1. Summary The Ingleborough Archaeology Group carried out in-depth investigations of a multi-period site at Kingsdale Head north-east of Ingleton from 2005 to 2007 as part of the broader Kingsdale Project (Howard 2007). In 2005 and 2006 two seasons of work were undertaken in conjunction with the University of Bradford’s Archaeological, Geographical and Environmental Sciences (AGES), under the direction of John McIlwaine. These excavations revealed a complex multi-period site in which a medieval farmstead, a Bronze Age burnt mound and a Mesolithic fire pit were investigated. Follow up work in 2007, with Vivienne Metcalf of ArcheType acting as mentor, took the investigation of the medieval structure further. All of this work was written up in a detailed published report where background information and data can be obtained (Batty, Batty and McIlwaine 2007).

The subject of the investigations proposed here, the fire pit and associated structural features, was first identified in a geophysical examination of the site using a FM36 Fluxgate gradiometer that was undertaken by the Group’s Arthur Batty (Batty, Batty and McIlwaine 2007, 41). The resultant plot showed a clearly defined circular feature, about 1.30m in diameter, with a high magnetic reading: this was excavated and proved to be the fire pit. Offset on the south-eastern side of this anomaly was an arc of nine small circular features with those at each end of the arc displaying the highest readings. The central fire pit was excavated in June 2006 (Batty, Batty and McIlwaine 2007, 82-90) and was radiocarbon dated to 6960-6660CalBC, towards the end of the Early Mesolithic, from a sample of hawthorn (Crataegus) charcoal from a sealed layer at the base of the pit. The sample (GU – 14468) was dated at the Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre AMS Facility (SUERC). The fire pit was sealed by a layer of hillwash that contained chert flakes and chips, indicating the possibility of additional early prehistoric activity on the north-western side of the pit.

The associated arc of postholes was not investigated in 2006 as the full significance of the ‘structure’ was not appreciated until the radiocarbon date was obtained. If, as is now postulated, these ‘postholes’ are for a shelter contemporary with the Mesolithic fire pit, and the proposals outlined here reveal them to be such and to have a clear relationship with the central fire pit, then the features together will have national importance in the corpus of known and studied Mesolithic sites with evidence of structures.

It is proposed to return to the site in May 2009, specifically to reopen the fire pit and to open a 15m by 15m trench which will encompass that plus the arc of anomalies and the area north-west of the pit.

The work will be directed by Dr Nigel Melton, Research Fellow at AGES, in a freelance capacity, with assistance from doctoral student Hannah Russ. Dr Melton has excavated on sites that have ranged from the Mesolithic to Post-Medieval periods and is currently the co-director of the Gristhorpe Man Project, a scientific re-examination of an Early Bronze Age tree trunk coffin burial discovered in 1834. In 2004-2005 he directed the excavation, at West Voe in Shetland, of the most northerly and remote Mesolithic site to be discovered in the British Isles (Melton & Nicholson 2004a; 2004b; 2007; Melton 2005; 2008; Melton, in press). Hannah Russ has worked on a number of Mesolithic sites in the UK, including West Voe, Tarn Site 'A' at Malham, Chapel Cave, Gorple Lower Reservoir, and a series of caves at Arcow Woods. She is an environmental specialist and has been involved in establishing sampling strategies, sample processing and post-excavation for a range of Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, Iron Age, Roman and Medieval sites.

2. Archaeological Importance

Mesolithic studies in the British Isles have progressed significantly in the last decade with the identification and excavation of structures such as those at Howick in Northumberland (Waddington 2007), and East Barns near Dunbar (Warren 2005,128-30). Evidence for more ephemeral structures has also been recognised at sites such as Morton in Fife, in association with shell midden sites such as Cnoc Craig in the southern Hebrides (Wickham-Jones 2004) ), and at Ferriter’s Cove in the Irish Republic (Woodman et al., 1999, 128-129). Important work has also been undertaken on Mesolithic coastal communities with investigations encompassing both inter-tidal and submarine sites (for example: Fleming 2004; Bell 2007).

It can be seen that the recent advances in understanding of the British Mesolithic have tended to concentrate on coastal communities. There has been less work on inland sites. In the Yorkshire Dales recent work has included studies of mobility and contact based on the distribution of sites that have been identified by lithics scatters and by scientific analysis of the finds (Evans et al. 2007). A complex seasonal use of the upland, lowland and coastal zones has been proposed (Donahue and Lovis 2006). The Kingsdale site is important in providing structural evidence within the upland zone, and presents a unique opportunity to examine and test hypotheses of seasonal mobility in northern Britain, especially when considered with the recently discovered structural evidence from the important lowland site at Starr Carr (N. Milner, pers. comm.).

3. Comparative sites

Work in the north-west of England has shown evidence of activity within the Late Mesolithic (ie 6500-4000BC) in the form of lithic scatters at St Bees (Cherry and Cherry 1983 and 2002) and in the Esk estuary (Bonsall et al.1994), and at various other sites on the Cumbrian coast. The now famous Late Mesolithic footprints preserved in estuarine muds at Formby indicate activity on the Lancashire coast (Gonzales et al. 1997).

Evidence from the Early Mesolithic has taken the form of lithics within caves in Furness as well as from scattered sites in the Eden valley, at Levens and at Crook o’ Lune near Caton, east of Lancaster (Brennand 2006). Brennand has also summarised Mesolithic sites, identified from flint scatters, within the Pennines which have produced ‘one of the greatest concentrations of Mesolithic sites in the country’ (Brennand 2006, 27).

Prolific seasonal flint-working Mesolithic sites were investigated at sites around Malham Tarn by a team led by Dr Randolph Donahue of AGES, University of Bradford (Donahue and Lovis 2000), and at Semerwater.

If verified by the proposed excavation, the suspected structure at Kingsdale enclosing a central fire pit will represent a new site type in the British Mesolithic upland environment. The known structures, such as those at Howick and East Barns, have internal pits and hearths, whilst known fire pits, such as those at Auchareoch on Arran (Affleck et al. 1988), did not have associated structural features. These are all lowland or coastal sites, as is the structure at Culverwell on the Isle of Portland which was associated with a shell midden and which contained a number of hearths and had an associated fire pit (Palmer 1999).

4. Contemporary Significance and Academic Potential

The site was proved to be of regional importance by excavation of the fire pit, given that so little is known in detail for the Mesolithic within the Yorkshire Dales and wider Central Pennines. If the proposed work confirms that the arc of anomalies is a set of postholes and that it was associated with the pit as a temporary shelter and, if convincing evidence of chert knapping from debitage is also revealed, it will be of national significance and will contribute to the further understanding of seasonal mobility within the Mesolithic upland landscape of northern England.

The work could suggest further opportunities for research on the western side of the Pennine watershed. Hitherto, archaeological evidence has tended to suggest that most movement was from the eastern lowlands up the main east-flowing river valleys of the Ouse system, rather than up westward flowing rivers.

5. Research Questions

a. These questions are designed to further the results of previous excavations of the fire pit:


1. are the magnetic anomalies on the geophysics plot postholes?
2. can any dating evidence for these anomalies be obtained and are they contemporary with the fire pit?
3. can any ecoevidence be obtained to inform the contemporary environment, such as pollen and seeds?
4. can further evidence of the fire pit’s usage be obtained?
5. if time permits, can any contemporary link be identified between the site and the nearby palaeochannel identified in the 2005-6 geophysical surveys of the site?

b. Addressing these questions will be tied into the following objectives:
1. dating the arc of anomalies.
2. confirming that the anomalies are postholes from a temporary shelter.
3. establishing that the fire pit and arc are contemporary.
4. establishing that chert knapping was undertaken in the immediate vicinity of the site.
5. understanding the micro-environment on site during the Mesolithic.
6. providing a high level of training for those participating in the excavation process.
7. involving the local and wider community in the project.
8. interpreting the site for the local and wider community
9. disseminating the results locally and nationally in the form of a report, academic journal papers and on the Group’s website. Data will also be submitted to the YDNPA HER.
10. adding to the existing range of educational materials on Kingsdale for local schools.

6. Methodology

a. Desk-based assessment

This was undertaken for the earlier seasons of work on site, and is reported on in the project report (Batty, Batty and McIlwaine 2007).

b. Geophysical surveying

The high magnetic anomaly within the fire pit may have masked surrounding magnetic hot spots and, given that this was fully excavated, the proposed 10m by 10m trench will be surveyed again to identify any possible anomalies not revealed earlier.

Topographical surveying of the entire site was carried out in 2005. As the fire pit did not show in any way as an earthwork, no further topographical surveying is envisaged.

c. Excavation

A preliminary meeting of David Johnson with Dr Nigel Melton and Hannah Russ, held at AGES on 12th December 2008, formulated the sequence of excavation activities outlined below. The project has been designed to take account of the demands of conservation of the archaeological resource, and of possible future research, and of the needs for training and community participation.

1. one trench (Trench 8) 15m by 15m will be excavated on the footprint of the 2007 geophysical survey plot. This trench will encompass the 3m by 3m trench (Trench 6) excavated in 2006 to investigate the geophysical anomaly, and which proved the fire pit.

2. turf and top soil will be removed manually and the trench will be photo-cleaned and planned using the Group’s existing drawing frames. All turf, top soil and other materials will be stored on Visqueen sheeting to be backfilled at the end of the excavation period.

3. the trench will then be divided into squares of 1m by 1m. These will be will be excavated by trowelling. All material removed from each square will be wet sieved using a 2mm mesh to identify and recover any chert debitage from within the surface hillwash layer. It is envisaged that three staff will be required to operate the wet sieving process.

4. a 1litre sample will be taken from every second square and bagged for post-excavation laboratory analysis of environmental remains. Twenty-five such samples will be flotted on site, with the flotation tank fitted with a filtering pump. Flotting will use a 0.5mm mesh to recover small ecofacts.

5. one core sample will be taken for post-excavation pollen analysis.

6. the fire pit from Trench 6 will be fully re-excavated.

7. when excavation reaches the level at which the arc of putative postholes appears – as nuanced differences in soil characteristics – work will continue on an ‘open area’ basis with each anomaly being individually excavated.

8. at all times all finds and detailed features will be levelled and logged using the Group’s total station, with data being downloaded and post-processed using Penmap software.

9. planning using drawing frames will be undertaken as and when appropriate, as is the Group’s normal policy.

10. a comprehensive photographic record will be maintained at all stages of the excavation process, using digital photography. Recording will be done on the Group’s proforma sheets.

11. all recording will be undertaken in full accordance with English Heritage’s guidelines (MAP 2) using best practice as formulated by its Centre for Archaeology.

12. the Group’s proforma context recording sheets will be employed as per Cfa procedures.

13. any artefacts found within the trench will be given a small finds number and will be logged and bagged on site for post-processing analysis, as per industry best practice.

d. Post-excavation

The following procedures will be followed:

1. compiling a project archive. This will be compiled during the excavation and a daily site diary will be kept to this end. This will be undertaken by a member of the Group’s management team. The final archive will be compiled in line with the Group’s normal practices which conform to best practice. Copies of the completed archive will be deposited in the Group’s own archive, with Craven Museum and with the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority (YDNPA).

2. full post-processing and post-excavation artefact and ecofact analysis will be carried out by those with the necessary professional skills. A Harris matrix will be drawn up.

3. a detailed technical report will be compiled, again following the Group’s normal practice. This will include full details of methodology, excavation and post-processing work, full analysis and results, graphics, and specialist reports. It will be compiled by the project director and members of the management team.

4. it is hoped that material will be recovered that is capable of being dated. The sampling strategy proposed, together with flotation tank processing of the samples, will maximise the recovery of charred organic material. The quantity of organic material that may be available for radiocarbon dating will not, however, be known until the excavation is underway.

5. an integral element of the project will be dissemination of the results and processes to as wide an audience as possible. This will be achieved in the following ways:

i. during the middle weekend of the excavation period a session will be organised to be partly a social function for all participants and invited guests, and partly a dissemination and educational process with short informative talks to be given on relevant aspects of prehistoric archaeology, by Dr Melton, Hannah Russ, and one of the country’s foremost Mesolithic scholars, Dr Nicky Milner of the University of York. Dr Milner has worked on the internationally important Star Carr and Howick Mesolithic sites and is an acknowledged expert on early shell middens. She has published extensively on aspects of British and European Mesolithic archaeology.

ii. the technical report will be published on the Group’s website, with links to the YDNPA’s Out of Oblivion website and others as appropriate. Hard copies will be available for sale and for distribution to interested bodies.

iii. an academic article will be produced for submission - depending on the findings – to either the Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society or the Yorkshire Archaeological Journal.

iv. a short synoptical report will be submitted to the Yorkshire Archaeological Society and the Council for British Archaeology (Yorkshire) for inclusion in their annual reports.

v. the site will be open at all reasonable times to the general public who may wish to visit.

vi. the local press will be notified in advance of the excavation and material will be submitted to them for publication during and/or after the excavation period.

vii. talks will be given to local interested societies, on demand.

7. Health and Safety

Full and due regard will be given to the safety of participants and visitors and the health and safety policy will be accordance with standard archaeological procedures. Briefings will be given as necessary to all participants with training as and when needed; a site incident book will be maintained and a first aid kit kept by the appointed First Aider. Two marquees will be erected on site in case of poor weather. Two portable toilets will be hired. A full risk assessment will have been undertaken prior to work commencing. The trench will not reach depths whereby shoring is needed.

The Group has full public liability insurance.

8. Funding

Funding for any post-excavation analysis of environmental material, chert scatter or artefacts, and any required dating exercises, will be found from within the Group’s financial reserves. The committee intends to submit a bid to the Grassroots funding body to cover the costs of training and equipment. This will be targeted at the fees to be paid to Dr Melton and Hannah Russ (the training element) and costs of hiring a generator and pump for the Group’s own flotation tank (the equipment element).

References

Affleck, L, Edwards, K and Clarke, A, 1988, ‘Archaeological and palynological studies at the Mesolithic pitchstone and flint site of Auchareoch, Isle of Arran’ Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 118, pp. 37-59.

Batty, A and A, and McIlwaine, J, 2007, The Kingsdale Head Project, Ingleton: Ingleborough Archaeology Group.

Bell, M, 2007, Prehistoric coastal communities: the Mesolithic in Western Britain, CBA Research Report 149. York: Council for British Archaeology.

Bonsall, C, Sutherland, D and Payton, R, 1994, ‘The Eskmeals coastal foreland: archaeology and shoreline development’ in J Boardman and J Walden (eds.) Cumbria field guide, Oxford: Quaternary Research Association, pp. 90-103.

Brennand, M (ed.), 2006, The archaeology of North West England. An archaeological framework for North West England: volume 1 resource assessment, Archaeology North West 8, Manchester: ALGAO, CBA, and English Heritage.

Cherry, J and Cherry, P J, 1983, ‘Prehistoric habitation sites in west Cumbria: Part 1, the St Bees area and north to the Solway’ Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (TCWAAS) 83, pp. 1-14.

___________ 2002, 'Coastline and upland in Cumbrian Prehistory’ TCWAAS 2, pp. 1-21.

Donahue, R E and Lovis W, 2000, Yorkshire Dales Hunter-gatherer Project – interim report 1999, Bradford: University of Bradford.

Donahue, R E and Lovis, WA, 2006, ‘Regional settlement systems in Mesolithic northern England: Scalar issues in mobility and territoriality’ Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25, pp. 248-58.

Evans, A A, Wolframm, Y B, Donahue, R E and Lovis, W A, 2007, ‘A pilot study of “black chert” sourcing and implications for assessing hunter-gatherer mobility strategies in northern England’ Journal of Archaeological Science’ 34, pp. 2161-169.

Fleming, N C (ed.), 2004, Submarine prehistoric archaeology of the North Sea, CBA Research Report 141. York: Council for British Archaeology.

Gonzales, S, Huddart, D and Roberts, G, 1997, ‘Holocene developments of the Sefton coast: a multi-disciplinary approach to understanding the archaeology’ in A Sinclair, E Slater and J Gowlett (eds.) Proceedings of the Archaeological Sciences Conference 1995, Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 64, pp. 289-99.

Howard, C (ed.), 2007, The Kingsdale Survey 2005 – 2007, Ingleton: Ingleborough Archaeology Group.

Melton, N D and Nicholson, R A, 2004a, ‘The Mesolithic in the Northern Isles: the preliminary evaluation of an oyster midden at West Voe, Sumburgh, Shetland, UK’ Antiquity 78, no. 299, Project Gallery, March 2004. (accessible http://antiquity.ac.uk/ProjGall/nicholson/index.html)

Melton, N D and Nicholson, R A, 2004b, ‘Hunter-gatherers in Shetland: archaeological investigations at West Voe, Sumburgh’ The New Shetlander 229, pp. 31-33.

Melton, N D, 2005, ‘Investigations at West Voe, Sumburgh: new work at Shetland’s earliest known archaeological site’ The New Shetlander 233, pp. 21-22.

Melton, N D and Nicholson, R A, 2007, ‘A Late Mesolithic-Early Neolithic midden at West Voe, Shetland’ in N Milner, O E Craig and G N Bailey (eds.), Shell middens in Atlantic Europe. Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 94-100.

Melton, N D, 2008, ‘West Voe: A Mesolithic-Neolithic transition site in Shetland’ in G Noble, T Poller, J Raven and L Verrill (eds.) Scottish odysseys: the archaeology of islands. Stroud: Tempus, pp. 23-36.

Melton, N D, (in press), ‘Shells, seals and ceramics: an evaluation of a midden at West Voe, Sumburgh, Shetland, 2004-2005’ in S McCartan and P Woodman, (eds.) Mesolithic Horizons: papers presented at the Seventh International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Belfast 2005. Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 184-189.

Palmer, S, 1999, Culverwell Mesolithic habitation site, Isle of Portland, Dorset: excavation report and research studies. British Archaeological Reports, British Series, 287. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Waddington, C (ed.), 2007, Mesolithic settlement in the North Sea basin: a case study from Howick, North-East England. Oxford: Oxbow.

Warren, G, 2005, Mesolithic lives in Scotland. Stroud: Tempus.

Wickham-Jones, C R, 2004, ‘Structural evidence in the Scottish Mesolithic’ in A Saville, (ed.), Mesolithic Scotland and its neighbours. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, pp. 229-242.

Woodman, P C, Anderson, E and Finlay, N, 1999, Excavations at Ferriter’s Cove, 1983-95: last foragers, first farmers in the Dingle Peninsular, Bray: Wordwell.

7th January 2009