 fewn y cael ei gweithio ar gyfer o bobl yn ddod o ddydig i gyfwren o'r ddod o gyfwren, a gain o gweithio gyfwren o gyfwren o gweithio ar gyfer o ddod o gyfwren o gyfwren. Mae ydych chi'n ddiddordeb yn gweithio ar y gwir y Llywodraeth a'r West Yorkshire. Mae hwn yw yw yw ddod o gweithio ar gyfer anod o gweithio'r pwysig, mewn yw ddod o'r A1 ac i gael yw'r cwysbeth. Felly, mae'n gyfnod o'r ysgol ychydigio'i gyda ni'n hollon o'r gyfnod o'r hynod. Rydym yn gweithio ar gyfer y gweithio'r diolethaf, mae'n ddiddordeb o'r digon llogion o'r gweld y cyffredin iawn yn ei ffordd ei ffordd ei ffordd. Felly, mae'r heddiw ar y cyffredin iawn i'r projwch o'r cyllidau ond iawn i ddysgu'r relacholau yma yn y rhan o'r gwaith ar y cyfrifasol o'r byd. Rhaid i gweithio'r dynyn oedd yma yn 2010, ond yn y pethau'r bobl yn fwy fwrdd. Mae blyneddau sy'n ddiddordeb yn cael ei fod yn ymweld, mae'n fawr i'n ddiddordeb yn gwneud o'r blyneddau, mae'n ddiddordeb yn cael ei wneud o'r blyneddau yn ymweld. Felly mae'n ddiddordeb yn cael ei rhaid i'w bwysig, a wnaeth i'r ddiddordeb yn ei ddiddordeb. Mae rhaid i'n gweithio bod mae'n ddiddordeb yn cael ei wneud i fod, Alec yn bwysig, rydyn ni'n ddeg yngweld yw wedi'u eitemeth, ac rydyn ni'n deall fydd yn edrych gel tynnu'i dd corei, rydyn ni'n rydyn ni'n ddeg yn rydyn ni'n ddeg. Rydyn ni'n i'n gweld yn y cyfweld o'u gwédol? The project covered an area of some 1500 square kilometres from Wetherby, in the north to Dinnington, south. The proposed study area, originally, was meant to be more focus on the magnesium limestone, but the blue line here. But the requirements of the National Mapping Program Cymru yn dweud o'r cerdd passengers wnaeth ymddangos i'r adrach yng Nghymru, oes yn gwneud a'r pryd, oherwydd mae'r arwain ymddangos i'r adrach yn y cydd-dyn, a'r adrach yn y cerdd passenger ymddangos i'r adrach ymddangos i'r adrach yn y cyd-dyn. Mae'r adrach yn y cyd-dyn i gwybod i'r adrach yn cerdd passengers, yn y bwysig sydd wedi'u cyfrifiadau mewn prydau cyfrifiadau yma. Yr idea cyfrifiadau sydd wedi bod yn amlwg yn cyfrifiadau мыf yma, ein cyfrifiadau yma yn 2001, roeddwn yn gweld ar y gweithiau ymlaen, ac roeddwn yn y gwirionedd ymlaen o'r hwnnw o'r ysgol a'r cyfrifiadau mewn cyfrifiadau mewn cyfrifiadau mewn cyfrifiadau. Yn y gweithio y model yw'r crementau cyfrifiadau, iawn i gael cymdeithasau gwneud o'r hwyl o'r holl ynglŷn oedd yn ddiwedd i'w gwneud o'r cwmhwllion i'w ganddoch chi'n mynd i'r dddoch arall. Dyna'r lleidio iddo, ac mae'n meddwl i'r cymdeithasau gweld i'r hwyl o'r cymdeithasau gweld i'w cymdeithasau gweld i'w bydd,But it didn't work to the sound of the DOM and it certainly didn't work when she was showing the sound system and Derek Raleigh identified it. It wrecked at any of the other systems which he has come to phrase that. Looking at the wider picture we hope to be able to look at where these changes occurred in the landscape. Was it due to topography, was it due to geology, or were there other factors involved with soils, perhaps cultural, were there founding factors to do with high-n-age territorial implications of Roman frontiers at different times? These are the sort of things we've all been trying to look at and see if there are any patterns. The types of data we were looking at, obviously the largest data set was crop marks. We employ three people mapping crop marks, working putting the areas that are just as infected, it kind of wrote, working with them and being trained by them, getting their expertise, but they're actually our staff. The thin soils of the limestone, as you can see here, are at the site of the local site near Boston Spa, particularly good at crop mark formation. This isn't the case everywhere, and there are visibility issues. And because of that, and because of the large amount of geophysical survey that's being carried out, and the service is 1990, we also included, if it's a geophysical survey that's actually a part of these, with the crop marks on to the geophysical GIS. This is a particularly good example of why we need to deal with this. This is Scorcher Hills near Broadest, and on this site it's a cut in against the first division background, but the field systems you can see there are totally invisible to their repair reconnaissance. Another example of why we're doing this now is how the two different forms of data complement one another. I've seen here at the site in Ledston, where certain parts of wasn't there to be a ritual landscape. There's more energy form. One, the amount of geophysical survey. Another barrow is here, number number five, thanks to the crop mark data. So you really do need to look at both together to get an overview of what we don't see on the crop mark data. Also, it wasn't plotted, but there is information from the leader who will talk about it later. Of course, what we need to include in all of this is the excavation data, although it prevents a small dataset compared to the crop marks on geophysics. It's central for going through the data, and plays it once out, and this is what's in hand in the picture of the map itself. Let me just show you a little bit. Of course, these methods now form a suite of investigations which are regularly used in most sites in the country, where crop marks give us the survey and the excavation evidence or come together to create us to see things like this. The roundhouse is here, which don't show up, but there's crop marks that we do get. The crop marks enable you to focus in on them, but you visit the houses and then the excavation forms you. Now, there are problems, of course, with this. Visibility is a big problem, and not just a problem in terms of the different types of terrain we're working on. There's a period issue. The early prehistoric features, such as the plantage house at Colton and the de-chip policy of the mine, do not show up in any remark-sensing techniques. So, anyway, things like this are found, all through excavation of other sites, which are targeted because of another later crop mark feature, or a geospatial feature, brought all through the standard stripping. These came up in an area which is lineage enclosure, which we weren't expecting. This means that there's a bias against finding these sorts of things with the techniques we use for detection. Typically, it is the plantage material, such as another site here at Southampton, which is a series of forged plantage huts. It's quite a number of sites like it, that they're on, like Paction and Sysex, which we don't really see anywhere else in the North of England. Also, here, there's parts of Yorkshire, and Liverpool's in the landscape, but we don't normally find all of these four posters, which are already like this. It's quite unusual. There's only one other site, I think, with some common, which is probably got more four posters in one place. So, visibility is a problem. For some prehistoric sites, visibility isn't a problem, but that's large, virtual monuments. Now, in the study area we have, we've contained two of one for one hengers of new-found fabric, the two sort of outliers in a group, and I'll pull out for you as the orchard hengers. We did go in with the idea that we might try and find more hengers on the particular sites on the Don and on the Nid, where, because the pattern seems to be that the hengers occupied riverside locations on the main hengers flowing into the Bay of York. Now, we've particularly been on the Don site, because of the study area, but despite a lot of claims from local archaeologists, none of our work was able to uphold the existence of the hengers there. We did, however, find a new reason why it is for one at North Dayton on the Nid, and that's this image here, which creates a much better context than for the better-known Green Halbarra. On all this information, it was collected in the 1980s through a WA class, Tarragut, and I think Cotmarch, I must say, a Cotmarch held by the North West Bank Council. It hadn't been to light until we started this project, so that's quite interesting. The one thing I would say is, though, that we mustn't get obsessed with the riverside locations for hengers. One of the other things you've found is that hengers, or hengie forms, tend to exist in other parts of the landscape. I've already shown you the one at Leveston, which I'm going to do because it's certainly on the way. This is another small heng summit, interestingly, in a landscape which seems to have a number of pits alignments surrounding it. This is interesting in the sense that the later phases of ferry bridge also have pits alignments surrounding them. These pits alignments don't seem to be concentric to the heng like there are ferry bridge, but certainly defining the same landscape is interesting. The distribution on the left is the map of the round boroughs, the big boroughs and hengies that have been plotted by the project. The triangles are round boroughs, there's not many of those there. They seem to suggest that the original monuments are focused on the limestone, but the companion distribution on the right here is a distribution of all prehistoric finds. We suggest that prehistoric activity will be a little bit more widespread with vicotus, and we perhaps should expect it to be boroughs in that area. Perhaps we can't see them again because of the visibility problems, maybe in terms of the form of the borough. The ring borough is easy to spot. It has small variables such as the formations, which have been discovered by cairns, are also going to remain invisible to detection. Similarly, ritual monuments such as the pits of pit circles, found around the ferry bridge, with the cremations up the centre and the four-post structure there, aren't going to be a detectable one. These are only known around the hengies by virtue of the large-scale stripping that went on to facilitate the road works. I don't think there's pit circles anywhere else in the project area apart from the ferry bridge, but this is a problem. It's the same post-op problem we have with detecting enclosures and supplement sites. On the show with sandstones to the south of the Don, to the east of the limestone, it's more difficult to find these, even when they're stripped, because of what the sandbill features in the sandbiology. When Derek Riley did his original survey of the North Nottinghamshire and South Yorkshire study area that was published in 1980, he only identified 13 ritual monuments. This project hasn't actually improved at all, so you couldn't find any more either. The visibility of these monuments hasn't increased. In fact, I suggest that it will deteriorate it because of the degradation from the problem. The excavations shown here are actually two out of the 13 that Derek Riley originally recorded, excavated last year. He wasn't sure whether they were pretty sorry far as I think at the time, but I think we can have confirmed that these two are, and they've been dated to 1900, 1700 BC on the basis of the contents of the nationals. The problem generally in this area of this region, in fact, in trying to demonstrate continuity between the early Bronze Age and the early Lion Age is that there's actually no evidence. It's fair to say that this project wasn't able to inform that any better. Even at sites such as Berrybridge where you'd expect there to be continuity of such a focal point in the landscape, it doesn't seem to be anything going on between about 1300 BC and 500 BC. It seems to be a major hate us at that time in the use of the monuments. Really, I suppose that the rest of this lecture now is going to address the Iron Age and Roman landscape because that's pretty much what the crop marks that we've mapped represent. One of the objectives was to try and find evidence for indication of territoriality in the area. We've got two major Iron Age tribal units here, the Pro-Ratorian of the Ganties, the original, the general sector that was bound in between and was somewhere around the Don area. We have looked in that area and one of the things of course you look at there is defensive sites and earthworks. The Don does have the Roman bridge earthworks, which we preserve there. Pogliara and Iron Age defence, Ekip Gyns, the Corial Torwyc. Unfortunately, the Iron Age banks of the earth measure as a rooms ditch and Ekip Banks don't really conform to any boundaries that we know about. To explain those, you have to start thinking about the sort of sub-tribal groups possibly that Brian Hartley and Neon Fitz were talking about when they threw up the Ganties. We have two major forts, not in the area, South Curby in Ekip Bank. Within the study area, there's Pirate of Ginalwt, and none of these forts have received anything like some sort of an investigation of not the Pirate of Ginalwt. We don't really know how these forts have worked with the surrounding landscape, the systems and enclosures, and that's a big problem. It's a problem for the Iron Age, it's a problem for the Roman period, and it's also a problem for the posterine period. We do have a number of smaller fortification sites that have been spotted. These are generally termed marsh forts because of low line. We often have a succession of defensive ditches. The only one that pops isn't is Wendell at Cronchi Falls that existed in some southern bank of the Wendt, which unfortunately as well has not been investigated because it's been destroyed by the Sweden lineworks. You may have noticed that, like the waters recently proposed, there is the site of the Battle of Brunberg, and that's incidentally, isn't it? Norton is a really nice site that's a new one that stands through the project. Of course it hasn't been investigated, but it seems to appear to have an early phase of a broken settlement possibly, upon which the forts have been superimposed, at the site of a pot of coal around here. Again, it's a succession of fences, and it's very difficult to make sense of these spatially, physically and chronologically, because there's been no investigation of them. But there's been a site that hasn't been investigated, but it's something common. As an interpreter, there's a grain storage site. I find it a little bit difficult to understand that, given that it's not actually in the main grain producing area which has been on the limestone. I don't know if it does remain well-ratagnatic to the grain. Thinking in terms of high-n-age subgroups, there's not a lot you can look at from the excavated evidence. It's diagnostic enough to do anything with very little in terms of poturing diagnostic times. So you've never seen the return to the burials. Obviously, quite recently, the vast majority of the burials in this area would have conformed to the typical pit burial, crouched information, with the degrade or pit being just large enough to accommodate the individual anthropologic space. The recent work on the A1M identified a different type of burial. Quite similar in a sense to something that had been found at Ladsdon in the 1970s, but distinctly different, really, in terms of the burials that had been inserted in a very large pit, a vertically sided pit, which had plenty of room, and the burials were always to one side. These were dated to about 400 to 200 BC. I think they've probably got lost in all the excitement over the chariot burial, which was due to have been found at the same time. Interesting, both the A1M that had been supposed to chariot burial at these all suggested that they'd spent a force of years in the north of England, which suggested a group that's been introduced to this part of the world. Until recently, they were the only examples of this type of burial, but an excavation at Darrington recently has come up with another similar one, same type of pit. The burial, in this case, cropped up against the side in a more supine fashion, which obviously is not an iron age burial, right, as we understand it, but the radio carbon date is, again, 400 to 200 BC, approximately. Now I see workers being done on this burial, so I can't say for sure what origin has conformed to the same, but that's the nickel field ones. I think as time goes on, it will be interesting to see how the pattern of these burials develops. At the moment, there is quite a tight area around the Eastern Leeds. There's nothing like it in South Yorkshire, and it could well be that this is a distinct group that may give us further evidence for the sort of tribal cultural area. We have to really now just look at the crop mark evidence for epic indications of this sort of thing. We don't get much evidence for this from the circular enclosures, because there's so few of them, and very few of them are investigated. It's putting up information rooms and work with me, and what I would say is from what you can lean from the positions of these crop marks where they occur in rectilinear field systems, they always seem to form the earliest elements in the field system, either being respected by later fields or they've been cut through by them. I think that the sub-circuit of enclosures, perhaps also the D-shaped enclosures, we're looking at anilic, the historic origin, and I think that fits with what we've found in other parts of the country. What we tend to get most of in this area are these rectangular enclosures, often with very deep ditches. These tend to be iron age in their origin, but often the later internal subdivisions, which are of our Roman period. The one here at Swintern is quite typical where the roundhouse is in the middle of being cut through by the later Roman subdivisions. One of the things I've been thinking of recently is that a lot of these enclosures tend to be truck-as-oil in the shape rather than rectangular or square. This was never picked out as being critical in the original study, partly because you could explain it by or surveined or topographical features. It doesn't have to be badly out of the building to be truck-as-oil. There is an area around the Darrington area where there seems to be a very deliberate truck-as-oil shape. I've gone back into the days and now I've found quite a few which don't seem to be affected by geography. They often have one central division. We have excavated one like it. The reason I'm also showing this slightly is because what was picked out as being a key type of site for these ones with double-ditch circuits. Now what the Darrington site has been excavating suggests is that the double-ditch circuit is actually not always what it seems and the truck-as-oil shape might be actually something real. This example just sort of overturns perhaps the way we've been thinking about things in the past. This is the site being stripped. The Darrington is the example of the large truck-as-oil closure. It's a huge ditch, up to two metres deep, and it's back filled with rubble. So much rubble, in fact, is that you have to imagine the banks being linear kens, in fact, around the inside and the outside of the enclosure. Now this enclosure is Iron Nation, but later on it was incorporated into our own field system. I think the garlic nature of the enclosure has certainly used the interior but I think what was left of the banks around the area is that the edges and the size of the ditch dictated the shape of the field system or the new enclosure system, possibly growing ways around the edges. So it makes it look, on the basis of this, if it's a double-ditch enclosure in actual fact, it's an early enclosure which has just been so large that it's determining the nature of the later regime. There are some more convincing, varied forms of enclosure which have very distinct distribution patterns. The two I'm going to show you here are ones with extended entrances, which are the red dots centred around the fort at South Burby and the area to the east. The other distinctive group is what's termed extended enclosure groups, the other triangle, which only occur in the area between the air and the wall. Those are the ones with extended enclosures. Entrances would probably be called banjo enclosures in those places. Usually, in terms of being associated with livestock management, what I would say that probably other sites in the study area was associated with livestock and enclosures in London. I don't think there are some sorts, whether it's keeping animals in or keeping them out of the crops and allowing for irritation. I think most of the Iron Age and one of the British economies were faced upon, but I don't think we can just say that this is an enclosure entirely dedicated to livestock management. But the four of the enclosures are very distinctive and their distribution perhaps suggests that it was a type of enclosure adopted within a certain area. These extended enclosure groups, or what may be your term of the order of enclosures elsewhere, are very distinctive. The only one of these that's being investigated is the Colton College. We must have a very super-enclosed upon-endurance, which is an Iron Age, a series of Iron Age enclosures that's been created. And interestingly, the one at Drummond Park has also had an interpretation of the villa composed upon it, although there's no excavation to confirm that. It's now formed part of the Colton College to the Leeds Festival, unfortunately, and has rendered it as a goal survey impossible. We've tried it, but it didn't work. The one site of this type, which isn't here, is the one that I showed you in some of the early pictures, which is the example of what the site there will be. That has been excavated to a great degree to facilitate a new relief road that will be run alongside the A1. Interestingly, the phasing for that site shows the enclosures to be developed as probably over three phases. In fact, two, mainly. Originally, we had an Iron Age settlement that was formed as a sort of a washing line settlement along the enduring, or serious ditch, several phases of these enclosures. And then later on in the earlier room period, probably still effectively means of Iron Age approach to agriculture. We have the Colton enclosures, which give it some more typical look of the enclosures group. The big surprise for this site was, in fact, the final phase where all the field systems and enclosures had gone out of use. The final phase was made up by an open settlement of late Romans, sunken floor buildings. These are totally unknown in this area, although there are perhaps more sunken floor buildings represented in the data than we originally thought. The other thing about the bottle site site was it reinforced a growing impression about how stone was used. I don't think this crop mark site has been ditched in earthworks, probably it's in the other cities and things like that. But on the aggregate bearing geology, the stone was used. It would not really break the grid. But the water site, we had quite a lot of evidence for stone rewetments around the bases of the banks. Here at this example, at Ferry Bridge, stone rewetments, Holstering, a ditch where it was cut through an earlier phase of ditch. And we also found this site at Barnsdale Park. It's interesting to note this in the context of what Paul Buckland said about this site at Marn Thig Wood in 1980. He wrote that in the 1960s that site could be seen as much standing walls. And now, in 1980, it was seen as the front wall. We know it's what you can see now, but it's obviously really something serious foundation. So it's not just these bits of walls we should be thinking about. We should be thinking about our upstanding to these features and stuff like that. So just the actual field systems themselves now, clwp on the one that arrived for what was the classic group work as defined by Eric Riley. This is a more, call it a mixed field system, typical of the northern limestone areas. These are what we find in the way on the south-east end, sandstone south in the Don. What this was clear here, what we're trying to show here, is that the different elements that make up the field systems are common everywhere. It's just the predominance of them that give you the impression of what type of field system it is. And interestingly, when we plot those areas of predominance, clearly the yellow, which is the brickwork type fields, dimwre dominates, and the areas where Riley was fine with them. But they're not restricted to that area. They are found in patches all the way up the limestone as well, particularly in these two large plateau areas now that we've been across from Spar. The factor here seems to be large flat areas, but not just large flat areas. Large flat areas that were devoid of trees and other obstacles that enabled you to layer large systems in one go visually cycling. And we know that the limestone in this area was cleared of trees very early on in our age, and possibly on the number of levels even earlier. The green areas of mixed field systems are the areas which probably conform to the original model I talked about, these degrees, where the tree clearance is not as great, but areas that are taken in incrementally to expand the system. They're areas where the limestone is more rolling and you get a more eased meal effect for the field system. This is all the crop mark data plotted against the limestone, and of course the adjacent pole measures and the shale of sandstone. What's very noticeable is that while the crop marks are very dense on the limestone for the work of the gond, they virtually absent south of the gond, which explains why people in South Yorkshire always talk about the limestone and having a lot of chocolate, you know what I'm talking about. The same goes for North Huttonshire, it's a little bit of a puzzle for me, because I always find the limestone to be the most richest part of West Yorkshire. But why should this be the case? Well, if you look at the topography, it's quite clear. It's a typographical factor. It could just be one factor, but it seems to be a very key factor. One other possibility here is the clearance. We don't think that there's so much treat clearance from what records there are. We don't think there's much early treat clearance on this high limestone. There's also a soil issue. The soils are renowned for being very thin and very dry. It's an hydrology problem. There's no rivers that run through this area, so it's very difficult to get it. And we think probably, what's happened here is that in preference, these areas of the adjacent sandstone have been exploited, because these areas are effectively marginal to the other parts. So these are naturally the places where they've been preferentially exploited. And even in these, you can see from this plot here, the tendency for the electric workfields to occupy the slightly higher ground, not much higher, that's being exaggerated, but they're doing that to put them on the better drain lined around here, so they're on the higher level. And interestingly, these are exactly the roots of the round roads when they first entered into this part of Yorkshire. It took the higher ground, it skirted around the 100-head levels, and of course cut across and field systems that were in their path, because, actually, they were heading towards the fords that have been used in that age, and at recording places. This is the site of the Osterfield site that Derek Rowley originally pointed to as being a field system that was cut through by the round road, which led him to draw the conclusion that these field systems were free-worming. You can now show from a more broader study that this is not the unique situation. In fact, there is nowhere in the study area where a round road can be plotted, and where a round road can be seeded and plotted against a field system, that the field system actually reflects the round road. The round road always seems to cut across the angles to give it a later feature, and it's never only attempt to realign a field system to the round road. That's hard to say there aren't later round field systems there are. These field systems are evidence for carrying on in use, but they've obviously just accepted the round road and worked around it. There are round field systems such as places like Armford where they will be laid out in the round road period, and it's just because there's no round roads in those areas that we don't appreciate that they're contemporary nature, and that the round sites a general picture of the round sites. The round road, I'm not going to go into detail on the round site here, it's just not the time. The important thing to hear about is that we've talked about the road system, which in general is speaking, we didn't advise to any ground degree, although we tweaked some of the routes we drove in. There are two B things to note there. One is the evidence for a round road between Temple Road, but everybody is looking for a route between Temple Road and Castle Road or Temple Road where it was. In fact, there is a stretch of round roads that I've done to suggest that the road in Temple Road actually crossed the wind at Fort Bortland, and joined the 20B to pass through there. That was quite an interesting revelation. The only new information was the discovery of a Crop Mark fort at Lonsangor. Not long ago, a fort was discovered on the air at Roel, and this provided us some evidence for the control of the road system in the evening into the Humber. We now have another one at Lonsangor, which shows that the same was happening on the gond. Of course, this now gives meaning to the Roelman Road 281. It's going to be known probably as the Temple Spur before it was explained as to why that road went. We could be looking for a carrying on the other side of the river in actual fact, in terms of the fort. Given this similar talks a few times now, and never before have I been able to say that the study area has revealed anything about the post room landscape. It does the post room landscape. It's only recently begun to see that there's possibilities here for understanding this a little bit better. The study area is full of the fort rectangle of Crop Marks, like this. There's quite a lot of them. I've started potting them now to see where they are at the group, and where they focus on what the distribution overall is. These three are actually at Leadsford, and that one is excavated as part of the evaluation for a new mineral extraction initiative. It actually didn't come off. And because it didn't come off, this feature didn't get done. But what it is, is that it's a sunken floor feature. Typical group and house style with the actual posts. We only excavated one quarter of it, and it has a bit of a stepped inside ledge, which I've not seen anything like this anywhere, and I asked the consultant to hold on to her on this, and she hasn't seen anything like it anywhere either. It's possibly unique to the country. Time will tell. The one interesting thing here is that we've actually found the remains of the human child in the centre, which suggests it could be a form of water in the house. I don't know what I mean for, but that's been great. We did actually recover some bones from radio carbonate to the 5th, 7th century. Now, I don't propose that all the rectangular features throughout the study area and beyond are all the 5th, 7th century sunken floor and water structures, because I now realise that some of them are very similar to crop marks on, say, the sunken floor buildings that have been excavated or gone past. The chances are they are all sunken floor buildings on some description, but possibly not in the same period and not all the same function. I think it's an interesting development. Of course, we can say something about the post-Roman archaeology in terms of medieval period in this crop mark. It's a region furrow, and this is obviously the spot of the region furrow, which means that some of it is a quality. Now, most of these here are products of post-medieval ploughing of the 100-levels that were covered from flooding. Interesting thing is that there's hardly any region furrow showing down the limestone. The spinal limestone is almost devoid, and this is the very area where it's a breadbasket of the Roman period, and you'd expect there to be region furrow. The reason why it's not there is because it's being lost in modern play. We know for a fact from records and from fossilised field systems where you can see the reverse S of the region furrow regimes, they were there. These are green areas of region furrow. You can see that the region furrow is actually dictated later in the closure, but there's actually no correspondence with the earlier Iron Age and Roman field systems. I think people may claim that they did share in their correspondence, but generally we're talking about a totally different regime of landscape exploration. And we don't know the process of how that happened. We're getting the idea now that some of the later Iron Age field systems continued right until the 5th century, but then it just pushes on with the problem. We don't still don't know what happened when the transition really took place in the open field where the abandonment of the beach field systems. We've got a cycle of closure, open field closure. So chunkation is a big problem. I think I've talked a bit about the quarrying industry, especially as this is a project qualified for funding by virtue of the mineral extraction area. The quarrying industry does play a big part in our investigations because there's been a lot of bad press about mineral extraction in the country. It's a bit of a long run about how it shouldn't happen. It's got to happen because the reserves in this area are required for the economy of the country. So it's going to have to happen. But some of the reserved areas, they're going to take out some of the more interesting parts of the landscape. So the reserved area is just near Halworth. The fact is we don't even know that these field systems still exist. We're recording in the 1970s where it actually comes to digging quite a lot of these brickwork fields and other things on a limestone that didn't barely survive. The other factor is that a lot of the work that's taken place in this region has come together as a result of things with road schemes. Now road schemes are probably once a generation. They're not going to happen every 10 years. You're going to get one generation, maybe, if you're lucky. Probably not even one. The quarry industry in the meantime, when it comes out of the session, when it gets back on its feet, it's going to be taking out large parts of the landscape on a regular basis. If they, it's probably mitigated now and I think the quarry industry is our best hope for understanding these landscapes because if they enable us to test our theories, to develop them, to investigate the sites over the short term, because it's the short term that these sites have. They do not have years to exist. This is the site of a Bronze Age site in Pochymaw where you can see depth of life, so it's very shallow. There's virtually nothing left. There's nothing left in places and these features are not existing now. This is the Roman Road at Brownham, having recently excavated. This is a Cropknot coming in. There is the good geophysical response to the Roman Road. That geophysical response is by virtue of that field being pasture. In the arable field, so there is at least nothing missing. The only thing that remains with the quarry pits that must have formed the area may have actually been formed back in there either. So it's the short term I think for these landscapes. There are certain parts of them anyway and hopefully this lecture is going to be an insight into some of the questions and still the answer. Thank you. It's our convention now to invite questions and Ian will take them as a group and answer. I will see it as something of an encore as it were, as a mini essay just to sum up some of the things that have been said of the audience reaction. So please some questions for our speakers. Yes, please. Thank you. It's fascinating. A couple of things. I excavated an infant burial in a building of a long policy radiocarbon data assembly essentially that might provide a ground up to your but I wanted to ask about the whether you had any later crop marked evidence or the sort of butterwick type enclosures we see on the worlds of the 8th and so on and whether any of the circular enclosures that you said were cut through by retangular field systems could actually be later than that. Any more questions? Yes. I've looked, it seems to be very striking that as far as the process is concerned, there isn't a great deal that comes from these ditches where it's on an interlash zone or in the sandstone which is later in the base of the first century and I wonder whether you've had any view on that whether you prefer that impression, but also is that being the case what sort of agriculture regime is taking place after is it similar to what's going to be banned or is it being divided up in a different sort of way or organised in a different sort of way? Let's see it as I say, it's been very striking the amount of later over the country coming from many of these fields is very, very interesting. Any more questions? Last thing. Does your work here, particularly in the West York area does it render obsolete or supplement my copy of the West Yorkshire survey from 30 years ago? John, yes. I've got two actually. I was interested in your distribution map of the Neolithic monuments and the Neolithic finds and it sort of disappeared from the screen before I could really have a good look at it but it looked just fleetingly as though the Neolithic finds looked almost mutually exclusive where there were areas where there were Neolithic finds and there were areas where there were monuments but they didn't sort of overlap. The second one was, I was intrigued by your slide which showed the Winklebank fort and those ditches that were sort of going off from it and the shape of that, it's a funnel shape there. I've seen that in other sort of landscapes on much smaller scales. Those tend to be interpreted as sort of funnelling devices to get animals you know herded in but on that scale I think the banks be like a kilometre apart at the widest point so I just want to see what the scale was on that. It would be huge. Okay and I think we've got plenty there to see what you think too. Excellent. I was aware of the burial of one but I just read the report so hopefully yeah, thank you. I didn't know whether it sounded as though it was a proper parallel but it may well be the figure so far. Later crop markers, the problem is we don't really know how late some of these crop marks are. There's a problem with dating them because we didn't rely on the pottery and cut off of the pottery but we don't know how long the pottery stays in use. There's a bit of a problem there. I'll take the point about a lot of the pottery that did choose dating to the second and third centuries that does seem to be the case and I think a lot of us to do with the fact that a lot of the pottery in this region has come from the Catholic films which were operating at their highs in the second and third centuries so naturally a good luck then. But the other later pottery does exist. I mean the sunken buildings on the side were full before the early 5th century pottery but I think we get less obvious away from the main settlements and the problem is it's finding the way to settlements. So as I said, we've been working with different things I think in the past and I think we've been looking at the sunken floor structures and focusing upon enclosures and enclosures tend to be higher-generation early Roman. So I think there's a bias that we've got going now because we didn't know what to look for. Certainly I think by the time we get to the building we should be looking at enclosures. Only volume one film. I'll have to buy a new one. Now I think it was inevitable I suppose it's something written in 1981 when barely any field got a good thing done at West Yorkshire and to that bridge I think 1976 site at Ladsden was it and that focus was on a very atypical site which had recently a parallelism trying to pick a building from there when I went through it. I mean this concern for it. Yes, the distribution of finds it's an old one now. We didn't really find a great we went through it quite thoroughly around the the fabric hand when the A1 was diverted I don't think we found a lot of neolithic material I don't think the neolithic sites were actually anywhere near the hand we didn't excavate the site of the hand so I suspect there's only a few of them to what we had but maybe there's a big exclusion around the hand and some neolithic activity I wouldn't really like too much on the distributions because I wouldn't rely on the kind of identifications that exist in a week so I wouldn't want to strike the violent records but it's an interesting one and I think I don't know if it's a form or a part of a symbol but if you find you know that there's a way to go you know that there's a way to go