Record Details

NHER Number:37095
Type of record:Monument
Name:Lynford Middle Palaeolithic Site


Excavations at Lynford Quarry in 2002 uncovered a Palaeolithic site of national significance, with Middle Palaeolithic flint tools found in close association with an large faunal assemblage within the organic fills of a large palaeochannel. The potential for Palaeolithic material at this site had been recognised before this work started, with at least 20 handaxes and a number of Middle Palaeolithic Levallois artefacts having been recovered during earlier phases of gravel extraction to the west (see NHER 21499). The palaeochannel was first observed during an intermittent watching brief and once its significance became clear provisions were made to allow the full excavation of the surviving deposits.

The worked flint assemblage from the Palaeochannel is of 'Mousterian' type and therefore associated with the final Neanderthal populations that reoccupied parts of Britain during the Late Middle Palaeolithic. Dating evidence recovered during the excavation suggests that the main palaeochannel deposits were most likely deposited early in MIS (Marine Isotope Stage) 3, a warmer phase (interstadial) of the final, Devensian glaciation (c 59,000 to 38,000 years ago). This makes Lynford the earliest securely-dated evidence for the re-colonisation of Britain during the Late Middle Palaeolithic, following what is now believed to have been a prolonged period of abandonment between the end of MIS 6 and the end of MIS 4 (up to 100,000 years). Lynford is also important as previously identified Late Middle Palaeolithic sites have also generally been associated with poor stratigraphic and contextual information. No open-air site of this date had previously been subject to detailed excavation and thus Lynford presented an unparalleled opportunity to recover material using modern excavation and recording strategies, alongside a comprehensive programme of environmental analysis.

The taphonomy of the site was complicated, although most of the evidence supported the interpretation of the main feature as a channel that had become cut off from the river and therefore subject to only limited water flow. The bulk of the artefactual and ecofactual material is likely to have entered the palaeochannel from adjacent land surfaces, none of which had survived.

The excavation recovered over 2700 worked flints. A small proportion of this assemblage was in rolled condition and probably represents reworked material that had previously been incorporated in the river gravels. These pieces and much of the material previously recovered during quarrying at Lynford (NHER 21499) are likely to significantly predate the excavated deposits. The bulk of the flints recovered from the palaeochannel are however in fresh, unrolled condition and therefore likely to be at least broadly contemporary with the other material within it.

Although the faunal remains assemblage provided little direct evidence for interactions between Neanderthals and mammoths there was nevertheless some reasonably persuasive indirect evidence in the form of bone pathologies, an unnatural mortality profile and the paucity of large meat-bearing bones.

Two mint-condition Late Middle Palaeolithic bout coupé handaxes that were recovered nearby at Little Cressingham/Saham Toney (NHER 58789) are remarkably similar to some of those found during these excavations and is therefore possibly that they were all produced by a single Neanderthal group operating in and around the River Wissey.


  • The excavation of the Palaeolithic site at Lynford in 2002  © Norfolk Museums & Archaeology Service


Grid Reference:TL 8240 9484
Map Sheet:TL89SW

Full description

Work in the pits to the west of this site ceased in 1997. The quarry subsequently changed management and plans were put in place to open a new pit at this location. In March 2000 part of this area was subject to an archaeological evaluation, the results of which and those of a subsequent excavation are recorded under NHER 35165. Several trenches were also excavated on the site of a partially preserved post-medieval floated water meadow that would be destroyed by the new quarry (see NHER 5090). A final phase of geophysical survey and trial trench evaluation undertaken to the north of the excavated Middle Palaeolithic site is recorded under NHER 37410. This record deals solely with the Palaeolithic discovered that were made during aggregate extraction between 2000 and 2002. The main excavation was followed by an extensive programme of conservation and post-excavation analysis, the results of which are now been published in full (S1). Unless otherwise specified this excavation report is the source of the information presented below.


September 2000-June 2001. Field Observation.
The new Ayton Aggregates pit was visited by J. J. Wymer at least three times in late 2000 and early 2001 (on at least one occasion accompanied by R. J. MacRae).
Although the new reject heaps were examined on several occasions no artefacts were recovered.
Information from (S2).

2000-late 2001. Watching Brief.
In the months after the new pit opened it was visited on a regular, but relatively informal basis by J. Lord and V. Lord.
Finds recovered from the reject heaps were limited to:
1 Middle Palaeolithic Levallois core in rolled condition. See drawing (S3).
1 mammoth tooth and 1 reindeer antler fragment.
These finds are noted in (S4).

This pit differed from the earlier workings to the west in that "...many high and dry chalk exposures were present at a depth of less than twenty feet" (S4). As a result it was possible to work very close to the base of the gravel. In September 2001 several conical piles of organic silt were observed in the base of the pit. A piece of bone was seem protruding from one of these heaps, the shape of which lead to its initial identification as human. This bone was subsequently identified as the fibula of a woolly rhinoceros. This discovery is noted in (S2) and (S4), both of which have photos of the bone.

Although it was not initially possibly to secure a formal programme of archaeological work, it was subsequently agreed that an intermittent watching brief should take place, and as a result from October 2001 the pit was visited at least monthly. This work was undertaken by J. Lord, who was later joined by N. Larkin (NMAS) when Pleistocene vertebrate remains were first discovered.

In November 2001 a number of worked timbers were recovered close to northern section of the pit. Although it is suggested in (S4) that these objects were recovered from gravel-sealed channels below the flood plain deposits, Wymer recorded that these were actually from the overlying, later deposits (S2). According to (S4) it was around this time that the pit manager reported that a channel filled with organic material had been a continuous feature that crossed the pit from east to west. A dump of material from this feature was found to contain a "…high percentage of bone, tusk, antler, flint handaxes and some debitage" (S4).

June-November 2001. Field Observation.
On several occasions between September 2000 and November 2001 the Lords was accompanied in their visits to the pit by (variously) J. J. Wymer, R. Shephard-Thorn and T. Hardaker. Several of these visits are noted in (S2). The only find listed is a broken handaxe that was found by V. Lord on 12 October 2001. This object is also noted and figured in (S4).
The Wymer Archive (British Museum) was however found to contain drawings and sketches of several objects that had been recovered at Lynford Quarry by T. Hardaker in July 2001 (and therefore almost certainly in this pit). These finds included:
2 'Kombewa type' cores. See drawings (S5) and (S6).
1 flake with facetted platform. See drawing (S7).
Notes on the drawings suggest these objects were found on chalk at the base of the gravel. The 'Kombewa' cores are also noted on (S19).

February 2002. Watching Brief.
Continuation of the watching brief started the previous year. The first significant observation was made in late February, when a 1m deep organic layer was noted in the north-eastern section, within the river gravels. The cleaning up of this section led to the discovery of mammoth remains, including teeth and a tusk.
These initial discoveries are described in (S4).

The site was visited by J. J. Wymer and M. Woolnough on 6 March 2002 and the section examined and samples taken. An unrolled blade-flake and a small but definite thinning flake were found amongst the many small natural pieces of black flint present. Numerous small fragments of skull and mandible were also recovered. These finds were subsequently given to the NAU. Information from (S2).

Further rapid investigations established that the organic deposits were likely to be the undisturbed fills of a palaeochannel. It soon became clear that there was many worked flint present, apparently in close association with the remains of woolly mammoths. The early discoveries included a handaxe recovered by N. Larkin and thinning flakes found by J. Lord -finds are noted and figured in (S4). Soon a small worked flint assemblage had been recovered that comprised 3 likely bout coupé handaxes and 38 flakes, a number of which were handaxe shaping/thinning and sharpening flakes. Samples taken at this stage also confirmed that environmental materials were generally well-preserved and moderately abundant. The immense significance of the site was now clear and the focus shifted to securing the time and resources for a full excavation.

April-September 2002. Excavation.
The excavation of the surviving palaeochannel deposits was funded by English Heritage through the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund (ALSF).
Mechanical excavation was used to remove the last of the sand and gravel deposits overlying the palaeochannel, which was found to have a surviving length of around 21m and a maximum width of c. 12m and a maximum depth of c. 1m. A site grid was established, allowing the archaeologically significant palaeochannel deposits to be divided into a series of 0.5m2 subunit, each of which was manually excavated in 0.1m spits. All artefacts and faunal remains larger than 0.02m were individually numbered and accurately located in three dimensions. A predetermined proportion of the excavated spits were subject to wet and dry sieving in order to ensure the recovery of smaller objects. Extensive palaeoenvironmental sampling was also undertaken, with the sampling strategies employed devised in consultation with various external specialists. The aim was to recovery material that would aid environmental reconstruction and the identification and characterisation of processes responsible for deposit and assemblage formation and post-depositional modification.

The excavation archive is now held by the Norwich Castle Museum (NWHCM : 2010.7).

As noted above the site has now been fully published (S1). This report followed the publication of an interim report (S8), an assessment report (S20) and a short summary of the key findings (S9). The results of the excavation are also summarised in (S10). See also newspaper articles (S11)-(S14), website (S15), unpublished report (S16) and specialist reports (S17) and (S18).

May 2003. Excavation.
Investigation of organic channel fill exposed in the east-facing section on the west side of the active quarry. This deposit had first been noted in 2002, prior to the excavation of the palaeochannel deposits exposed to the east and the working hypothesis had been that both organic units represent material within the same channel, the intervening material having been removed by the ongoing aggregate extraction. Closer inspection did however suggest that the channel fill exposed in the east-facing section was markedly different from the excavated deposits.

June 2003. Test Pitting.
Machine excavation of seventeen test pits across the unworked areas of the quarry. This work was undertaken in order to help establish the position of the excavated palaeochannel in the local sequence of deposits.

P. Watkins (HES), January 2014.


The sands and gravels exposed within Lynford Quarry are fluvial river terrace deposits associated with the River Wissey and lie directly on cretaceous chalk; the river having locally scoured away the Anglian till deposits that are present to either side of the valley floor. These so-called Mundford sands and gravels have been sub-divided into five associations, the earliest of which appears to be the result of deposition in a high energy fluvial environment, probably associated with a multiple-channel river system. The second association is the material within the palaeochannel itself, which is interpreted as a meander cut-off with little or no flowing water. The majority of the artefacts and mammoth remains appear to have been associated with organic silts and sands that formed after this channel became a cut-off (Association Bii). It is likely that most of the larger objects were not deposited directly into this channel but rather entered it periodically from adjacent land surfaces as a result of processes such as bank collapse. Therefore, although there is clustering to the objects, the individual clusters are likely to represent material that had built up as a result of multiple depositional episodes that had occurred over a period of time. The overlying Mundford associations represent a return to higher energy fluvial deposition associated with a succession of relatively shallow river channels. The sedimentology of the channel-fill exposed in the section of the quarry indicated infilling under slow to moderately high energy conditions, suggesting that this was unlikely to have been a continuation of the excavated channel feature. The micromorphological results corroborate those of the sedimentary analyses indicating that the main organic accumulation occurred in shallow standing water which had subsequently partially dried out and been subject to considerable bioturbation. Intriguingly small amounts of charcoal dust were detected, although this was not necessarily derived from local fires associated with human activity.

A variety of methods were used to establish the age of the excavated deposits, including optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) and radiocarbon dating. The OSL ages obtained were in good stratigraphic order and indicated that the main palaeochannel deposits (Association B) were deposited between 65,00 and 57,000 years ago; placing them at the transition between Marine Isotope Stages (MIS) 4 and 3. This is consistent with the radiocarbon dating undertaken, which suggested that the faunal remains had a true age that was probably in excess of 50,000 years (the dates being beyond the reliable limit of the method). Plant and invertebrate remains indicate open conditions and a relatively mild conditions, suggesting this material most likely accumulated at the later end of this possible date range, at the beginning of the MIS 3 interstadial. The dates obtained for overlying Mundford sand and gravel associations were consistent with the interpretation of these deposits. Radiocarbon dating of the organic channel fill exposed on the western edge of the quarry suggested that this deposit was 25-30 thousand years younger than those within the main channel.

The main organic palaeochannel deposit produced abundant and diverse insect remains, the majority of which were beetles. The range of species present is consistent with the established interpretation of this as an abandoned channel of a fairly large river. There is evidence for drier habitats with thin grassy vegetation and abundant weeds nearby, but no evidence for trees. The presence of certain species also suggests some sediment washed into this channel from the nearby river. The abundance of dung beetle indicate the local presence of herbivorous mammals, although the rarity of beetles that feed on dried-out carcasses is something of a mystery. The beetle assemblage is indicative of a climate that was much colder than present-day Norfolk, although it is notable that a number of cold-adapted species associated with the full glacial period of the last glaciation are absent. The molluscan assemblage is dominated by aquatic freshwater taxa, although marsh and terrestrial taxa are also present. As with the beetles, this assemblage points towards a climate that was neither of full glacial nor full temperate character. The assemblage also indicates that the river still had at least periodic access to the channel, presumably at times of seasonal flooding. The limited land fauna are indicative of areas of wet grassland and swamp in the vicinity of the channel. The pollen assemblage is consistent with the environmental conditions suggested by the faunal assemblages, indicating open water with areas of swamp and fen marsh at its margins. Beyond this there is evidence that the site was surrounded by an open landscape of predominantly calcareous grassland. Similar conclusions were drawn from the more limited plant macrofossil assemblages. A notable observation is that this landscape was not devoid of trees, with birch and pine pollen consistently identified in most of the samples, albeit at levels that suggest only isolated stands of trees. It is suggested that the relative absence of trees may actually be the result of grazing by large herbivores, rather than climatic factors.

The main faunal assemblage comprises 2014 individually numbered objects, of which 1362 could be identified to species. Further material was recovered as a result of the bulk sampling for microvertebrate remains and from samples processes for other purposes. The highly fragmentary remains of woolly mammoths predominate, accounting for 91% of the identifiable remains and representing at least 11 individuals, mostly large males. Other mammal species represented included woolly rhinoceros, 'steppe' bison, horse, reindeer, spotted hyena, brown bear, wolf and red fox. The remains of small mammals, fish, frogs and at least one bird were also recovered, although overall the vertebrate assemblage is characterised by a relatively limited diversity that is typical of cold stage assemblages. The mammalian remains are a typical 'mammoth steppe' assemblage associated with a cool continental climate and an open landscape of grasses and low-growing herbaceous vegetation. As with the other palaeoenvironmental evidence the range of species present suggests that the assemblage was most likely associated with a milder phase of the Last Cold Stage.

A key component of the post-excavation analysis was a comprehensive study of the taphonomy of the vertebrate assemblage. The mammalian assemblage from Lynford exhibits a wide range of preservation conditions, reflecting differing degrees and lengths of exposure prior to burial in the channel. Less than 1% of the material examined was considered to be sufficiently well preserved to have been buried less than four years after the death of the animal. The high degree of fragmentation also indicates a significant post-depositional disturbance and damage, much of which is likely to have been the result of trampling by large mammals. Only a small proportion of the assemblage showed evidence of gnawing or other carnivore modification. It is however notable that the analysis suggests that there had probably been relatively little fluvial disturbance of the material following its deposition in the channel. As a result it is reasonable to treat the assemblage as representative of a living community that was largely contemporaneous with the other palaeoenvironmental data collected. The one possible exception is the 'steppe' bison, which is only represented at Lynford by weathered material. The exact nature of the interactions between the Neanderthals and the woolly mammoths remains uncertain, the analysis of the faunal assemblage revealing no unequivocal evidence for hunting or butchery. The distribution of the assemblage within the channel also showed no evidence of having been influence by hominin activities. It was however noted that the mammoth remains displayed a higher than expected amount of pathology, that may reflect injuries sustained during previous unsuccessful hunting attempts. Although no unequivocal cutmarks were observed this was not unexpected given the thick skins and hides of these animal coupled with the degree of weathering and fragmentation. It is possible that the comparative lack of meat-bearing limb bombs is evidence for the utilisation of these carcasses by Neanderthals. It is however the horse and reindeer bones that provide convincing evidence for Neanderthal interactions, a number having spiral fractures that suggest they were deliberately split in order to extract marrow.

The lithic assemblage recovered at Lynford Quarry is of considerable significant due to its large size and the fact that whilst in a secondary context it has not been moved far from where it was originally discarded. In total 2720 worked flints were recovered. The material from stratified contexts was as follows:
43 complete handaxes (2 in slightly rolled condition).
6 incomplete handaxes.
4 handaxe roughouts and 2 possible preforms.
18 scrapers.
1 hachoir.
3 notches.
633 flakes.
3 flake cores.
1 ?Levallois core (rolled).
1982 chips and spall.
2 worked chunks.

A small number of objects were recovered from previously disturbed palaeochannel deposits, including:
5 handaxes.
1 flake tool.
13 flakes.
2 miscellaneous worked flints.

The majority of these objects (84%) were recovered from the principle organic fill of the palaeochannel (Bii:03) with only limited material recovered from underlying and overlying deposits.

As with the faunal remains it was decided to treat the lithic material from Association Bii as a single time-averaged assemblage. Analysis of the debitage suggested that whilst not in primary context the assemblage had suffered only minimal winnowing and sorting after it entered the palaeochannel. The refitting data also supported this conclusion, although it did also provided further evidence for vertical mixing of the main stratigraphic units (most likely due to bioturbation).

This material represents a typical Mousterian of Acheulian Tradition assemblage, containing a significant number of handaxes but little evidence of the Levallois techniques that predominated during the preceding Early Middle Palaeolithic. Only one potentially Levallois object was recovered: a core in rolled condition.

The bulk of the material from the main palaeochannel deposit is in fresh, unpatinated condition, with little surface polish and minimal edge damage. This fresh material is thought to represent material originally deposited close to the palaeochannel. The much smaller rolled component is presumed to be in secondary context and derived from elsewhere. The Wissey gravels are the most likely source of this material, which may well be of a similar age and origin to the rolled material recovered during the earlier phases of aggregate extraction at Lynford Quarry (NHER 21499).

Given how few cores were produced it is likely that the bulk of the fresh debitage was produced during the manufacture of bifacial tools. It was however notable that Lynford has a flake to implement ratio that is considerably lower than would be expected for handaxe production; suggesting only partial on-site manufacture. The evidence suggests clear technologically contracts between the fresh and the rolled assemblage; the latter comprising predominantly hard-hammer flakes, many of which are heavily corticated.

The handaxes themselves are predominantly cordiform, ovate and sub-triangular in form, with the assemblage including a number of flat-butted cordate examples (Wymer Type N) that are seen as typical of the Late Middle Palaeolithic (including 'true' bout coupés). Dimension plots suggest that the handaxes form a tight group, with some being so typologically and technologically similar that that may represent the work of the same individual. This apparent degree of standardisation appears to be a feature of Middle Palaeolithic sites and is generally not seen in Lower Palaeolithic assemblages. Although a number of the handaxes have been made on flakes, most show a high level of thinning and shaping. A significant number of the handaxes show tip damage, the nature of which suggests the handaxes were used in a levelling motion. Several handaxes also show evidence for resharpening of the tips when they became broken or blunted. There was also widespread other evidence for reuse and recycling. All of the evidence is consistent with the widely accepted notion that Middle Palaeolithic handaxes were highly flexible implements that were subject to extensive resharpening during an extended use-life.

Scrapers are the most numerous of the flake tools identified, with eight types present. Many of these implements seem to form a technological continuum with the handaxes, separately largely by the intensity of bifacial working. Simple retouched flake tools are notable by their absence.

Another find of particular interest is a sandstone block that was found to bear use traces made by a softer material, possibly wood. It is a possible that this object was associated with the production of fire using a striker.

P. Watkins (HES), January 2014.

Monument Types

  • FINDSPOT (Lower Palaeolithic to Middle Palaeolithic - 1000000 BC to 40001 BC)
  • FINDSPOT (Middle Palaeolithic - 150000 BC to 40001 BC)

Associated Finds

  • ANIMAL REMAINS (Unknown date)
  • ANIMAL REMAINS (Lower Palaeolithic to Upper Palaeolithic - 500000 BC to 10001 BC)
  • AXE TRIMMING FLAKE (Lower Palaeolithic to Middle Palaeolithic - 500000 BC to 40001 BC)
  • CORE (Lower Palaeolithic to Middle Palaeolithic - 500000 BC to 40001 BC)
  • FLAKE (Lower Palaeolithic to Middle Palaeolithic - 500000 BC to 40001 BC)
  • FLAKE (Lower Palaeolithic to Middle Palaeolithic - 500000 BC to 40001 BC)
  • FLAKE (Lower Palaeolithic to Middle Palaeolithic - 500000 BC to 40001 BC)
  • FLAKE (Lower Palaeolithic to Middle Palaeolithic - 500000 BC to 40001 BC)
  • HANDAXE (Lower Palaeolithic to Middle Palaeolithic - 500000 BC to 40001 BC)
  • LITHIC IMPLEMENT (Lower Palaeolithic to Middle Palaeolithic - 500000 BC to 40001 BC)
  • ANIMAL REMAINS (Middle Palaeolithic - 150000 BC to 40001 BC)
  • AXEHEAD ROUGHOUT (Middle Palaeolithic - 150000 BC to 40001 BC)
  • CORE (Middle Palaeolithic - 150000 BC to 40001 BC)
  • DEBITAGE (Middle Palaeolithic - 150000 BC to 40001 BC)
  • DEBITAGE (Middle Palaeolithic - 150000 BC to 40001 BC)
  • HANDAXE (Middle Palaeolithic - 150000 BC to 40001 BC)
  • HANDAXE (Middle Palaeolithic - 150000 BC to 40001 BC)
  • LEVALLOIS CORE (Middle Palaeolithic - 150000 BC? to 40001 BC)
  • LEVALLOIS CORE? (Middle Palaeolithic - 150000 BC? to 40001 BC?)
  • NOTCH (Middle Palaeolithic - 150000 BC to 40001 BC)
  • RETOUCHED FLAKE (Middle Palaeolithic - 150000 BC to 40001 BC)
  • RETOUCHED FLAKE (Middle Palaeolithic - 150000 BC to 40001 BC)
  • SCRAPER (TOOL) (Middle Palaeolithic - 150000 BC to 40001 BC)
  • WORKED OBJECT (Middle Palaeolithic - 150000 BC? to 40001 BC?)

Protected Status


Sources and further reading

<S1>Publication: Boismier, W. A., Gamble, C. and Coward, F. (eds). 2012. Neanderthals Among Mammoths. Excavations at Lynford Quarry, Norfolk.
<S2>Unpublished Document: Wymer, J. J. Journal. No 7. pp 40, 44, 48, 52-55, 64, 70-71.
<S3>Illustration: Wymer, J. J. 2001. Drawing of a Palaeolithic flint Levallois core from Lynford Quarry (Stanford). Card. 1:1.
<S4>Article in Serial: Lord, J. 2004. A flint knapper's foreward to Lynford. Lithics: Newsletter of the Lithic Studies Society. No 23 pp 60-70.
<S5>Illustration: Wymer, J. J. 2001. Drawing of a Palaeolithic flint 'Kombewa type' core from Lynford Quarry (Stanford). Card. 1:1.
<S6>Illustration: Wymer, J. J. Sketches of two Palaeolithic flint 'Kombewa' cores from Lynford. Paper. 1:1.
<S7>Illustration: Wymer, J. J. 2001. Drawing of a Palaeolithic flint flake from Lynford Quarry (Stanford). Card. 1:1.
<S8>Article in Serial: Boismier, W. A. et al. 2003. A Middle Palaeolithic Site at Lynford Quarry, Mundford, Norfolk: Interim Statement. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. Vol 69 pp 315-324.
<S9>Article in Serial: Boismier, W. 2002. Lynford Quarry: A Neanderthal butchery site. Current Archaeology. No 182 pp 53-58.
<S10>Article in Serial: Gurney, D. and Penn, K. (eds). 2003. Excavations and Surveys in Norfolk, 2002. Norfolk Archaeology. Vol XLIV Pt II pp 368-384. p 380.
<S11>Newspaper Article: Eastern Daily Press. 2002. [Articles on the archaeological work undertaken at Lynford Quarry].
<S12>Newspaper Article: Eastern Daily Press. 2003. Neanderthal finds on museum display. 11 April.
<S13>Unpublished Document: Eastern Daily Press. 2002. 'Stunning' find at a Norfolk quarry. 25 June.
<S14>Newspaper Article: Eastern Daily Press. 2009. Ancient axes are returning to Norfolk. 13 November.
<S15>Website: Larkin, N. & Warren, M.. 2002. Neanderthals in Norfolk..
<S16>Unpublished Document: English Heritage. 2003. Summary report by English Heritage on the Lynford Quarry archaeological watching brief..
<S17>Monograph: Collins, M. and Penkman, K. 2004. Amino Acid Racemization Analysis: Lynford Quarry, Mundford, Norfolk. English Heritage Centre for Archaeology Report. 33/2004.
<S18>Monograph: Schwenninger, J. L. and Rhodes, E. J. 2005. Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) Dating of Sediments from a Middle Palaeolithic Site at Lynford Quarry, Norfolk. English Heritage Centre for Archaeology Report. 25/2005.
<S19>Record Card: Wymer, J. J. Wymer Index Card - Palaeolithic. Lynford; Lynford (Mundford).
<S20>Unpublished Report: Boismier, W. [Excavation at Lynford Quarry - Assessment Report and Updated Project Design].

Related records

5090Related to: Site of post-medieval floated water meadows (Monument)

Find out more...

Norfolk County Council logo Heritage Lottery Fund logo

Powered by HBSMR-web and the HBSMR Gateway from exeGesIS SDM Ltd, and mojoPortal CMS
© 2007 - 2021 Norfolk Historic Environment Service