end of the cobbled surface, being L 3.5m x W 2m along wall C and L 3.26m x W 1.8m where the cobbles meet the second row of settle stones which lie below them. The cobbles vary in size from 0.05m to 0.2m, the majority being sandstone and oval in shape. Again, they appear to be better matched in size and placed more carefully along the edge of the channel, and towards the lower two thirds of the area. There are five settle stones placed in a slightly offset position in relation to the settle stones of the area of setts. They are also smaller, more irregularly shaped, and less obviously matched in size ranging from L 0.25m x W 0.1m to L 0.4m x W 0.16m. They stand 0.18m above the floor surface. At the base of the cobbled area, next to the end of the row of settle stones, a square stone (0.33m) was found with a rebate cut into it (L 0.1m x W 0.15m x H 0.04m). The third area, extending below the setts and cobbles, is almost completely paved with flagstones. It measures L 3.3m x W 1.6m alongside wall A. At the point where the flagstones end, the flagged area is 2m wide. The flagstones are of fairly similar size, L 0.4m x W 0.7m. They are laid edge to edge to form an even floor surface with one row laid east to west under the settle stones. Below that, the stones are laid at different angles to compensate for their less regular shape. The remaining strip up to dividing Wall D of the floor surface of Bay 1 is unpaved and may have been robbed out. Wall B contains a large threshold stone (1.25m x 0.33m) into which two rebates have been cut at either end to form a slot for the bases of timber uprights, or door jambs. This provides direct access from Bay 1 to the outside of the structure.

Figure 2

Bay 4 wall B. Scale: 2m.

Figure 3

Bay 1 floors.

Bay 2 is separated from Bay 1 by Wall D, which was uncovered unexpectedly during excavation as its presence was not apparent from the surviving earthworks. The floor surface consists of compacted humic earth with a 25% scattering of surface angular stones < 40mm throughout this small bay. Wall D has no footings and is built onto the earth at floor level. There is a 0.6m gap between the end of Wall D and Wall C but with no evidence of a threshold stone there. Abutting Wall D, two sondages were excavated in an attempt to locate (a) a floor surface and (b) lower wall courses; neither was found. Leading into Bay 3 from Bay 2 a threshold stone, also with two rebates cut into each extremity, is inserted into a gap in the centre of Wall E. As noted earlier, a straight joint is clearly visible in Wall B as it abuts Wall E.

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

Volume 4 | 2015

In Bay 3 there is some slight suggestion of a flagged floor. In the north-east corner the ground surface is very compacted and may indicate an earthen floor. In the corner of Walls E and B a sondage revealed a line of five small stones < 70mm forming a level, suggesting they might have been spacer stones used to fill in the edges of a paved floor. It is possible that we have here an instance of an early earthen floor later covered in flags in an attempt to create a more level surface and make a living area easier to clean (Singman 1999). In Bay 3 a threshold stone at the west corner of internal Wall F provides access to Bay 4 via a small ‘lobby’ area, which has a lower floor level than Bays 3 and 4. The lobby is paved with large sandstone flags and is defined by two further threshold stones. To the west, one leads to the outside onto a flagged area L 1.5m x W 1.0m. To the south, another threshold stone leads into Bay 4. On the east, two long rectangular stones laid on edge (L 0.55m x W 0.2m x D 0.25m. and L 0.85m x W 0.2m x D 0.25m) separate the lobby from a flagged area at the north end of Bay 4, which surrounds an irregular-shaped hearth (Hearth_b on plan, Fig. 1). This arrangement suggests that the stone may form a support for a wooden partition or ‘heck’ as part of an inglenook fireplace. There are two very different floor surfaces in Bay 4. The first, around the hearth, consists of substantial rectangular flags measuring on average L 0.40m x W 0.14m x D 0.05m. All these flags are raised < 50mm above the remaining area of this bay which consists of finer, thinner flagstones 50% of which are broken. Against Wall E two stones form a short section of wall measuring L 1m x W 0.2m x H 0.2m. The face of these stones is concave. They are fixed against Wall E with mortar, providing a fire back for Hearth b. A third threshold stone within Bay 4, in the south eastern corner, gives access to a further area of which 70% of the floor surface is flagged. At present, with no firm evidence to suggest an end wall or partition in line with this threshold stone, the area between Wall F and the southern ‘end stone’ of Wall B currently measures 9.4m in length.

Internal stone features Two examples of internal stone-built features are to be found within Bay 3 (Fig. 4). The first is Feature (c) (WS[B3]008). At the east corner of Bay 3, against Walls C and F is a substantial stone-built feature. The north side of the feature is a solid wall of four stone courses and measures H 0.56m x L 1.0m overall. The centrally-placed alcove faces west and has a flagged back and base. The base slopes down slightly from back to front. A large flag of smooth sandstone rests over the top of the alcove. The gap between the flag and Wall C is loosely packed with undressed stone. The second feature is labelled Hearth_a on the Figure 4 Feature (c) and Hearth (a). plan (Fig. 1): Hearth (a) (WS[B3]009, WS[B3] 010). The hearth is at the south end of Bay 3, centrally set against Wall F between Feature (c) and the threshold stone. The hearth covers an area of 1m2. It consists of a raised area of three flags 0.05m high comprising medium-grained sandstone surrounding several rows of setts (L 0.2m x W 0.05m) placed in a crescent shape to make up the hearth. The chamfered edges suggest the hearthstones have been deliberately shaped. Two of these stones measuring L 0.5m x W 0.2m lie on either side of the central hearth and against Wall F. The third lies to the north and is L 1.0m x W 0.4m. Its position, somewhat out of line, suggests that it has been displaced. The orange / red colour of the setts may be due to exposure to heat.

Artefacts The number of artefacts recovered so far is in excess of 450. The majority are pottery sherds of varying thicknesses and colour. The site has also yielded a considerable number of glass finds of different types with many shards of very thin, clear flat glass, some thicker greenish flat shards 2mm thick, and also several clear white curved pieces suggesting a broken vessel or bottle. Two contrasting examples of pottery and one of glass are described below:

Communities in Action 



[AHG] Three sherds of very thin yellow-cream glazed pottery. The largest is the rim of a vessel. Just below the rim it is decorated with two brown spots, the size of a 5p coin, and a brown line. The smaller sherds are decorated with 1mm chocolate brown stripes and part of what could be a clover leaf. [AIK] A chunky sherd of low status terracotta pottery measuring L 68mm x W 50mm. It has a single glazed side of a striking yellow-green shade. A clearly defined ridge 6mm wide traverses the unglazed face. [APT] One of the larger glass artefacts was found tucked away under the edge of a large boulder. This shard of very dark olive green glass is roughly triangular in shape (L 90mm x W 70mm x H 100mm). It contains two large air bubbles (10mm). In profile, the piece is shaped somewhat like a backward ‘S’. The base curls over and is 4mm thick, tapering to 3mm to its broken edge. At the top of the curl, the glass is 10mm thick. On the inside surface, a crease in the glass suggests the point where a base for the vessel was formed using a pontil rod. This sherd represents 17.5% of a vessel, possibly a bottle 200mm in diameter (Fig.5).

Figure 5

Glass find [APT].

Further work It is hoped to continue work in 2016 on this fascinating building which, after 54 days of excavation over 26 months, has still not provided all the answers to our questions but has thrown up such a wealth of unexpected surviving detail. Acknowledgements Thanks are due firstly to the landowner Mr. T. Wheelwright for allowing the Nidderdale Chase Heritage Group (NCHG) access to his land, and to all members who have turned out diligently throughout the 24 months of the excavation, and to all the volunteers from local groups: 3D Archaeology Society, Upper Wharfedale Heritage Group and Iron Age Nidderdale who have taken part. We are grateful to those members of the group who have contributed material for this paper: E. Dent; D. Haida; MA. Hintze; P. Reinsch; S. Wilkins; P. Wilson; and to E. Hintze for his Map Maker plans of the excavation site. Dr Tim Burhill, Consultant Geologist, commented on the local geology and Jen Deadman, Historic Buildings Consultant, offered advice and insights into the interpretation of the building. Dr Peter Claughton conducted the geophysical survey of the site and its interpretation. The Friends of the Nidderdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Yorkshire Bank and the Vale of Nidd Masonic Lodge have generously provided funding during 2015. The Nidderdale Chase Heritage Group would also like to thank archaeologist Janis Heward for her guidance and support throughout this project. References Blacker, J.G. 1996. The Stone Industry of Nidderdale – Part 2, Stone Uses. British Mining 57, 5–33. Everett, S. 2012. Report on the Geology of the Wath Area for the Nidderdale Chase Heritage Group. Unpublished report. Hintze, M. and Heward, J. 2014. Nidderdale Chase Heritage Group: The Ashelby Pasture Project 2013-14 interim report. The Archaeological Forum Journal: CBA Yorkshire New Series 3, 89–94. Lucas, J. 1892. Studies in Nidderdale. London: Elliot Stock. Singman, J.L. 1999. Daily life in Medieval Europe. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Archival sources – Yorke Records. West Yorkshire Archive Service. Morley: Halton Place. Photographs and site plan – Nidderdale Chase Heritage Group. www.aqua-calc.com [Last accessed 15/12/2015].

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

Volume 4 | 2015

Identifying a Victorian Mortuary Chapel: Raikes Road Burial Ground, Skipton, 2015 interim excavation report Jean Robinson† and Janis Heward Corresponding author† Friends of Raikes Road Burial Ground (FRRBG) Jean10alice@aol.com† | janis.heward1@virginmedia.com Keywords

Skipton, Victorian cemetery, Mortuary chapel, Window glass

During 2014, work was undertaken as part of a Heritage Lottery-funded project on a building identified as a mortuary in the Raikes Road Burial Ground. The 1891 OS map of the area shows a second building at the cemetery, and along with a geophysical survey, suggests that it could be the mortuary chapel indicated on the map, although there is no evidence of it above ground. Further work was undertaken with volunteers over a two-day period in October 2015 in an attempt to locate the outer walls and foundations.

Introduction Raikes Road Burial Ground was a forgotten and neglected Victorian cemetery in Skipton, North Yorkshire until the Friends of Raikes Road Burial Ground Group (FRRBG) was formed in 2012 under the auspices of Skipton Town Council, who are responsible for its maintenance. Formed as an overspill burial ground from Skipton’s Parish Church, it is still consecrated ground with ownership vested in the incumbent Rector of the Church. The cemetery (0.4ha) was open between 1846 and 1876 and around 2000 people are buried there. No substantive records remain save for the Parish Register. There were two buildings on the site identified on maps – a chapel and a mortuary. Work from 2014 on the mortuary is detailed in Heward and Robinson (2014). So little is known of this cemetery that the name ‘Raikes Road Burial Ground’ is a modern construct: it was known variously in the past as ‘the Cemetery’; ‘The Rakes’ (sic); ‘the Higher Burial Ground’; ‘Skipton High Cemetery’; ‘The Higher Graveyard’; and, presumably after closure, as ‘The Old Cemetery’.

Background and history The chapel was opened when the cemetery was consecrated but the mortuary appeared between 1854 and 1857 on OS map 1891, possibly as a result of facilities elsewhere no longer being available. A Church of England chapel was used for funeral services in the cemetery prior to interment. Other denominations, notably Wesleyan Methodists, used the site as it was the parish ground, but are likely to have held services in their own chapel prior to interment at Raikes Road. Limited information shows that both buildings were demolished in 1933, when they were in ‘a ruinous condition’ (Skipton Town Council Year Book 1978, 6). Following the work in 2014 on the mortuary, further information became available suggesting that mortuaries, which were close to or within church / burial grounds had a change of use and became hearse houses. There is a strong suggestion that this occurred with the Raikes Road mortuary (J. Litton pers. comm. 2014). A photograph shows a gun carriage (during the funeral of Private Hutton 1912) on Raikes Road, including the door jambs on the exterior wall of the burial ground (Heward and Robinson 2014, 97). The Burial Act of 1854 suggested that new cemeteries should have a mortuary. The reason for this was that most dwellings did not have a room or space for a coffin to be kept at home between death and burial to separate the living from the dead (J. Litton pers. comm. 2014). Most funerals took place on a Sunday because this was the only day that families could come 45

Communities in Action together. If death occurred at the end of the week, then the funeral was often postponed until the Sunday of the following week (Fisher 2009, 4). It was not unusual for coffins to be left in houses for up to three weeks, forcing families to live and sleep in the same room. There was some thought that this could cause illness to the living. Embalming did not come into use until 1890 and was expensive, and so would not have been an option for the poor (Fisher 2009, 1). Chapels of Rest did not become the norm until the 1880s (Litton pers. comm. 2014). Dr Julian Litton considers it possible that the Skipton (subterranean) mortuary may be the only one – or the only one still in existence – in the UK. To date the group knows of only three mortuaries: Saltburn-by-the-Sea (Redcar and Cleveland) is situated across the road from the Ship Inn (former resting place of corpses fished out of the sea prior to burial). It has recently been purchased and may be turned into a museum; a partially submerged mortuary is situated on the edge of the village of Summerbridge (Nidderdale, North Yorkshire), a short distance from the former New York Mill (J. Hooper pers.comm. 2014); and another at Pannal, (Harrogate, North Yorkshire). This mortuary had a change of use and became a ‘little hearse house’ situated opposite the Parochial Hall, now a private house, by the entrance of Sandy Bank Quarry: ‘It was used for storing corpses before they were taken to St. Robert's Church to be buried’ (A. Smith pers. comm. 2014).

Further work in 2015 on the Chapel Funding for further work on the mortuary site was not forthcoming this year. However, with the help of volunteers and under the supervision of archaeologist Janis Heward (who had also co-led the work on the mortuary site) the FRRBG organised a two-day ‘clean up and expose’ activity on the walls of the mortuary chapel to take place over the weekend of 24th–25th October 2015. Today, there is nothing above ground to be seen of the chapel. Archaeologist Ann Wilkinson, one of the Friends, had undertaken an earlier geophysical survey of this site which suggested a two-cell structure. An activity to expose the walls of the chapel took place during the 2015 season.

Trench A Trench A (Figs. 1a–d), measuring 5m x 1m, was opened along the east wall of the mortuary chapel. The turf, 20mm deep, was removed to reveal some stonework protruding though a dark brown layer of humic soil. Volunteers carefully trowelled the soil, which was compacted in places. Soon stonework evidence of a double-skinned wall with rubble infill was revealed along the length of the trench. The excavators concentrated on locating the south-east corner of the building on the first day where numerous amounts of pottery, glass and mortar were recovered. Work continued on the east wall on the second day and an additional 1m x 1m grid square was opened to locate the southwest corner of the building. Amongst the infill, several sherds of pottery, glass and fragments of tile and mortar were found. A border of pebbles < 50mm were exposed on the exterior of the east wall. The full width of the wall was exposed over the weekend and was covered with ‘teram’ before the soil and turf were replaced, for further work to be undertaken in 2016.

Metal detecting A sweep across the interior of the chapel was undertaken by one of the Friends. A cluster of 10 flags indicated that metal objects were present in the north-west corner. Two of the most interesting were: a toy gun marked ‘Crack Shot’ on one side and stamped ‘Made in England’ on the other (Fig. 2a), which may be vintage but exact dating awaits further analysis; and a button which is very light and seems to be plated with aluminium or similar metal / alloy. The pattern is a turreted tower flanked by a sword and pike / axe possibly a fashion button.

Artefacts Several shards of coloured glass < 10mm were found in the north-east corner of the Trench A, as were two complete lozengeshaped window glass fragments encased in lead glazing strips (Fig. 2b–2c).

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

Figure 1a

Figure 1b

Figure 6c

Figure 1d

Volume 4 | 2015

Trench A, south-east corner of the mortuary chapel with the border of small stones which may be present around the complete chapel.

East wall revealing a border of small stones < 40mm.

Extent of the east wall foundation with the small stone border to right of the lower ranging pole.

Close-up of border lying outside the east foundation wall.

Figure 2a

Left: ‘Crack Shot’ toy gun.

Figure 2b–c

Right: Lozenge shaped window glass found in Trench A, indicative of an ornamental glass window.

Communities in Action

Discussion The full 4.5m length of the east wall was exposed. The cobbling outside the wall may indicate a border / pathway around the chapel to demarcate it from the burial area as well as providing a simple form of damp course. The lozenge-shaped glass and lead strips suggest ornamental window(s) in the east wall which may be commensurate with an altar at this end. Further work remains to be done on the connection / traffic between the mortuary and the chapel.

Future work Further work and analysis will be conducted on the artefacts, and in particular the toy gun and button. Time precluded work to identify more of the two-cell structure which was interpreted through a geophysical survey. A return in 2016 is planned in order to further expose the remains of this chapel. FRRBG hope that future work on the site will make more information available on this fascinating subject. Acknowledgements Archaeological work was directed and supervised by Janis Heward. We thank Ann Wilkinson for the geophysical survey and Stuart Wilkinson for his research into the metal finds. The excavation team comprised Jean Robinson, Peter Gallagher, Valerie Mason, Stuart and Ann Wilkinson, Bill Carmichael (Friends of Raikes Road Burial Ground), and Dawn Haida and Marie-Anne Hintze (Nidderdale Chase Heritage Group). References Fisher, P. 2009. Houses for the Dead: the Provision of Mortuaries in London, 1843–1889. The London Journal, 34 (1 March), 1–15. Heward, J. M. and Robinson, J.M. 2014. Raikes Road Burial Ground, Skipton, North Yorkshire: 2014 interim excavation report. Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology 3, 95–98. Hooper, J. 2014. pers.comm. Contact and discussion October 2014. Litton, J. 2014. pers. comm. Contact by letter 3 November 2014. Smith, A. 2014. pers. comm. Contact and discussion December 2014. www.gargrave.org.uk | Photograph of the funeral of Private Hutton 1912 (Rowley Collection) [Last accessed September 2014]. Skipton Town Council. 1978. Year Book.

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

Volume 4 | 2015 (49–56)

Finds Beneath Your Feet: A Review of the Portable Antiquities Scheme in North and East Yorkshire in 2015 Rebecca Griffiths Corresponding author Finds Liaison Officer for North and East Yorkshire, Yorkshire Museum Rebecca.Griffiths@ymt.org.uk Keywords

Metal-detector finds, Treasure finds, Coins, Jewellery, Neolithic tools, Bronze Age tools

Every year thousands of archaeological objects are discovered by members of the public, primarily metal-detector users, but also by people simply out walking or gardening. The Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) aims to encourage the recording of such objects through its network of Local Finds Liaison Officers (FLO) working with finders to record objects on an easilyaccessible online database. The following highlights the work of the PAS in North and East Yorkshire and the potential such objects hold in helping us to build a more comprehensive understanding of the past.

Introduction The Portable Antiquities Scheme was established in 1997 in order to record archaeological objects found by members of the public. Across the country, the scheme works with over 3500 individual finders, helping to create one of the largest and most comprehensive sets of archaeological information. To date, the scheme’s network of 38 FLOs and five National Finds Advisors (NFAs) have recorded over one million objects. Records created by the PAS are made available via our online database (www.finds.org.uk/database) so that the data can be used by anyone who has an interest in the archaeology of England and Wales, including both academics and the general public. The volume of data is continuing to grow as an important research tool and is currently being used in 455 research projects, including 17 pieces of large-scale research and 95 PhDs. The PAS is also responsible for the administration of the Treasure Act 1996, with FLOs advising finders of their legal obligations, providing advice on the process and writing reports for coroners on Treasure finds. As Fig. 1 shows, the number of reported Treasure cases has increased significantly since the Scheme’s inception from just 79 cases in 1997 to 1008 in 2014. Prior to the Treasure Act, under the Treasure Trove system, only around 25 finds were declared each year to Figure 1 Number of Treasure cases reported per year, 1997–2014. be Treasure Trove, so this increase is of great benefit not only to the archaeological record but also to the public collections of acquiring museums and, therefore, the public themselves. This article provides an introduction to the scheme in North and East Yorkshire, summarising some of the key finds from the past year.

The PAS in North and East Yorkshire in 2015 The North and East Yorkshire FLO based at the Yorkshire Museum, York, along with a small team of volunteers and a parttime intern funded by the Headley Trust, has recorded more than 2000 artefacts in 2015, spanning the Mesolithic to early

Behind the Scenes modern periods. While the scheme also records objects from the Palaeolithic, these are relatively rare in the North of England and no such objects have been recorded this year. The percentages of recorded finds by period are shown in Figure 2. All are well represented though Roman artefacts clearly predominate, with Medieval and later finds as close runners-up. The proactive nature of the PAS is vital to its success and it is an important part of every FLOâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s work to go out and meet finders, encourage the reporting of finds, highlight best archaeological practice and demonstrate the contribution these finds can make to archaeological knowledge.

Figure 2

Percentage of finds by period recorded by YORYM (Yorkshire Museum).

In North and East Yorkshire there are four metal detecting clubs which are visited on a regular basis, as well as bi-monthly Finds Days hosted at the Yorkshire Museum, York (YORYM), and the Hull and East Riding Museum, Hull. These events enable the FLO to make contact with a diverse range of people who have an interest in their local history, and who provide access to a variety of artefact types from all over the region. The types of artefacts recorded are many and varied, including coins, dress accessories, furniture fittings, jewellery, trade weights, stone tools and vessel fragments. Details of such artefacts and their distribution (Fig. 3) are of great importance to archaeologists, allowing them to understand the landscape, as well as how people worked and lived in the past. With greater understanding amongst the public and the emergence of easily accessible Global Positioning System (GPS) technology, the find-spot data with which we are provided is increasing in its accuracy. In 2015, 53% of finds recorded by YORYM were accurate to the minimum required six-figure National Grid Reference (NGR) while the remaining 47% were 10- or 12-figure NGRs.

Figure 3

Distribution of finds from North and East Yorkshire recorded by YORYM in 2015. Black icons are single finds; coloured icons are multiple finds. This scalable mapping is available on the PAS website.

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaology Yorkshire

Volume 4 | 2015

Key finds recorded in 2015 With such a diverse range of material it is difficult to choose just a few objects which best represent the wealth of information the landscape of Yorkshire still holds, and the following selection barely scratches the surface. They do, however, provide a wonderful insight into the development of the region – the technologies, fashions and cultures which have helped to shape the world around us. Neolithic axehead | Bridlington, East Riding of Yorkshire https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/721843

This axe is comprised of a grey-green fine-grained siliceous tuff, a sedimentary volcanic rock possibly from the Great Langdale quarries in Cumbria. This stone was most probably chosen for its colour and fineness which allowed it to be highly polished. It is likely that axes such as this were high status and probably not functional. Axeheads made of Langdale geological material have been found throughout England and represent important evidence for the exchange of materials in the Neolithic period.

Figure 4

Unfinished stone Neolithic axehead, from Bridlington, East Riding of Yorkshire, c. 3500–2100 BC. [ID YORYM-A0B088].

Bronze Age copper allow hammer | Ellerton, East Riding of Yorkshire https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/741155

In comparison to socketed axes which are one of the most commonly recorded Bronze Age finds, socketed hammers are very rare and, to date, only 35 such examples are recorded on the PAS database, three of which were found in North Yorkshire. The earliest bronze hammers were created in the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1600–1000 BC) though are more well defined in Late Bronze Age (c. 1000–800 BC) hoards. Early examples tend to be plain with no collar, while later examples came to include collars and defined moulded decoration. This suggests that the example shown here is more likely a development of the later Bronze Age ‘Penard’ Phase, named after the typesite of Penard in West Glamorgan where a hoard of bronze tools was found in 1827. Figure 5

Copper alloy Bronze Age Hammer, from Ellerton, East Riding of Yorkshire, c. 1100–800 BC. [ID YORYM-ABCCE1].

Behind the Scenes Late Iron Age copper alloy vessel mount | Leconfield, East Riding of Yorkshire https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/727469

This mount is zoomorphic in the form of a bovine head. It is cast three dimensionally with forward-facing horns and a backwardfacing hook for attachment. The reverse of the mount is concave retaining a white material which may have served as an adhesive in fitting the mount to the vessel proper. A direct parallel for this mount has not been found, although similar examples have been recorded on the PAS database. While mounts in the form of bovines are not uncommon finds, some also taking the form of boar, deer and even human heads, more abstract, curvilinear decorative elements are considered more usual for this period. Such realistic depictions are therefore a departure from the norm. The opportunity presented by the number and quality of this type of mount held within the PAS database is influencing further research. Angie Bolton (FLO for Warwickshire and Worcestershire) is currently revising this class of artefact with a view to establishing a new form of typology or classification.

Figure 6

Copper alloy late Iron Age vessel mount, from Leconfield, East Riding of Yorkshire, c. 100 BC â&#x20AC;&#x201C; AD 200. [ID YORYM-005786].

Romano-British blue glass bracelet | Kilham, East Riding of Yorkshire https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/744981

The bracelet is of a light blue glass with a separate strip of darker blue opaque glass fitted into a groove through marvering, a technique involving molten glass being rolled and shaped on a flat surface of either stone, wood, or metal. This strip has faint transverse striations suggesting it was twisted, which is a common feature on bracelets of this type. In order for the two separate elements, the frame and strip, to adhere to one another successfully the main bracelet would have been kept at a temperature which would allow the second piece to be added without causing the glass to shatter. As this is a delicate procedure, bracelets of this type are considered to be of high status. Currently 11 such fragments are recorded on the PAS database. Four of these are from the East Riding of Yorkshire, two from North Yorkshire and one each from Durham, Doncaster, Lincolnshire, and North Lincolnshire. Two similar bracelet fragments also from North Yorkshire are currently housed in the Yorkshire Museum. The northern focus of the distribution of these bracelets is interesting and holds great potential for further study.

Figure 7

Fragment of a blue glass Roman bracelet, from Kilham, East Riding of Yorkshire, c. AD 43â&#x20AC;&#x201C;200. [ID YORYM-B985BA].

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaology Yorkshire

Volume 4 | 2015

Early Medieval Anglo-Saxon silver penny | Yapham, East Riding of Yorkshire https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/660769

Silver coins of ninth-century date are unusual northern finds. At this point, most coinage used in the historic kingdom of Northumbria was of a type commonly known as a ‘styca’. These small coins were thick, made of copper alloy and were inscribed with the names of the king but had no portraiture. That this coin was found in northern England may be indicative of the effects of the Viking ‘Great Army’. The army had been campaigning in southern England during the 860s before their conquest of York in 866 AD. Coins like this are known from a number of northern Viking sites including Cottam (Yorkshire) and Torksey (Lincolnshire). It seems likely that the conquest and subsequent settlement of the north brought with it material from southern England, including coins.

Figure 8

Early Medieval (Anglo Saxon) silver penny of Burgred, King of Mercia, dating to the period AD 852– 874, from Yapham, East Riding of Yorkshire. Type C. Moneyer Dudda. Mint of London. [ID YORYM9133BA].

Medieval silver seal matrix with re-used Roman intaglio | Harrogate, North Yorkshire https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/729621

The matrix bears an inscription reading + SECRETI NVMCIVS which appears to be a blundered version of the Latin legend SECRETI NVNCIVS meaning ‘secret messenger’. The intaglio is made of a red stone, possibly agate, jasper or carnelian, and is engraved with a standing winged Victory facing right holding a wreath aloft. Victory faces a seated male figure holding a spear in his right hand with his left hand raised over the head of a large bird, possibly an eagle or cockerel standing at his feet. This is likely to represent a winged messenger saluting the god Jove (or Jupiter). Greek letters are inscribed within the field of the matrix. The symbol for Rho is behind Victory, Pi is above the wreath, Omicron and Nu are below, with Epsilon beneath and Lambda is behind the seated figure. The inscribed legend on the matrix is in retrograde although the lettering on the intaglio is not since it was not intended to be used in such a fashion.

Figure 9

Medieval silver seal matrix with re-used Roman intaglio, from Harrogate, North Yorkshire c. 12th–14th century AD. The intaglio is likely to date to the 2nd– 3rd century AD. [ID YORYM-13A179 / 2015 T472].

It is unclear exactly how Roman intaglios came to be re-used in such quantities throughout the medieval period. It is possible that they were found locally by peasants working the land and passed to their lords, although it is equally possible that that they were imported for specific uses. The way in which such intaglios, and other ‘heirloom’ artefacts were viewed and interpreted in later periods is also an interesting research topic.

Behind the Scenes Silver Scottish twenty pence of Charles I | Beswick, East Riding of Yorkshire https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/746049

While this type of coin is a common find in Yorkshire, it is the secondary treatment it has undergone which makes it of particular interest. The coin has been folded, which may have been intended as a form of defacement, though this may also have been in order to allow the coin to be worn as an item of jewellery such as a pendant. Through finds recorded with PAS, the secondary treatment of coins is now perceived as being a broader practice than previously believed. The reasons for these treatments, however, are not yet fully understood since it does not appear to be solely for religious or propaganda purposes, and may perhaps be seen as an English custom.

Figure 10

Silver Scottish twenty pence of Charles I c. AD 1625â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 1642, from Beswick, East Riding of Yorkshire. [ID YORYM-0F5332].

Transforming knowledge Research using the data accumulated by the PAS has contributed to the advancement of archaeological knowledge. On a national level, a variety of projects have utilised information from the scheme to transform our knowledge of many periods. An important aspect of the scheme is that it brings to light unusual or very rare objects. This is clearly visible in the Early Medieval period where material is quite rare. The growth of metal-detecting and the formal reporting offered by the PAS has made much more material available for study, helping with the interpretation of objects which were previously unique or where only a handful were known. York gold shilling | East Riding of Yorkshire https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/505697

The gold shillings of seventh-century York (Fig. 11), the first struck in the town, are an example of this. A recent publication of these coins (Allen and Naylor 2014) was able to list 14 examples of which eight were recent metal-detector finds recorded by the PAS. The new information has made it possible to be certain that they were struck in York, and has also allowed elements of typology and chronology to be discerned. With the mint of these coins now certain, they can be compared to what is known of the political and ecclesiastical history of the city, helping to shed additional light on what can be a difficult period to interpret.

Figure 11

York Gold Shilling (thrymsa) of an anonymous ruler, AD 640â&#x20AC;&#x201C;60, from East Riding of Yorkshire. [ID YORYM-78A342].

The other particular benefit element of PAS data is its sheer scale and breadth as compared with traditional distribution catalogues. This is very clearly demonstrated when Roman coinage is considered. Over 12,000 Roman coins have been recovered across North and East Yorkshire with good coverage from almost the entire region. This provides a means of assessing the extent and chronology of the use of money in a rural environment, something which is notoriously difficult using traditional archaeological techniques.

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaology Yorkshire

Volume 4 | 2015

Roman copper alloy Nummus coin | Brantingham, East Riding of Yorkshire https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/730149

This data can be compared to national averages (Walton 2012) to see the extent to which Yorkshire follows or deviates from these. For example, the local PAS information differs from national patterns around the year AD 200 when many more coins are found than might be expected. This may be connected with the arrival of Septimius Severus and his family in York. Furthermore, there are also quite clear differences in the late Roman period when the very large number of small fourth-century bronze coins, usually called nummi (Fig. 12), spread right across the entire region and is suggestive of the widespread use of such coinage. Indeed, the PAS database does not show any comparable numbers of coins at any point again until the seventeenth-century, suggesting that the use of money was more common in the late Roman period than at any point for the next 1000 years.

Figure 12

Copper alloy commemorative Nummus of the House of Constantine. VRBS ROMA type, reverse depicting wolf and twins. Mint of Trier AD 332–333, from Brantingham, East Riding of Yorkshire. [ID YORYM3DCE1C].

Why the PAS is important The benefits of recording objects in such a way are many and varied. Not only does it engage local communities in their heritage, but also allows them to be part of enhancing the history of their area and, on a larger scale, the country. As activities such as metal detecting often take place in areas unlikely to be subject to archaeological excavation, discoveries have the potential to reveal new sites which would have otherwise remained unknown. Resultant records represent a substantial contribution to archaeological knowledge and aids researchers at all levels. Expanding distribution patterns highlighted through PAS data are redefining previously established norms. The quantity and quality of material is allowing the production of new guidance for use by professionals and supports regular additions to academic journals such as Britannia and Medieval Archaeology. It is also leading to the re-writing of standard reference texts by feeding in new information. As the PAS data set continues to grow, so too does its potential as a research tool. References Allen, M.R. and Naylor, J. 2014. A New Variety of Gold Shilling of the ‘York’ Group. In T. Abramson (ed.) Studies in Early Medieval Coinage 3: Sifting the Evidence. London: Spink, 153–8. Walton, P. 2012. Rethinking Roman Britain: Coinage and Archaeology. Wetteren: Moneta.

Behind the Scenes

The Portable Antiquities Scheme

https://finds.org.uk/

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

Volume 4 | 2015 (57–76)

Extending the Boundaries of Known Locations for Prehistoric Rock Art within the North York Moors and Yorkshire Dales Paul Brown and Barbara Brown Corresponding authors Independent Researchers rockartees@talktalk.net Keywords

Late Neolithic, Rock art, North York Moors, Yorkshire Dales

The following article is an account of three new finds of late Neolithic rock art in the North York Moors and the Yorkshire Dales. The two sites in the North York Moors were discovered by local residents and the third during fieldwork and research in 2015 by the authors, who recorded all three sites. Fig. 1 shows the locations of rock art finds presented in this article. The effects of geology and geography on the placement of rock art in the landscape is discussed together with illustrated descriptions of all panels. Of particular interest are the two panels in the North York Moors, both exhibiting carvings that are rare in the study of rock art. Rock carvings in open landscape settings, even with modern techniques, are largely un-dateable at present. Excavation of monuments containing rock art within its context may, on occasion, be dated by association using radiocarbon techniques. The cup and ring tradition is thought to span approximately 1500 years from c. 3200 BC ending in the early Bronze Age, c. 1700 BC (O'Kelly 1982). Living in a modern world we cannot profess to know what many of these carvings meant, but we understand that they mark specific or special places in the landscape that were significant to our Late Neolithic ancestors.

The North York Moors Discoveries Geology Geology is key to the presence of prehistoric rock art in both the North York Moors and the Yorkshire Dales, and the ancient Jurassic sandstones of the upper, lower and middle series that cover much of today’s moorland appear to have offered the perfect medium that enabled late Neolithic people to leave their mark on that landscape. While sandstone may have attracted the attention of our early ancestors, over the millennia our geology has been subject to diverse series of changes, from volcanic intrusions of igneous rock to the Cleveland Dyke series that subdivides with the alum and bituminous shale series, jet rock, ironstone and a variety of dogger, calcareous grits, and oolite (Hemingway et al. 1968). During the final Late Devensian glaciation, ice sheets deflected round the Cleveland Hills and, except for an accumulation of residual snow and ice, the higher ground remained relatively free of ice south of the River Esk. Sea ice did, however, build up along the coast, pushing inland to cover low-lying areas at the edge of high ground. With the rise in temperature, ice retreated and flowing meltwater infiltrated valleys previously blocked by ice and glacial moraines at outflows, creating lakes in Glaisdale, Eskdale and Pickering. The overflow from these lakes subsequently drained to follow channels that had previously been made by water courses; these surged eastward and, over time, cut deep into overlying strata to form a number of ravines towards the coast (Wilson 1948). Some channels remained blocked by residual moraines forming barriers that caused courses to deviate from their original passage; for example the outflow from the latter-day River Derwent that initially joined with the North Sea, was blocked and diverted southward into the Humber estuary. Today many tree-covered dales and ravines in both moors and dales contain water courses that drain to the coast. There are over 14 such dales including Borrowby, Scaling, Dunsley, and Nettledale that stretch from Whitby to Teesside.

Archaeological Notes and Reviews

Figure 1

Location map. © Crown Copyright: Ordnance Survey Open Data.

Roxby Roxby CP: located on private land, precise location withheld. History Rock art discoveries continue to be made in the moors and dales though most have an association with, and are in addition to, known major sites. To discover an impressive example in an area that has no known record is rare. Roxby’s rock art was found and identified by Jane Le Cocq, farm conservation adviser for the Dales National Park Authority, and recorded in 2015 by the authors. The panel lies on private farmland in Roxby/Newton Mulgrave CP, an area rich in prehistoric monuments but with no previous record of rock art (Fig. 2). The closest, discovered in a monumental context, is some 4km to the east at Boulby Barns, recorded by local antiquarians, Hornsby and Laverick (1918). The nearest open air or landscape examples lie 14.25km southeast at Allan Tofts (Brown and Chappell 2005). Description A large tilted slab of Jurassic sandstone is embedded in a wet boggy area close to a number of spring risings on a north-sloping terrace above a glacially-cut ravine west of the coast at Boulby (Fig. 3). The panel, roughly square in shape, measures 2.36m x 2.14m x 0.3m and has a tilt of -30° NNW, its top edge faces near south and its decoration consists of some 239 cups, varying in size from 15mm to 90mm, several linear/circular grooves that form enclosures, and two large 150-160mm basin-like features up to 70mm deep. Decoration appears to be marked in zones with clusters of small cups forming a pepper-pot effect, linear grooves divide other sections that form two circular enclosures, one surrounding a large cup with an infill of small cups between cup and enclosure, the other marked with a cluster of small cups. Several pairs of cups are linked by grooves and some single cups have extended grooves, tail-like in appearance. Most of the available space on the exposed section has been used, covering two-thirds of the upper surface. The lower section has no markings, being possibly buried at the time. Carvings may be attributed from late Neolithic to early Bronze Age date, though no definitive dating evidence was found. The area contains a number of rounded boulders that have been moved to the edge of the pasture and, though some have plough-scars, no other prehistoric markings were found. The boggy area that surrounds the springs is littered with clearance stones and it also has an alignment of small boulders that form an L-shaped enclosure which abuts the rock at its eastern side, extending southward at the marked slab. This, however, may be a modern feature since farmers today use this type of structure as simple water troughs for their animals. 58

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

Figure 2

Roxby site location and setting. Scale: 1m.

Figure 3

Roxby rock art slab. Scale: 0.1m units.

Volume 4 | 2015

Archaeological Notes and Reviews

Figure 4

Roxby rock art slab drawing. Scale: 100mm units.

Recording details and method A small test pit approximately 0.6m deep was excavated below the south edge of the slab that is deeply embedded in the yellow/reddish clay layer, which suggests that it is in situ, having been deposited by the ice/meltwater flow, and not repositioned at a later period. The condition of the carvings (Fig. 4) is good-to-fair with some erosion from water run-off on its sloping surface; other motifs show less erosion and were probably protected by a build-up of turf cover. It bears a number of scratch marks from cattle movement and some linear scarring on its lower surface. The spring risings and water course have become silted by marsh grass, debris and field clearance boulders; water flow is now a trickle that forms a pungent bog. In the late Neolithic and earlier historic times the stream would have been clear and offered a source of clean fresh water. Digital stitching and wax rubbing were used to record the rock, though the angle of the rock made this difficult. Digital stitching involves taking a series of close-up photographs that are â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;stitchedâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; together to produce a full scan of the rock surface so that the image can be accurately traced or reproduced. The degree of slope presented problems in getting close but this was resolved by mounting the camera on a pole. The wax rubbing proved equally difficult since the paper frequently slipped down the rock, and while it could be taped at the top, the majority of the carved surface still lay out of reach. Our prehistoric carvers must have experienced similar problems. Carving the line of cups on the top surface would not have been a problem, but the lower surface presents an acute angle at which to strike the rock accurately, particularly from the downward slope. Conclusion The rock surface was most likely carved upward from the base of the slab; this too was not without difficulty, noted from our own attempt to record it. The problem lies in trying to maintain both stability and balance since the degree of angle quickly

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

Volume 4 | 2015

brought about a tendency to slip down the rock. The presence of the two large basins on the lower surface had, on viewing, initially puzzled us since the majority of cups were small and relatively shallow. We considered whether these had some other relevance in relation to the ‘message’ conveyed in the Neolithic period. Were they intended to add to or display a different meaning within the carving? The answer, we concluded, was possibly more practical than symbolic. They simply offered ‘pivot points’ in which feet could be placed to aid balance while carving the upper surface. To test the theory we removed boots to access the basins which appeared to confirm the ‘functional’ theory in providing the required steadiness to complete our recording. We had never encountered such determination to mark a surface, and admired the initiative and ingenuity used by our ancestors. Summary The amount of markings prompted other questions, such as why they had chosen to expend precious energy in carving it so elaborately since it would have taken much time and effort. If the intention was to mark territory or provide a waypoint marker, a few simple cup marks would have sufficed. They would certainly have been aware that a number of spring risings emerge from beneath this stone to converge along its western edge; perhaps the abundance of fresh water here had more significance than a means of refreshment. Our modern-day holy wells continue to have special status and some are believed to impart healing powers. The degree of difficulty in its carving and multiplicity of symbols suggests that the area may have been a special place in the landscape that held a deep spiritual or ceremonial meaning for the people of the time. Fylingdales Fylingdales CP. Location: Howdale Moor Pastures; private farm land; NGR NZ 95106 01237 Landscape and geology The survey area is located on high ground immediately to the west of Robin Hoods Bay and covers approximately four square kilometres of heather moorland that includes Stoupe Brow, Howdale and Stoney Marl Moors (anciently called the Peak Moors). A number of large burial mounds are located in the area together with numerous less prominent features such as ring cairns, field systems, standing stones and cairn fields. The prominent headland of Stoupe Brow is located in the northern section of the survey area and its steep eastern slopes drop down to Robin Hoods Bay. Areas of moorland to the north and west have been enclosed as rough pastureland that descend into Howdale and Ramsdale and, to the south, open heather moorland leads to stands of forestry. The underlying geology is comprised of the Ravenscar group of alternating shale and sandstone layers that overlie a band of dogger (orange sandstone). The structure is reflected in the topography of the moors, with land to the north dropping in a series of steps and plateaux from the high point at Stoupe Brow Beacon (265m OD). Stoney Marl Moor, as its name suggests, has in the past been extensively quarried for its tough high-silica sandstone known as ganister. Further east toward the coast medium grit sandstones predominate and, these being relatively easy to carve, may explain why the majority of rock art is to be found in this area. While it may have been easier to carve, the choice of this ‘soft’ friable stone meant that it is susceptible to erosion, particularly after having lain in open moorland over thousands of years. History It was noted that there had been a high degree of weathering in the panels recorded and most likely it has led to the loss of many more examples that could possibly have been added to the archaeological record. Agricultural land is located to the north of the parish boundary abutting an area of open access land to the south and east. This heather moorland suffered most from the effects of the devastating fire of 2003. Prior to the fire, the SMR (Sites and Monument Record/Historic Environment Record) indicated that the area contained a number of large barrows such as the ‘Robin Hood Butts’, as well as field systems and thirty sites of rock art, some of which had been discovered in the early part of the 20th century by the Whitby Naturalists' Club and numbers enhanced during the 1960s and 70s by Stewart Feather who published his findings regularly in the Yorkshire Archaeological Journal. With its vegetative cover stripped, the fire provided an opportunity to investigate the area's archaeological past resulting in previously unrecorded sites being seen for the first time. In the initial survey of the moors during the early 2000s the authors, continuing Feather's work, had recorded approximately forty-three sites, though not all had been located prior to the fire since the moor had a deep, dense covering of heather. Despite this, over 180 carved rocks were located prior to the walk-over survey

Archaeological Notes and Reviews commissioned by English Heritage (now Historic England) in spring 2004. After that survey, our total had risen to over 200 sites (Brown and Chappell 2005). The Howdale site The site was identified by local stone mason, Dave Perry, who had been repairing field walls, and was recorded by the authors in 2015 (Fig. 5). This sandstone outcrop at the edge of a natural slope of land measures 2.9m x 1.6m x 0.2m and was mostly covered in vegetation. Following the removal of turf, seven cups were uncovered, varying in size from 65mm to 100mm. It is located on private farmland close to another marked rock that we had identified during a brief visit the previous year. Both sites lie close to Bronze Age barrows and clusters of rock art on the adjacent open moorland (Brown and Chappell 2005).

Figure 5

Flyingdales, Howdale Pastures rock art. Scale: 100mm units.

Summary The rock art here is unusual and, perhaps, may be viewed as rather sinister since it appears to focus on a dark crevice that splits two levels of outcrop. The cups have been carved on a downward slope and this leads toward a crevice at its core, seemingly either entering or emerging from it. From study of Neolithic burial practices we know of the belief with regard to the continuation of the spiritual presence of deceased group members. The carvings on the Howdale stone may represent that belief with regard to life, death and possibly rebirth. Offerings too are known to have been made to deities such as the Earth Mother, the fertility goddess. Evidence of votive offerings has also been recovered from specific and, sometimes, secretive places in the landscape such as caves, sink holes or voids in the earth. This stone is unique in comparison with other rock art in the area.

Swaledale ‘Valley of the Wild River’ – Rock Art on the Edge The historical record In Swaledale the evidence of prehistoric activity and presence comes largely from independent fieldwork and observation. Landscape archaeologist Andrew Fleming undertook his own investigation of the area in the mid-1990s and maintains that over the centuries little archaeological research had been undertaken in Swaledale. In mitigation he adds that the dale is made up of narrow steep-sided valleys with little open land for farming. This, and the combination of the volatile River Swale, are contributory factors that account for an apparent lack of any long-term occupation of the area during prehistory (Fleming 1998). The presence of rock art in the landscape is generally acknowledged in relation to the occurrence of barrows or cairns of the later prehistoric period. Since Swaledale has little evidence of those funerary monuments that indicate long term occupation, this is perhaps reflected in the paucity of its rock art. Our northern Pennine Dales’ landscapes have altered significantly throughout the millennia and it is possible that much of the evidence of early occupation has been cleared or destroyed for land use, agriculture and later occupation. In the case of Swaledale and Wensleydale, all of these problems have probably been factors in the lack of archaeological evidence, made much worse by an intensive and prolonged history of mineral extraction, in particular coal and lead mining industries. The presence of rock art within a very narrow corridor at Swaledale’s extreme eastern boundary, however, appears

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

Volume 4 | 2015

to uphold current archaeological thinking that people travelled through merely to gain access northward to the Stainmore Pass and into Cumbriaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s monumental landscape. Geology Swaledale and Wensleydale share a unique geology known as the Yoredale series made up of bands of limestone, millstone grit and shales, and their position in the northern Pennines has been influenced by intrusive mineral seams that have also been plundered over centuries. The geology of the remainder of the Yorkshire Dales is very different from its northern counterparts and much influenced by location within the central Pennine chain, having a glacial karst limestone, the legacy of grating glaciers. Geography There are several meltwater channels that flow into the Telfit Valley close to Marske village and a deep channel has been cut through Moresdale below the rock art sites on Holgate Pastures. Several fast-flowing gills also join the Holgate Beck before resurging into Marske Beck. One of the deeper channels starts at Snaiza Gill, which is fed by numerous springs and tributaries that flow into Throstle Gill where past floods have cut deep into the landscape to create the towering limestone scars above. The most prominent is Dickey Edge close to Telfit Farm. Here waters meet as they join Marske Beck prior to continuing the journey through the stunning U-shaped valley of Telfit created by the grinding action of the Stainmore glacier that in turn left a deep glacial lake in its wake. A number of open air rock art sites and cairns are situated above the valley at Skelton Moor, now pastoral in nature. The melting glaciers in Swaledaleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s upper dale cut a different course from the River Swale along the Kisdon Gorge where the river is notoriously dangerous. It has a number of powerful tributaries that join it throughout its progress along the valley and a welldocumented history over the centuries of devastating and destructive flash floods. Marrick, Skegdale Marrick CP. Location: NGR NZ 06115 03372 Landscape and location While prehistoric open-air or landscape rock art continues to be found at various locations in northern Britain, nearly all are within the boundaries of known clusters â&#x20AC;&#x201C; sites in new locations are rare. The panel was discovered in 2015 by the authors during a brief survey of Skegdale in Swaledale, a remote area with no previously known record of rock art. Access was granted by the Estate Office and gamekeeper. The land here is principally heather moorland used in the rearing of grouse, although some areas have been maintained and reserved for sheep grazing. Full access is available during winter but restricted during the spring nesting and autumn shoot seasons. A further limited search was undertaken but no other sites were located.

Figure 6

Marrick, Skegdale rock art.

Description This large sandstone boulder measuring 1.38m x 1.15m x 0.20m lay in an area of heather burn above a steep-sided ravine. It has 25 cups and several grooves that link some cups; in particular one cup is linked to a long groove that flows down the surface of the rock toward a natural notch that appears to terminate below ground surface level. Many of the cups are of average size with the smallest measuring 25mm up to 70mm, and four cups appear to form a domino pattern in its south-west section (Figs. 6 and 7). 63

Archaeological Notes and Reviews This stone was probably carved by a nomadic group to denote either the edge of a territory or a way marker. Further research may define its purpose, and should further sites be located this assessment may be modified. There are several rock art clusters within the Swaledale watershed, the nearest being 2km in linear distance. However, this follows a perilous route that requires careful negotiation since it meanders round a deep ravine that was likely to have been covered in deep vegetation. It also contains the fast-flowing Holgate Beck that may have been impassable in prehistory. There is a more accessible ridge some 3km from the new site where rock art including an example with possible parallels to the Skegdale stone. This has 16 cups, one with a single ring, as well as a cup mark with a pecked linear groove that terminates at ground level. It is possible that the sites were created by the same group. A further survey is planned over the winter, which may offer greater insight into the movement of prehistoric people in the area (Brown and Brown 2008; 2011; 2015).

Figure 7

Marrick, Skegdale rock art. Scale: 100mm units.

Archives Archives have been deposited at North York Moors National Park Authority (Helmsley) and Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority (Bainbridge). Acknowledgements We are grateful to Graham Lee at the North York Moors National Park Authority, Sir Frederick Strickland Constable, Landowner Fylingdales Moor, and Arkengarthdale Estates, North Yorkshire. The authors would also like to thank both Jane Le Cocq and Dave Perry for information regarding the North York Moors stones. References Brown, P. and Chappell, G. 2005. Prehistoric Rock Art in the North York Moors. Stroud: Tempus, 171–177. Brown, B. and Brown, P.M. 2008. Prehistoric Rock Art in the Northern Dales. Stroud: Tempus, 61–70. Brown, B. and Brown, P.M. 2011. Newly-Discovered Prehistoric Rock Art in Swaledale, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Prehistory Research Section Bulletin 48, 65–69. Brown, B. and Brown, P.M. 2015. Further Discoveries of Rock Art within the North Riding of Yorkshire. Prehistoric Yorkshire 52, 70–71, Prehistory Research Section of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Brown, B. and Brown, P.M. 2015. Rethinking Rock Art at Roxby. Current Archaeology 306, 9. Brown P.M. and Brown B. 2016. New Example of Prehistoric Rock Art from the North York Moors. Prehistoric Yorkshire 53, 66-67. Prehistory Research Section of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Edwards, M.A. and Trotter, F.M. 1954. British Regional Geology: the Pennines and Adjacent Areas. London: HMSO. Fleming, A. 1998. Swaledale: Valley of the Wild River. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Hemingway, J.E., Wilson, V. and Wright, C.W. 1968. Geology of the Yorkshire Coast, No. 34. Colchester: Benham. Hornsby, W. and Laverick, J.D. 1920. British Barrows Round Boulby. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 25, 48–52. O'Kelly, M.J. 1982. Newgrange: Archaeology, Art and Legend. London: Thames and Hutton. Wilson, V. 1948. British Regional Geology: East Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. London: HMSO.

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

Volume 4 | 2015

Neolithic Peat Formation and 18th-Century Land Reclamation at Goole Fields, East Riding of Yorkshire Ashley Tuck and Andrea Burgess† Corresponding author† Wessex Archaeology (Sheffield) a.burgess@wessexarch.co.uk Keywords

Neolithic, Post-medieval, Excavation, Radiocarbon dating, Warp, Humberhead Levels

In 2011 and 2015 Wessex Archaeology undertook excavations near Goole in the East Riding of Yorkshire. The work included a programme of radiocarbon dating which confirmed that peat deposits formed in reed bogs during the Neolithic, and accords with the accepted development of the Humber wetlands. The other notable deposits examined date to the 18th century and onwards, when ‘warping’ – the intentional flooding of low-lying land in order to allow ‘warp’ (mud and silt suspended in the water) to settle – was used to improve marshy land and make it suitable for agriculture.

Introduction The site lies on land known as Goole Fields to the south of Swinefleet Road (A161) at Old Goole (NGR SE 7400 2000). The work was carried out in two phases, in 2011 (GF1) and 2015 (GF2), and was required as part of a planning application for the construction of a wind farm. Excavations were undertaken in the footprints of the proposed turbine bases and a site compound (Fig. 1). The site lies on flat arable land south of the River Ouse, at the junction of two underlying bedrock geologies: the Sherwood Sandstone Group to the west; and the Mercia Mudstone Group to the east. The superficial geology comprises alluvial deposits of clay, silt, sand and gravel and also areas of Breighton Sand (British Geological Survey online; see References). Little historical information pre-dating the 18th century is available for the site itself. To the north-west, Dutch River was created in the later 17th century on the instruction of the Court of Sewers for the Level of Hatfield Chase, after two parallel drains were ‘swept into one by a great flood’ (University of Nottingham online; see References). From the 18th century onwards the site was part of a low-lying landscape that was deliberately flooded and drained in an effort to improve and raise the land through silt accumulation, known as ‘warping’ (Dinnin 1997). The resulting soil build-up, coupled with the extensive excavation of dykes and ditches for drainage, made the land suitable for agricultural use. This process of land improvement was repeated for centuries, turning a non-agricultural zone into a fertile and productive area. The Ordnance Survey first edition map of the area shows that the process of land reclamation was complete by 1852.

Results The site has been divided into seven zones based on the sequences of deposits present (Fig. 1). A summary of the radiocarbon results from selected deposits is presented in Table 1. Zone 1 In this area, ploughsoil overlay homogeneous light orangey-brown silty-clay deposits (warp). The warp deposits overlay a band of organic material in the form of waterlogged tree trunks, branches and twigs in a dark incipient-peat material, which returned a radiocarbon date of 3980–3800 Cal BC (SUERC-59906, 5120±30 BP) (Table 1). Grey, leached sand underlay the organic layer and an irregular interface between the two indicated considerable root disturbance. A layer of mottled orange sand formed the basal deposit across most of the site.

Archaeological Notes and Reviews

Figure 1

Location of the site, trenches and zones.

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire Table 1

Volume 4 | 2015

Radiocarbon dates from peat deposits.

Sample location

Context

Material

Lab reference

Radiocarbon date BP

δ13C

Calibrated date (2σ 95.4%)*

GF1 Trench 1, zone 5

1005

Waterlogged plant remains: Phragmites australis stem fragments

SUERC-36283

4475±35

-25.5‰

3350–3020 Cal BC

GF2 Trench 10, zone 4 GF2 Trench 10, zone 4 GF2 Trench 1, zone 1 GF2 Trench 14, zone 4 GF2 Trench 14, zone 4

1006 (upper) 1006 (lower) 102

GU-37361

Failed

−

SUERC-59905

4476±30

-25.3‰

3350–3020 Cal BC

SUERC-59906

5120±30

-24.3‰

3980–3800 Cal BC

SUERC-59907

4100±28

-25‰

2870–2500 Cal BC

SUERC-59911

4796±27

-27.6‰

3650–3520 Cal BC

1404 (upper) 1405 (lower)

Waterlogged plant remains: stem fragments

Dates calibrated using Reimer et al. (2013) and the computer program OxCal v4.2.3 (Bronk Ramsey and Lee 2013).

Zone 2 The trenches in this zone contained ploughsoil which directly overlay the natural sand deposits. If any warping had occurred in this area, the warp deposits must have been thinner than elsewhere on the site, and become incorporated into the ploughsoil. Zone 3 The single trench in this zone contained ploughsoil immediately overlying a 0.35m thick deposit of peat. Below this, a 0.11m thick layer of grey wet sand overlay clay natural deposits. As in zone 2, the lack of evident warp deposits suggests that any such material was thin and had become incorporated into the ploughsoil. Zone 4 In this zone the trenches contained ploughsoil overlying a distinct undisturbed (unploughed) warp deposit formed from thin interdigitating layers of clay and sand (Fig. 2a). A band of natural clay, averaging 0.2m thickness, lay between the warp deposits and the underlying peat. The peat consisted of two distinct layers comprising a 0.3m thick black layer above an orangey-brown organic mat of the same approximate thickness (Fig. 2b). Peat samples returned radiocarbon dates of 3350–3020 Cal BC (SUERC-59905, 4476±30 BP) and 2870–2500 Cal BC (SUERC-59907, 4100±28 BP) from the upper peat and 3650–3520 Cal BC (SUERC-59911, 4796±27 BP) from the lower peat (Table 1). The peat overlay natural grey wet sand deposits which extended to at least 1.6m below the ground level. Zone 5 Below the ploughsoil in this zone were 0.3–1.3m deep warp deposits of light orange clay and sand. Thirteen sherds from a single Humberware jug or cistern were recovered from these deposits in one trench. The vessel was most likely produced at West Cowick, the principal production centre on the north bank of the Humber (Didsbury 2011). Humberware is conventionally 67

Archaeological Notes and Reviews

Figure 2a

Above: Warp deposits in zone 4. Scale: 0.5m.

Figure 2b

Right: Peat deposits in zone 4. Scale: 0.5m units.

held to have been in production from the very end of the 13th century through to an unknown point in the 16th century. Given that the warp sands date from the 18th century at the earliest, the pottery must be residual. Peat was present at depths between 0.4m and 1.6m below ground level. Environmental evidence shows that the peat contained waterlogged stems and probably roots of common reed (Phragmites australis) as well as fine roots and woodier roots of other species (Stevens and Norcott 2011). These plant remains were dated to 3350â&#x20AC;&#x201C;3020 Cal BC (SUERC-36283, 4475Âą35 BP) (Table 1). Beneath the peat were alluvial sands and clays. Zone 6 The single trench in this zone contained a 0.48m thick ploughsoil immediately overlying a 0.14m thick disturbed sand deposit. This sand layer contained none of the distinctive bands that are typical of warp deposits and it is likely that any warping material in this area has been incorporated into the ploughsoil. Below this lay natural undisturbed sands. Zone 7 This was located some distance from the other zones, to the north of the Breighton Sand ridge and well away from any known deposits of peat. The trenches contained a 0.45m thick ploughsoil immediately above a layered warp deposit of sand and clay which extended to a depth of 1.07m below the ground level. Below this was a 0.78m thick deposit of natural clay overlying natural sands.

Discussion The underlying geology of the area is sand and clay river terrace deposits and a ridge of orange Breighton Sands (Fig. 1). Above this, in zones 1, 3, 4 and 5, lay peat deposits formed in reed-swamp and fen-marsh environments during the Neolithic. Sediment analysis from the site (Stevens and Norcott 2011) indicates that the basal sandy sediments were probably deposited near the edge of an active water channel. In order for the process of peat formation to begin, shallow-water channel-edge vegetation would have become established, accelerating the capture of fine sediments and further clogging up the shallows. The radiocarbon dates suggest that the peat formation began in the 4th millennium BC and ceased in the first half of the 3rd millennium BC, which accords with the accepted date of the development of the Humber wetlands (Van de Noort 2004). The buried peat deposits were once contiguous with those of the vast wetland of the Humberhead Levels which occupies the former area of glacial Lake Humber. This body of water once covered South Yorkshire to the east of the A1 and the East Riding of Yorkshire to the west of Market Weighton. It extended into parts of West Yorkshire, north Nottinghamshire, North Lincolnshire and North Yorkshire up to the Yorkshire Wolds. The largest surviving remnants of the Humberhead Levels lie some 4km to the south-west of the site and are now managed by English Nature as the Humberhead Peatlands National Nature 68

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

Volume 4 | 2015

Reserve. On the Goole Fields site, the absence of peat to the north of the ridge of Breighton Sand Formation is only a localised interruption, reflecting minor changes to topography and drainage. The subsequent gap in the palaeoenvironmental and archaeological record covered around 5000 years, with no evidence from the site of human intervention until the practise of tidal warping which began in this area in the late 18th century (Dinnin 1997). Warped deposits up to 1.3m thick were recorded across the site with the exception of the high ground on and near the Breighton Sand Formation (zones 2, 3 and 6). The land overlying these deposits would have been naturally better-drained than that over the peat, and it makes sense that these zones could be brought into agricultural use without substantial improvement. Some differences were noted in the character of the warp deposits and this may relate, in part at least, to the source of the floodwaters. A homogeneous clay warp deposit in zone 5 was probably accumulated by controlled flooding from the Swinefleet Warping Drain to the east of the site. The ground level in this zone was 1m lower than the rest of the site and this deposit may have been the westernmost extent of the flood capacity of that drain. Certainly the warp deposits were very different in zones 4 and 7 where thin, laminated bands of sand and clay were recorded, probably carried by floodwaters from the Earnshaw Warping Drain which crosses zone 4. Zone 1 was probably warped from New Drain, which lies to the west. Reports and Archives Reports detailing the results of the excavations have been submitted to the county Historic Environment Record held by the Humber Archaeology Partnership in Hull (Wessex Archaeology 2011; 2015). The archives are currently held by Wessex Archaeology under project numbers 78900 (Goole Fields I) and 107490 (Goole Fields II) and will be deposited with the East Riding Museums Service (Treasure House, Champney Road, Beverley, HU17 8HE). Note on radiocarbon dates The radiocarbon determinations were calibrated using the calibration curve of Reimer et al. (2013) and the computer program OxCal v4.2.3 (Bronk Ramsey and Lee 2013) and cited in the text at 95% confidence, quoted in the form recommended by Mook (1986), with the end points rounded outwards to 10 years. Acknowledgements Each phase of investigation took place as a condition of planning consent for the construction of wind farm turbines and associated infrastructure. The 2011 investigations were commissioned by RWE Npower Renewables and the 2015 work by RWE Innogy UK Ltd. This article has been prepared by Ashley Tuck and Andrea Burgess and is based on previous reports by Neil Dransfield and Chris Harrison. The environmental remains and soil sediments were analysed by Chris J. Stevens and David Norcott, and the pottery was examined by Peter Didsbury. Radiocarbon measurements were carried out at the Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre (SUERC) and calibrated by Alistair J. Barclay. The illustrations were drawn by Alix Sperr. References British Geological Survey. Geology of Britain viewer, http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html [Last accessed: 18 March 2016]. Bronk Ramsey, C. and Lee, S. 2013. Recent and planned developments of the program OxCal. Radiocarbon 55(2–3), 720–30. Didsbury, P. 2011. Appendix 3: Pottery. Wessex Archaeology 2011, 21–23. Dinnin, M. 1997. The drainage history of the Humberhead Levels. In R. Van de Noort and S. Ellis (eds.), 9–30. Mook, W.G. 1986. Business meeting: recommendations/resolutions adopted by the twelfth international radiocarbon conference, Radiocarbon 28, 799. Reimer, P.J. et al. 2013. IntCal13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves 0–50,000 Years Cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4), 720–30. Stevens, C.J. and Norcott, D. 2011. Appendix 4: Palaeoenvironmental evidence. Wessex Archaeology 2011, 24–27. University of Nottingham, Manuscripts and special collections www.nottingham.ac.uk/ManuscriptsandSpecialCollections/CollectionsInDepth/Water/HatfieldChase.aspx [Last accessed: 18 March 2016].

Archaeological Notes and Reviews Van de Noort, R. 2004. The Humber Wetlands: the archaeology of a dynamic landscape. Bollington: Windgather. Van de Noort, R. and Ellis, S. (eds.) 1997. Wetland Heritage of the Humberhead Levels: an Archaeological Survey. Kingston upon Hull: Humber Wetlands Project, University of Hull. Wessex Archaeology. 2011. Goole Fields Wind Farm, Goole, East Riding of Yorkshire: archaeological evaluation report. Unpublished report 78900.05. Wessex Archaeology. 2015. Goole Fields II Wind Farm, Goole: archaeological evaluation post-excavation assessment. Unpublished report 107490.04.

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

Volume 4 | 2015

Excavations in the South Transept of St Mary’s Abbey, York Adam Parker Corresponding author Assistant Curator of Archaeology, York Museums Trust adam.parker@ymt.org.uk Keywords

Medieval, Abbey, Apse, Excavation, York

Landscaping developments on the site of St Mary’s Abbey, situated within the Museum Gardens, encountered in situ archaeological remains in the south transept. A substantial area of a wall foundation was uncovered and a chapel apse discovered. The published record of the architectural features within this area is piecemeal and does not account for the unusual position of this feature within the transept. See References for a glossary of abbreviations.

Background A major landscaping and gardening project by York Museums Trust, begun in December 2014, intended to reclaim unused land behind the York Art Gallery and develop the north-west corner of the precinct of St Mary’s Abbey (centred at NGR SE 59941 52176) as part of a wider scheme of landscaping developments within the environs of the Museum Gardens, York. The scheme of works intended to open up additional visitor space within the Museum Gardens, due for opening in August 2015. The installation of a fibre optic cable from the Yorkshire Museum to the York Art Gallery, via the Gardens, necessitated this scheme of works. A condition of the SMC (Scheduled Monument Consent, English Heritage ref: S000097484) required the preliminary excavation of three trenches within the Abbey church central range in March 2015 (Parker 2015a). These excavations, undertaken to a maximum depth of 0.5m, recorded small quantities of in situ architectural remains. The later discovery of significant quantities of in situ archaeological deposits during the final phase of the cable trench excavations necessitated a second archaeological investigation on this site. St Mary’s Abbey is a Grade I Listed Building and is located within an Area of Archaeological Interest (AAI) and the York Central Historic Core Conservation Area. The York Museum Gardens, within which the Abbey is situated, are a Grade II Listed Park and Garden. Site and excavation history St Mary’s Abbey was founded in 1088 following grants from William II. The abbey church is aligned northeast-southwest, the Norman church of which had an apsidal liturgical end flanked by smaller apses in the transepts (Wilson and Mee 2009, 7). A major rebuilding and expansion of the Abbey church occurred in the mid to late 13th century under Abbot Simon de Warwick (Wilson and Burton 1988, 7). The Abbey surrendered to the crown in November 1539 during the dissolution of the monasteries under Henry VIII. From the 16th century onwards this land was used as gardens in private ownership of the King’s Manor complex and later acquired by the Yorkshire Philosophical Society in 1828. Archaeological investigations in the Abbey church have occurred over much of the past two centuries. The most extensive series of excavations on the site were undertaken in 1827–29 by the Rev. Charles Wellbeloved, the first large scale monastic excavations to be extensively published in Britain (Wellbeloved 1829). A series of excavations by the Yorkshire Philosophical Society in 1900–02 focussed on the eastern end of the church (Brierly 1901; 1902; Bilson 1906) and were followed in 1912– 14 by Walter Harvey Brook and Edwin Ridsdale Tate (Brook 1914) culminating in an updated plan of the Abbey being produced by Tate in 1914. George Willmot, Keeper of the Yorkshire Museum, undertook a series of excavations from 1952– 56 in the western range. The archive remains in the Yorkshire Museum, but has never been fully published; only fragmentary reports are available (Willmot 1953). A series of small excavations by York Archaeological Trust between 1986 and 2000 were located across the Abbey church and its associated buildings (Wilson and Mee 2009, 60). A 1986 excavation investigated the

Archaeological Notes and Reviews

Figure 1

Plan showing location of Trench within the south transept of St Mary’s Abbey. Plan after Brierly (1902). © York Museums Trust (Yorkshire Museum).

relationship between the south transept and the Yorkshire Museum’s Tempest Anderson Hall building directly atop of it (Wilson and Mee 2009,7; YAT site ref 1986.19 – a copy of this report was unavailable from YAT at the time of writing). Excavations on the Abbey church during the current phase of developments located wall foundations associated with the northwest pillar of the central range at a depth of 0.35m, but only adjacent to the modern reconstruction of these. Elsewhere in the abbey church no stratified remains were visible beyond a depth of 0.5m (Parker 2015a).

South Transept excavation A single trench measuring 8.7m x 1.05m was excavated and recorded by the author in the south Transept of St Mary’s Abbey, York in April 2015 (Parker 2015b, Fig. 1). The excavation exceeded the original SMC-specified dimensions, a decision made in consultation with Historic England, and it was intended to excavate only to a depth at which archaeological deposits were encountered: this was shown to be a variable depth of between 0.07m and 0.35m. The ground surface reduced in height by 0.86m from the highest point at the north-eastern edge of the trench, to the lowest at the south-western edge.

Figure 2

Plan of the excavated trench. Note the consolidated remains of St Mary’s Abbey planned in at the northern extremity of the plan. © York Museums Trust (Yorkshire Museum).

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

Figure 3

Volume 4 | 2015

Architectural plan of St Mary’s Abbey by Edwin Ridsdale Tate in 1914, based on the original 1827–29 plan. © York Museums Trust (Yorkshire Museum).

Three primary observations were made of the uncovered deposits. Firstly, that a substantial quantity of foundation associated with the north-east wall of the south transept remains in situ (Fig. 2, context [103]). These foundations retain a strong compaction at the level exposed, although a number of stones have been robbed out. A clear association between the foundations and the consolidated line of the nave wall as visible on the modern ground surface is established at the northwestern edge of the trench. The second observation is that of the identification of a chapel apse within the transept (Fig. 2). The southern extremities of this apse could not be investigated as part of this scheme of works. The third observation is that a significant area of disturbance has occurred at the eastern edge of the trench, interpreted as non-archaeological ground penetrating works associated with the construction of the Tempest Anderson Hall, a 1914 extension of the Yorkshire Museum (YPS 1913), the north-western wall of which is located 1m south-east from the trench edge plotted in Fig.2. The Chapel Apse Post-excavation research has focussed on the previous excavation work associated with the transepts of the Abbey church and the various interpretations over time. Excavations by Wellbeloved (1827–29) and Brierly (1900–02) produced the standard plan of the Abbey site. This plan, of which copies are retained in the Yorkshire Museum archive, shows the two smaller chapel apses in the north transept and conjecturally assume that the layout was mirrored in the south transept. A 1914 plan of the same,

Archaeological Notes and Reviews

Figure 4

Plan of excavated trench overlaying Edwin Ridsdale Tate’s 1914 plan. The north-west wall of the Yorkshire Museum is shown as a dotted line at the right extremity of Tate’s plan. © York Museums Trust (Yorkshire Museum).

with the additions of the 1912–14 excavations (also in the archive) draws the south transept apses as excavated rather than conjectural. Excavation has shown that this cannot be the case. The central point of the chapel apse is located 5m east from the wall junction of the transept and the nave, as shown to scale by Tate (Fig.3). Published reports of the apses in the north transept (Wellbeloved 1829; Brierly 1901; 1902) record a larger chapel apse centred 3.3m west from the corresponding wall junction and a second, smaller apse a further 4.5m west and inset by at least 2m. The location of the south transept apse at an approximate middle point along the wall does not correlate to the published plan (Fig.4). It should be noted that Tate’s 1914 plan has formed the basis for later published plans of the Abbey church (Wilson and Burton 1988; RCHME pl. 40) recording the in situ remains of the 11th-century Romanesque church. The dating of the south transept apse is a difficult issue to approach as no full stratigraphic record for the site was permitted, given the heritage protection on the site. If the apse is part of the 11th-century construction of the church, the conjectural location of the apses provided by Tate, and replicated by others, requires review as the apse is located further east than it has thus far been associated, and no archaeological (or published) record accounts for a second apse in the south transept. The immediate ground cover of the transept included a number of residual 19th-century small finds, identifying its excavation and reburial at some point (Parker 2015b). The 13th-century apses of the north transept were built two feet (0.6m) above the floor level of the Norman apses (Tate 1913, 16). Notes relating to the reconstruction of fragments of the Abbey walls (Brook 1914) based on excavated heights suggests that the 2015 excavations penetrated to a depth comparable with the 13th-century levels of the north transepts. Wilson and Mee (2009, 7) assert that the only remaining fragment of the Norman church visible in situ is a gritstone block, possibly of re-used Roman material. The apse encountered by this scheme of excavations was constructed of faced limestone blocks. If the apse can be associated with the 13th-century reconstruction (and repositioned as part of this rebuilding) of the Abbey church and simply not planned by previous investigators, this may account for the variation in its now established location. No foundation associated with a second apse, either east or west of this feature, was encountered during excavation. However, the possibility that a second apse has been removed from the area of disturbance at the east of the trench cannot be discounted at this stage.

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

Volume 4 | 2015

Archives The paper and digital archive for this site is held in the Yorkshire Museum (York Museums Trust) under the accession code YORYM : 2015.127. Acknowledgements Thanks are due to staff at York Museums Trust, especially Alison Pringle and Natalie McCaul, and also to Keith Emerick (Historic England). Abbreviations RCHME

Royal Commission on Historic Monuments (England)

SMC

Scheduled Monument Consent

YAT

York Archaeological Trust

YMT

York Museums Trust

YPS

Yorkshire Philosophical Society

References Bilson, J. 1906. The Eleventh Century Ends of St Augustine’s, Canterbury, and St Mary’s, York. Archaeological Journal 63, 106–116. Brierly, W. H. 1901. Report on the excavations made in the chancel of St Mary’s Abbey church. Annual Report of the Council of the Yorkshire Philosophical Society for 1900, 38–40. Brierly, W. H. 1902. Further Report on the excavations made in the chancel of St Mary’s Abbey church. Annual Report of the Council of the Yorkshire Philosophical Society for 1901, 102–103. Harvey Brook, W. 1914. Excavation of Cloister and Restoration of South Nave Wall etc. Annual Report of the Council of the Yorkshire Philosophical Society for 1913, 17–18. Parker, A. 2015a. Data Structure Report (DSR) for an Archaeological Watching Brief: York Museums Gardens, St Mary’s Abbey. Unpublished fieldwork report, York Museums Trust. Parker, A. 2015b. Data Structure Report (DSR) for an Archaeological Watching Brief: York Museums Gardens, St Mary’s Abbey (South Transept). Unpublished fieldwork report, York Museums Trust. RCHME. 1975. An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the City of York, vol 4. London: HM Stationary Office. Tate, E.R. 1913. The Charm of St Mary’s Abbey and the Architectural Museum. Annual Report of the Council of the Yorkshire Philosophical Society for 1912, 9–28. Wellbeloved, C. 1829. Some account of the ancient and present state of the Abbey of St Mary, York, and of the discoveries recently made excavating the ground on which the principal buildings of the Abbey formerly stood. Vesta Monumenta 5. Willmot, G.F. 1953. Interim Report on the 1952 Excavation in St Mary’s Abbey. Transactions of the Yorkshire Philosophical Society, 1952, York: Yorkshire Museum. Wilson, B and Mee, F. 2009. St Mary's Abbey and The King's Manor, York: The Pictorial Evidence. York: York Archaeological Trust. Wilson, C. and Burton, J. 1988. St Mary’s Abbey, York. York: Yorkshire Museum. Yorkshire Philosophical Society. 1913. Report of the Council of the Yorkshire Philosophical Society, February 1913. York: YPS.

Archaeological Notes and Reviews

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

Volume 4 | 2015 (77–88)

Recent Work in Yorkshire by John Buglass Archaeological Services John Buglass Corresponding author John Buglass Archaeological Services (JBAS) johnbuglass@yahoo.com | www.jbasarchaeology.co.uk The last year has seen JBAS engaged on a wide range of projects across many parts of Yorkshire. As ever, these projects ranged from small developer-funded watching briefs thorough to larger scale community excavations. Printers Cottage, Castle Hill, Richmond, North Yorkshire

NGR NZ 1709 0075

A programme of archaeological evaluation and monitoring was undertaken on land adjacent to Printers Cottage, Richmond. The results of the various archaeological investigations recorded the remains of a series of rooms up to 2m below current ground level which were associated with a building which had originally stood just to the west of Printers Cottage. These remains originally date to the later 18th or 19th century and had undergone numerous rebuilds and modifications (probably in the late 19th century). The buildings had been partially demolished and debris had been levelled and landscaped resulting in a significant raising of the ground level. Although the site abutted the castle wall, no evidence for a moat or any other features relating to the castle were recorded apart from the wall’s relatively shallow foundations. Black Swan Yard, Ripon, North Yorkshire

NGR SE 3107 7124

An archaeological watching brief was undertaken on the second phase of the re-development of the former pub stables in Black Swan Yard to the south-west of the historic core of Ripon. The watching brief recorded the continuation of the substantial 15thand 16th-century limestone-constructed building that was previously recorded. This building was the first to have been built on this site as the plot was previously in use for cultivation from at least the 13/14th century. There was probably a toft to the rear of a building facing on to Westgate, to the north. The Parsonage, Knaresborough, North Yorkshire

NGR SE 3466 5728

During emergency repair works on the electricity supply at The Parsonage adjacent to St John the Baptist Church, Knaresborough, a large number of human bones were encountered. From an inspection of the works it was apparent that the remains had already been disturbed when the original cable was laid in the 1930s. These remains had then been placed on top of the cable prior to backfilling and were now encountered as part of the repair works. The Coroner’s Department of the Ministry of Justice was contacted and, since the remains had already been disturbed, it was deemed that an exhumation licence was not necessary with the proviso that all the remains were collected and re-buried appropriately. This was carried out by St John the Baptist Church in their Garden of Remembrance. The discovery of a large number of mainly lower limb bones outside the graveyard wall clearly showed that the cemetery was once larger and that part of it had been used to create a public thoroughfare. The date for this is uncertain but was before the Ordnance Survey map of 1847. The only artefactual dating evidence was the base of a Yellow Ware candlestick. Yellow Wares are contemporary with Cistercian Ware and Blackware and as such could date to anywhere between the mid-15th and the late 17th centuries. However, the example found here is probably form the latter end of the date range (16th/17th century; C. Cumberpatch pers comm.).

Archaeological Register

Figure 1

Conisbrough Castle community excavation.

Conisbrough Castle, Conisbrough, South Yorkshire

NGR SK 5145 9888

The second year of investigations took place at Conisbrough Castle in September 2015. A key part of the overall Conisbrough Castle Project – a £1.1m investment made by English Heritage, the Heritage Lottery Fund and Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council into the transformation of the castle and its facilities – was the development of a programme of local community archaeology (Fig. 1). In the first year this comprised a series of training sessions introducing the community volunteers into many aspects of archaeology, from understanding and appreciation of the past and its material remains through to excavation and recording techniques. These training sessions led directly on to a full two week archaeological excavation in June 2014. The excavation was carried out within the Inner Ward of the castle in areas which had been chosen for investigation as part of a research agenda developed by English Heritage staff. The investigations were in order to try to further understand the character, dating, form, architectural and archaeological development of the buried and standing remains that make up this part of the monument. So far, over the two years of investigations, a total of eight trenches covering c.80m² have been excavated in the Inner Ward. The results of these investigations have helped to understand earlier excavations carried out in the 1960s as well as answer specific research questions around the relationship of various structures and the possible survival of earlier rampart features. The most unexpected discovery was a substantial ditch (4m wide, 1.5m deep) running north-south across the centre of the Inner Ward. Unfortunately, no datable artefacts were recovered from the excavated section but, pending further analysis, the ditch appears to belong to the earliest phases of the post-Conquest castle. Small amounts of pre-Conquest pottery were 78

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

Volume 4 | 2015

recovered (notably Torksey Ware) and there is evidence for several aspects of the 13/14th-century development of the castle. Currently, it is hoped that a third year of excavation will be undertaken and a full report will be produced for a future edition of the Forum Journal. Overall, the community project at Conisbrough Castle has been a great success. Over the two years 15 volunteers from the local community have taken part in the pre-dig training, then spending 24 days excavating, recording and backfilling eight trenches. During the two digs, a programme of daily school visits saw over 500 pupils visiting the site and taking part in archaeology-themed activities. In the middle weekend of both the digs the volunteers ran open days, with a further two smaller test pits being excavated in the Outer Bailey (unfortunately neither encountered any archaeology) along with a trial trench over the site of a possible tower base in the outer wall. At a second open weekend in October 2014 the volunteers presented the results of their labours to the general public with over 1100 people attending. The 2015 excavations were widely reported on BBC local television and in the Yorkshire Post, with a marked increase in visitors as a result.

Staynor Hall, Selby, North Yorkshire

NGR SE 6226 3094

Archaeological recording in the form of a site strip, map and record with target sample excavation was undertaken on the ground works for the construction of a new school at Staynor Hall, Selby. The archaeological monitoring highlighted two main areas of archaeology separated by a large central wet area: Area 1 in the north-east of the site; and Area 2 in the south-west. The chronology of the features represents repeated attempts at draining and partitioning the land over a prolonged period of time. The earliest artefacts recovered dated from the late Iron-Age to Romano-British period, although these were residual elements indicative of general activity in the area. Within Area 1 the earliest features that were confidently dated were various attempts at drainage and the installation of a probable medieval field system. Several pits and a possible well were also recorded which may suggest occupational activity in the vicinity dating to the later medieval period. Evidence was also found for more recent land division in the form of a ditch and hedge with a possible associated animal burial. Area 2 contained similar evidence for drainage attempts in the medieval period, along with the development of a more substantial field system. The ditches forming the three visible arms of the field system could clearly be seen as a series of recutting events that continued outside the excavation area. This field system appears to be late/post medieval in date, with elements of it having been previously located by trial trenching carried out by Northern Archaeological Associates. Historic environment surveys Historic environment surveys for management purposes were undertaken for Yorkshire Water on the woodlands at Ryburn Reservoir and Gorpley Clough, both in West Yorkshire. Although the woodlands did not contain evidence for typical woodland industries (e.g. charcoal burning) they did contain a wealth of other historical features. At Ryburn Reservoir near Ripponden (centred on NGR SE 0202 1880) a total of 17 historic sites were identified. These included abandoned buildings, historic route ways, stone quarries and arborglyphs (graffiti cut into the bark of living trees). The site of the former cotton mill at Hazelgrove was the most significant site, and although much of it has been completely removed, a surprising amount of the water-management features could still be seen. The mill is known to have been in operation from at least 1854 and historic mapping shows various subtle changes to the complex which the field survey was able to enhance. The largest changes to the landscape occurred when the reservoir dam was built in the early 20th century. This resulted in several areas being stone-quarried for the dam’s foundations upon which the preformed concrete sections were laid. Within the main quarry there were a number of leftover preformed concrete building units which had been used to create a ‘stone circle’ with a central ‘altar’ – somewhat reminiscent of Stonehenge (Fig. 2).

Archaeological Register

Figure 2

Ryburn â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Stonehengeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;.

Perhaps the most unexpected discovery was the extensive cutting of arborglyphs on many of the trees around the reservoir. These were most common along the eastern side of Bogden Clough and those that were dated appear to start around the time of the First World War. It is possible that these were created by local soldiers leaving a record of their presence before they left for, or returned, to France. Arborglyphs dating to the time of the construction of the dam were also noted, along with several examples from around the time of the Second World War. The assessment of the landscape around Gorpley Clough (centred on NGR SD 912 232) encountered evidence for what potentially appears to be an early coal gas production site. Early Ordnance Survey mapping records the presence of a substantial gasometer on the north-western side of the clough. Its presence here seems to be somewhat incongruous since the source of the gas is not obvious. However, the possible source could well have been the coal and shale measures which are well known in the area and are extensively exposed in the sides of the adjacent clough. There is evidence for mineral extraction in the form of a series of adits into the coal seams along the northern side of the clough. There is also a well-developed path terraced into the side of the clough which links some of the adits and the gasometer site.

Breary Banks Weir, Gollinglith Foot, North Yorkshire

NGR SE 1577 8065

A programme of archaeological recording and archive research was undertaken on the remains of a small weir, waterwheel, associated valves/pumps and sewage treatment works on the River Burn prior to the planned removal of the weir. The survey also recorded an earlier, partially collapsed, late 18th-century stone barn adjacent to the water wheel.

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

Figure 3

Volume 4 | 2015

Water wheel at Breary Banks.

The weir, water wheel and associated features were all clearly associated with each other and archive research established that they were built between 1904 and 1906. This is at odds with the Ordnance Survey which does not record many of the features as being present until 1927. They are all part of a wider water supply system to the various phases of the original Navvy camp and then the later army camp at Breary Banks to the south. Not only did the system supply the camp, but there were remains of pipework running to the camps’ sewage treatment works located to the east. Examination of the treatment tanks noted that the bricks were from the early 20th-century Stonefall Brickworks at Harrogate. Interestingly, the 1909 estate map shows that there could well have been a second water supply system originating to the east of the site investigated. This may relate to other aspects of the scheme to build dams in the valley which were eventually abandoned. The water wheel and associated equipment still bore various manufactures marks and the 6 foot (1.2m) diameter wheel was supplied by Berry, Henry and Cook Ltd. but was probably installed by the workforce from the Navvy camp. Barry, Henry and Co. was originally founded in 1790 by John Barry, Blacksmith in Loch Street, Aberdeen; they are described as ‘founders, engineers and millwrights’. The company traded in various forms until the 1970s. Although the paddles of the wheel were very decayed the bearings supporting the wheel were in very good condition and it was still possible to turn it by hand (Fig. 3).

Archaeological Register

Figure 4

J Marr building, Kingston upon Hull.

Building recording and monitoring J Marr Fisheries, Kingston upon Hull, East Riding of Yorkshire

NGR TA 07969 27175

A survey of the remains of the 1930s J Marr building in St Andrews Docks, Kingston upon Hull was undertaken prior to redevelopment. The Marr Fishing Company originated in Hull in the latter part of the 19th century and by 1898 was also operating out of Fleetwood in Lancashire. From the late 19th century onwards they did not have a presence again in Hull until 1934 when they acquired the City Steam Fishing Company. It was probably around 1939 that the company established the building in St Andrews Dock. The building retains some good examples of Art Deco-style detailing, although more low-key than would be expected, due to its industrial nature. One of the more distinctive features are the oriel windows in the west elevation (Fig. 4). The building is attached to the listed Lord Line building and forms part of St Andrews Dock which was the centre of Hullâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s fishing and fish-processing industry from 1883 until the late 1980s. As such, the area is significant in the development of Hull and its fishing industry and to the wider deep-sea fisheries nationally. The survey was only able to record the exterior of the building due to its dangerous condition but it did note the survival of many of the details of the original glazing arrangements. Stylistically the building is thought to originate in the 1930s. However, an examination of historic Ordnance Survey mapping for St Andrews Dock published in 1911 shows that there was a building of the same size and shape as the recorded buildings occupying the site. Shortly after the recording, the building was damaged by a further fire and has subsequently been demolished. Monitoring during demolition recorded that the J Marr

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

Volume 4 | 2015

building had been re-faced with red brick, presumably in the 1930s, and this was when the Art Deco detailing was added. The recording of the J Marr building was carried out on behalf of East Riding Archaeology. Parker Barn, Litton, Yorkshire Dales National Park

NGR SD 9052 7403

The building survey undertaken on Parker Barn at Litton recorded the remains of a barn which has its origins in the 18th century, based on its simple style and a George II (1727â&#x20AC;&#x201C;1760) penny from the foundations. The barn was originally a single bay deep and three bays long with separate entrance doors for each bay located on the northern side. The arrangement of hay loft openings on both the northern-end south sides suggests its primary function was agricultural. This original configuration had then undergone two phases of extension. The first of these was the addition of a substantial barn to the west of the original structure. This was probably in the late 18th or, more likely, early 19th century based on the in situ 18/19th-century Baltic timber marks in the roof. This barn was a two-storey building with a large cart door on the northern side. From the presence of a lantern niche in western end of the extension, this end seems to have been given over to a small stable or animal stalls, with the rest of the barn probably being used for hay storage. The presence of a doorway opposite the cart door suggests that there may have been some small-scale threshing taking place, since this arrangement of openings would allow for a suitable through-draught. The second phase of extension was the addition of a cart porch on the northern side at some time between 1893 and 1907. Overall, the barn was built from locally-sourced, roughly-finished stonework bonded with a lime mortar under a stone tile roof. At some point prior to 1843, documentary sources suggest that the central section of the extended barn was possibly adapted for domestic use. The evidence for this is primarily from the annotated parish tithe map and a brief entry in a book on local history claiming that the barn was an inn which avoided licence payment by providing free ale so long as the patron bought a penny or halfpenny parkin (Pontefract and Hartley, 1934, 93). Unfortunately, no physical evidence for this was recorded during the building recording and subsequent watching brief. Reference Pontefract, E and Hartley, M. 1934. Wharfedale. London: J.M. Dent and Sons.

Archaeological Register

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

Volume 4 | 2015

Recent Work in Yorkshire by Wessex Archaeology Ashley Tuck and Andrew Norton† Corresponding author† Andrew Norton, Regional Manager Wessex Archaeology a.norton@wessexarch.co.uk

Archaeological Register Goole Fields II Wind Farm, Goole, East Riding of Yorkshire

NGR SE 7400 2000

Five areas of strip, map and record excavation and 14 trial trenches were excavated ahead of a wind-power development. The investigations found no significant archaeological features but the work included a programme of radiocarbon dating which demonstrated that peat deposits formed in bogs throughout the Neolithic period that accords with the accepted development of the Humber wetlands. The other notable deposits examined during these investigations date to the 18th century and onwards, when ‘warping’ – the intentional flooding of low-lying land in order to allow ‘warp’ (mud and silt suspended in the water) to settle – was used to raise and improve marshy land in order to make it suitable for agriculture. Such deposits were recorded across the site but notably not on an elevated ridge of Breighton Sand. See Archaeological Notes and Reviews in this volume for a more detailed report. Humber Bridgehead (Phase 2), Hessle, East Riding of Yorkshire

NGR TA 0186 2628

Following on from a previous geophysical survey, 41 trenches were excavated. The northern section of the site contained no features of archaeological interest, with geophysical anomalies proving to be geological in nature. A cluster of archaeological features across the southern end of the site corresponded with a series of ill-defined anomalies identified by the geophysical survey. A probable ring gully with an associated east–west aligned boundary ditch was identified along with a dense cluster of ditches and associated features, possibly including small enclosures. Pottery dating from the Late Iron Age to early Romano-British period was found. An area of strip, map and excavation targeted the dense cluster of ditches and confirmed the results of the evaluation trenching. The exact character and form of this possible settlement is not clear from the combined results of the geophysical survey and excavation to date. Land north of A166, Stamford Bridge, East Riding of Yorkshire

NGR SE 7158 5583

Twenty-two trenches were excavated targeting positive geophysical survey results and blank areas. A V-shaped ditch that yielded sherds of 2nd-century AD mortarium had not been evident in the geophysical survey results. This ditch was isolated but the pottery does suggest settlement activity in the vicinity. Ridge and furrow was seen in a single trench. A post-medieval field boundary shown on a map of 1854 crossed six trenches, but a second geophysical feature running parallel to this boundary was not visible archaeologically. A small part of the foundations of a former building (Bleach House), with a cobble exterior floor, demonstrated that the floor level associated with the building was 1m lower than the current agricultural land surface. 20 Bishophill, City of York

NGR SE 5997 5140

Archaeological works were undertaken in advance of a proposed development surrounded by listed buildings within a conservation area, 10m to the east of the scheduled medieval city walls. Five geotechnical boreholes were monitored, followed by the excavation of two evaluation trenches. A possible robbed-out wall and a 4th-century buried soil were revealed at a depth of 1.6m. There was evidence for cobble, gravel and mortar surfaces with re-deposited fragments of painted plaster immediately to the east. In the north, a large deposit of medieval garden soil extended to at least 3.4m below the ground level, and was overlain by post-medieval soils and a possible brick and stone garden feature at a depth of 1.5m. The medieval soils appeared to fill a large cut feature, possibly a quarry dug for the construction of the nearby Holy Trinity Priory or the 10th-century church of St Mary. 86

Forum: The Journal of Council for British Archaeology Yorkshire

Volume 4 | 2015

The agreed evaluation strategy aimed to avoid undue disturbance of the deposits, and so the keyhole excavation method somewhat constrains our understanding. However, it is clear that the site lies close to a mid- to late-Roman building, if not over a domestic dwelling, within the colonia of Roman York (Eboracum). The pottery assemblage, painted plaster and other finds point to a relatively high-status dwelling with the caveat that the material may have been imported from elsewhere in the city.

Land off High Street, Sherburn, North Yorkshire

NGR SE 9606 7671

The archaeology recorded in six evaluation trenches correlated strongly with an existing geophysical survey. Fragments of a medieval field system were present in the north-east of the site. A single ditch to the south-west may represent a continuation of the field system although it contained intrusive post-medieval material. It is not known if the survival of the medieval field system continues beyond the fragments so far identified. Land off Langton Road, Norton-on-Derwent, North Yorkshire

NGR SE 7965 7037

Following on from desk-based assessment and geophysical survey, nine archaeological trial trenches were dug. Two phases of archaeological activity were represented on the site with the focus of Romano-British activity on the lower terrace and medieval activity on the upper terrace. The artefacts recovered include Romano-British (2nd to 3rd century AD) and medieval ceramics (primarily 12th to 14th century), animal bone (cattle, sheep, horse, dog and pig), and small quantities of fired clay, ironworking slag and ceramic building material. Informative environmental evidence was present in features from both phases. The crop types represented are typical of the Romano-British and medieval periods in England, and there is potential evidence in the plant assemblage for the use of turves as fuel in the earlier Romano-British phase. The results of the archaeological trial trenching correlated reasonably well with the geophysical survey results although the suggestion of small-scale industrial activity on the lower terrace was not substantiated. Large palaeochannels were also present on the lower terrace. The general absence of structural features may suggest that the focus of settlement during the RomanoBritish and medieval periods lay beyond the site. The absence of pits and postholes, and the relatively limited number of finds, does not appear to substantiate the presence of a deserted medieval settlement as recorded on the Historic Environment Record. A trackway indicated by historic maps and geophysical survey appeared to be defined by sections of ditches on either side rather than being a sunken hollow-way. This trackway probably led to the former Sutton Grange. Finningley and Rossington Regeneration Route Scheme (FARRRS) Phase 2, Doncaster, South Yorkshire

NGR SK 6310 9929 to SK 6461 9916

A detailed gradiometer survey was undertaken over 17.4ha in advance of a road scheme close to a pottery production site at Cantley, Rossington Bridge and the scheduled monument of Rossington Roman fort. At the western end of the scheme, the identified features correlated with cropmarks identified by the National Mapping Programme and post-medieval land boundaries shown on historical maps. The majority of linear anomalies in this area were related to the post-medieval field system developed during drainage improvement in the 17th century. Two parallel linear anomalies were visible at a proposed

Archaeological Register alternative route of the Ermine Street Roman road. Immediately east were further linear anomalies that appeared to respect the alignment of the parallel features. It is likely that these are all Romano-British in origin although they share the alignment of the post-medieval field system. Further probable archaeological linear anomalies visible at the eastern end of scheme are isolated and unsupported by documentary evidence. An archaeological watching brief was maintained during geotechnical works. Nine test pits did not contain any archaeological features, deposits or artefacts. The presence or otherwise of these anticipated archaeological features has not been confirmed by this limited excavation. Rossington Inland Port Borrow-pit, Doncaster, South Yorkshire

NGR SK 5850 9952

In advance of the excavation of a borrow-pit as part of work associated with a nearby new freight terminal, 16ha of detailed gradiometer survey and evaluation trenching was undertaken. Thirty-seven evaluation trenches were excavated, the majority positioned to intercept cropmarks and geophysical anomalies defining a field system of likely Late Iron Age to Romano-British date. The results of the trenching revealed that the cropmark evidence provided a better indication for the presence of belowground archaeology than the geophysical survey, which generally only succeeded in detecting the deepest features. The fills of the excavated ditches had simple silting sequences, with no signs of re-cutting, suggesting that they were short-lived features. As is typical for the site-type and region, little dating evidence was found. Results from neighbouring excavations suggest that the site lies within a landscape that was settled and cultivated in the Middle to Late Iron Age, and in which extensive field systems were set out and maintained from the Late Iron Age (if not earlier) to the middle of the Romano-British period. Deposits of desiccated peat and subsided ditch fills reflect the de-watering of the former wetland. No evidence of post-Roman activity was present on the site, apart from modern drainage and boundary ditches. Haigh Hall, Kirkhamgate, Wakefield, West Yorkshire

NGR SE 2863 2366 to SE 3121 2450

Detailed gradiometer survey was conducted over 3.8ha of a proposed cable route. Linear ditches and pit-like features were detected, with one complex area of possible interconnecting but fragmented linear features. No anomalies that can be conclusively linked to mining activities were detected. Pontefract Road, Purston Jaglin, West Yorkshire

NGR SE 4297 2018

A strip, map and sample excavation allowed further investigation of an enclosure that had been previously identified through cropmark and geophysical evidence, and sampled by trial trenching. Although the enclosure was univallate (defined by a single circuit of ditch) and appeared fairly basic in plan, a reasonably complex sequence of development was recorded. This began with a simple straight gully, which was replaced by a sub-rectangular enclosure ditch. This originally had a c. 9.5m-wide southern entrance, which was subsequently blocked but later re-established. In the interval, a spur of ditch was constructed from the south-eastern corner of the enclosure. A small assemblage of Romano-British pottery was recovered, providing a 2ndcentury date. A reasonably prolonged lifespan for the enclosure is suggested by the repeated renewal and alteration of its constituent ditches. Environmental remains were sparse. The enclosure appears to have been uninhabited and may have been used for the temporary containment of livestock, with the nearby stream probably exploited as a water source.

The Archaeological Forum Journal | CBA Yorkshire

Volume 4 | 2015

Proceedings Editorial. Christiane Kroebel

Thematic Index

Members’ Call to Action: Do we have your email address?

iii

CBA Yorkshire Annual Review 2015–16. Paul Brayford

Feature Article

Archaeological Notes and Reviews

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: Historic Graffiti at St Oswald’s Church, Filey, North Yorkshire.

Extending the Boundaries of Known Locations for Prehistoric Rock Art within the North York Moors and Yorkshire Dales.

John Buglass

Council for Brit shArchaeology

CITiZAN: Community Archaeology Around the English Coastline.

Andy Sherman

Ashley Tuck and Andrea Burgess

Adam Parker

Excavations in the South Transept of St Mary’s Abbey, York.

Marcus Jecock, Steve Bence, Christopher Hall and Trevor Pearson

Upper Wharfedale Heritage Group and The Kilnsey Project: History from Vernacular Buildings. Alison C. Armstrong

Nidderdale Chase Heritage Group: The Ashelby Pasture Project 39 2015 interim report. Marie-Anne Hintze and Janis Heward

Jean Robinson and Janis Heward

Behind the Scenes

Finds Beneath Your Feet: A Review of the Portable Antiquities Scheme in North and East Yorkshire in 2015. Rebecca Griffiths

Council for British Archaeology

65 71

Archaeological Register

The Hanging Grimston Community Archaeology Project.

Identifying a Victorian Mortuary Chapel: Raikes Road Burial Ground, Skipton, 2015 interim excavation report.

w w.cba-yorkshire.org.uk/join or cal 01904 671417 and mention CBA Yorkshire

Neolithic Peat Formation and 18th-Century Land Reclamation at Goole Fields, East Riding of Yorkshire.

Communities in Action

Cuts to Archaeology and Heritage: Call to Action. Rob Lennox

Paul Brown and Barbara Brown

Recent Work in Yorkshire by John Buglass Archaeological Services. John Buglass Recent Work in Yorkshire by Wessex Archaeology.

Ashley Tuck and Andrew Norton

77 85

Join the adventure today!

ARCHAE OLOGY FOR ALL

CBA Yorkshire is a registered charity (519581)

www.cba-yorkshire.org.uk/join or call 01904 671417 and mention CBA Yorkshire CBA Yorkshire is a registered charity (519581)