If you think this information is inaccurate please e-mail corrections to North Lincolnshire HER .

Summary

Rectangular earthwork in Countess Close, constructed in the 12th or 13th century. Scheduled Monument.

Monument Types

• BANK (EARTHWORK) (MED, Medieval - 1100 AD to 1299 AD)
• CAUSEWAY (MED, Medieval - 1250 AD to 1400 AD)

Protected Status - None

Associated Finds

• SHERD (Early Medieval/Dark Age to Medieval - 900 AD to 1539 AD)
• ANIMAL REMAINS (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• ANIMAL REMAINS (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• ARCHITECTURAL FRAGMENT (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• KNIFE (Medieval - 1066 AD? to 1539 AD?)
• PLANT MACRO REMAINS (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD) + Sci.Date
• QUERN (Medieval - 1066 AD? to 1539 AD?)
• TILE (Medieval to Post Medieval - 1066 AD to 1900 AD)
• PIN (Post Medieval - 1540 AD to 1900 AD)

Associated Events

• Geophysical Survey, Countess Close and adjacent land, Alkborough, August 2003
• Fieldwalking, Countess Close area, 1979
• Fieldwalking at Countess Close, Alkborough, North Lincolnshire, 2003
• Earthwork, topographic and tree identification survey, Countess Close, Alkborough, 2003 -2004
• Trial trenching at Countess Close, Alkborough, 2003 (Ref: CCA2003)
• Ordnance Survey field inspection, Earthwork in Countess Close, 1964
• Evaluation at Countess Close, Alkborough, North Lincolnshire, 2006
• Geophysical Survey on land south of Countess Close, Alkborough, North Lincolnshire, 2006
• Air photography
• Aerial photographic sortie (Ref: RC8-GA)

Full description

SE880216 (centre). Countess Close, med. embanked enclosure, approx. square, sides 90-100m. Scheduled. Formerly surrounded on three sides by banks, the steep scarp overlooking the Trent forming the W side. Stukeley believed Alkborough to be "the Aquis of the Romans" and this site "a Roman entrenchment". The site is apparently medieval, but its history is not known. Limited excavations of bank in the 19th cent, revealed some building stones and pottery dated to the "middle ages" (Rev. Collis in 1879, accounts in Fowler and Dudley). South bank levelled 1965-6 and inner area ploughed. East bank levelled 1969. Soil marks of destroyed banks remain. North bank survives. No indication of masonry in banks. Finds from bulldozed banks and interior of close include leaf arrowhead, worked flint, RB sherds, 13th cent. shelly, 14th-15th cent. local wares, some post-med. sherds, fragment of oolitic ashlar with marks of claw; SM, AK AA. (de la Pryme, 138; Stukeley 1776, 96. illus.; Fowler 1908, 268-70; Dudley 1949, 171-3. illus. refs.; DOE AM List). [1]

Scheduled Monument. Scheduled area revised May 1999; monument name now 'Countess Close moated site', national monument number 32622. [2]

SE8798 2164 COUNTESS CLOSE EARTHWORK
Rectangular earthwork (which was thought by de la Pryme and Stukely to be Roman), probably marks the site of a medieval fortified dwelling.
It has been said that a Countess of Warwick lived here.
Letter from Rev Cullis 1879. 8 openings were made in the area of Countess Close. One or two of these towards the SW angle of the enclosure, where the surface was uneven, produced archstones and broken pottery (presumably all Md). Nothing else was found.
Not a single trace of Ro, occupation was seen and the conclusion must be that the feature is of a Md. date.
A sub-rectangular strongly defensive earthwork in a commanding position. It is not Ro. In construction, and the steepness of the rampart profile and excellence of causeway substantiate the prob. Md. Dating.
(1. OS 6" 1956 ; 2. Early Days in NW Lincs, 1949, 171-3, illus (HE Dudley); a. Stukely, 96, DA 1.3.63.; 3.Between Trent and Ancholme 1908 pp268-70 (E Fowler) FRH 11.5.64; 4. F Colquhoun Field Inspection 10.5.64
The southern bank of this earthwork has been levelled and the close ploughed. A few medieval potsherds were found near the foot path on the west side.
(1. E M Arch Bull 8, 1965, 21 RC & E Russell R JB 21.5.69) [3, 4]

Alkborough SE880 216 The southern bank of Countess Close has recently been bulldozed and the interior is now being ploughed. The site was originally thought to be of Romano-British date but there is very little evidence for this. Recent surface finds from the interior of the earthwork are now in Scunthorpe Museum and are mainly medieval sherds, but there is also one worked flint; information from Mr. C Knowles. [5,6]

Countess Close, 1/4 mile SW of church. A roughly square earthwork with side 300ft long, broken by an entrance on the N. The site is undated; it may represent the remains of a fortified medieval steading. [7]

' As soon as I came to the town I observed a four square trench encompassing many akers of land, which tho' it be old, yet it seems to be Roman, tho' it is but a small one. That which makes me believe that it is Roman, besides the squareness of it, is a tradition which the people has, that there is a passage under ground from it to Holton Bolls, which is a mile of, it being common with the Romans, and no nations else, to make passages under ground from their forts and camps to other places, to get aid and provisions to them the more secretly and safely in times of need.

Tradition says that there lived formerly at Alkburrow a famous heroic Princes[s], who did many martial actions. They say that she had a huge hall in that piece of ground which I have described before to be a Roman fortification, and says that the place is call'd Countess close from her, adding that it is the most ancient place that is in the exchequer rolls, and always first called there, etc. ' [8]

See Alkborough parish file for further extracts from local histories and antiquarian descriptions. [9]

BW vertical aerial photograph shows the ploughed out SW part of the enclosure [10]

The Moated Sites Research Group record card lists 13th century shelly ware, 14th and 15th century local wares and a few sherds of 16th-18th century pottery as being found 'nr footpath (on) west side'. [11]

Fieldwork record sheet briefly describes a site visit by HAU staff in July 1985 [12]

Between August 2003 and February 2004, Humber Field Archaeology carried out a Heritage Lottery funded programme of archaeological evaluations comprising geophysical survey, fieldwalking and trial trenching. This was part of the South Humber Bank Wildlife and People Project.

The geophysical survey was carried out by GeoQuest associates in September 2003. Both a fluxgate magnetometer and a resistivity meter were used to survey two areas within, and to the south, of Countess Close earthwork. The enclosure was characterised by variability in both soil magnetic susceptibility and resistivity. This was thought to be due to occupational debris, ground disturbance within the enclosure, and the effects of the destruction and dispersal of the southern flank. The main anomaly detected by the survey was thought to show the line of this infilled ditch.

Within the main enclosure, a set of NE-SW oriented positive anomalies were displayed in the geomagnetic data. They may be ditches subdividing the area, or footings of walls. They also appear to frame a central rectangular area, largely devoid of other readings, which may have been a courtyard. A series of weak rectilinear anomalies are present along the northern edge of the survey, which may be wall footings or sets of post holes.

Elsewhere, several dense concentrations of magnetic signals indicated the presence of scatters of brick, tile, slag or iron in the SW, SE and NE corners of the enclosure. They may be locations of building structures or industrial activity. A diffuse band of low resistance, 10m wide, was detected south of the enclosure. It was interpreted as a buried roadway or a levelled stone core bank which perhaps defined the southern boundary of an annex to the enclosure. Outside the enclosure, close to the SW corner, a prominent su-rectangular anomaly measuring 10m x 6m was detected. It may be a large pit, a cluster of postholes, or the robbed out foundations of a building.

An earthwork survey was carried out by HFA staff, using an EDM theodolite, between September 2003 and February 2004.

‘The bank survived to the greatest degree to the north-east, where its profile was most marked, the south-east side being visible but less high, with only a small drop into the exterior of the monument, and a relatively shallow dip over the moat. The bank on the south-eastern side has been reduced markedly due to repeated ploughing of the interior of the monument, the bank probably being reduced at the time the southern bank was levelled; the drop from the top of the bank to the surface of the ploughed field is negligible in places, and the bank merely peters out at its southern end. There was clearly no bank along the north-western side, on the scarp edge, there only being slight remains of the terminal of the levelled southern bank here. A clear break in the north-eastern bank is taken to mark the position of an entrance, presumed to be an original feature, and a gap is shown in this position on (Stukely’s).. Prospect of Alkborough drawing, dated 1724 .

The lines of the ditches were visible on three sides, with a paths or hollow-ways marking their route to north-east and south-east, and with wider, more shallow indentations marking the route of the ditch and the slighted bank to the south-west. Despite the very thorough levelling which had taken place on the south-western side, a break in the moat -later found on excavation to be represented by a raised causeway constructed over what had once been a continuous ditch -was still visible on the ploughed field surface. The existence of a similar causeway crossing the moat at the north-eastern entrance gap is implied by the 18th-century panorama, where one leads to a break in the adjoining boundary wall, though the survey found no signs of such a feature, the only sign that there had ever been a point of egress on that boundary being represented by a very slight dip in the break of slope on the outer lip of the moat.

A break in the bank in the eastern corner of the monument is presumed to be of relatively recent date, it perhaps having been created at the time the south-western bank was levelled, to enable access for agricultural machinery , or before that, when the enclosed area was used as a sports field. There is no break in the bank at this point on the 18th-century panorama, nor in the external lip of the moat, which is shown to continue unbroken into the south-eastern side; there is now no trace of the outer lip of the moat in the eastern corner, this now being a clear point of access to the site. It is considered that the break at the western end of the north- eastern bank might also be of a relatively modern date, owing its existence to the footpath which crosses into the interior of the monument at this point. As might be expected, there were no signs of any moat or ditch along the north-western side, the edge of the steep scarp itself forming a clear break of slope; the hollows representing the north-eastern and south- western moat ditches ran uninterrupted into this break of slope.

In the interior of the monument there were no signs of any raised areas or earthworks betraying the existence or positions of any buildings, the repeated recent ploughing of the field having produced a uniform, level surface.
To the south-west of the monument, a slight hollow ran along the top of the scarp, between a gentle break of slope down from the field edge and a low bank forming a former hedged boundary along the scarp top. This hollow reduced in depth as it proceeded south-west, eventually merging into the footpaths which converged on the footpath dividing Areas A and B. This is an unconvincing candidate for a ditch and bank along the south-western side of the area considered to represent an annex to the south of monument; no such annex or ditch is visible on the 18th-century panorama, though the low bank along the scarp top probably is.’

The programme of fieldwalking took place in September and October 2003 across the scheduled site of Countess Close and the area to the south, a total of 6.3ha. The pottery demonstrated that Roman and Anglo-Saxon activity had taken place before the construction of the enclosure, but a high proportion of the assemblage (172 sherds) was of post-conquest date, and found within the enclosure. The earlier types in this category comprised Yorkshire Gritty ware, Lincoln Fine-shelled ware and North Lincolnshire Fine-shelled ware. From the later 12th and 13th centuries, kilns from Scarborough, Doncaster, Beverley and West Yorkshire were represented. Later medieval wares were mainly Humberwares of the West Cowick or Humber Basin type. Coal Measures whitewares were also present. A complete series of transitional 15th/16th century types were present, including Cistercian ware, Bourne D ware and Late Humber ware. Imported Frechen stoneware of the early to mid 17th century date was found, and other types extended the date range to the 19th century. 149 fragments of medieval brick and 58 fragments of medieval roof tile (these mostly from outside the enclosure) were found. Three pieces of medieval Collyweston stone roof tile were also present.

The trial excavations took place between the 13th and the 29th of October 2003. Two trenches, placed across the line of the levelled southern ditch and a former entrance, were machine and hand-excavated.
Four phases of activity were identified :

Phase 1, dating from the mid 12th century or earlier, predated the construction of the ditched enclosure. Natural layers were overlain by loose orange-brown sandy subsoil, which contained finds from the Romano-British period and earlier.

Phase 2 dates from the late 12th and early 13th century, the time of the construction of the earthwork. The main moat ditch of the enclosure was present in both trenches, and measured up to 10m wide and 2.68m deep.

Phase 3 dates from the late 13th century onwards., when a stone causeway was constructed at the southern entrance to the enclosure, and the moat fills accumulated.

Phase 4 comprises post medieval and modern tree growth, digging of pits and bulldozing of some earthworks.

‘The evidence from the excavation trenches suggests that the Countess Close enclosure ditch was a medieval creation with estimation of the date at which the ditch was first dug depending on the small pottery assemblage recovered from its fills. It is considered that it was excavated sometime in the late 12th or early 13th centuries -more likely, perhaps, in the late 12th century rather than the early 13th.

One of the excavation trenches (Trench 1) had been targeted on the position of an entrance into the enclosure on its south-western side, where there had been a gap in the ditch and bank prior to the 1960s levelling episode and where a break in the ditch was still apparent on the ploughed field surface. Excavation revealed that this break in the ditch was a later creation, established through the construction of a causeway, constructed on a platform of dumped material overlying the earlier ditch fills, with parallel stone-faced retaining walls supporting a clay core. It is clear that there was originally no break ill the ditch here, and perhaps even no southern entrance into the enclosure, with only the causeway later providing a crossing point leading to an entrance; a timber bridge may have preceded the causeway, though no signs of such a structure were apparent.

There was no dating evidence associated with the causeway and the pottery recovered from material which lay against it was in all cases residual, having been redeposited from the enclosure or from earlier ditch fills. The date of the earlier fills suggest that it was in the later 13th century at the earliest that the causeway was constructed, the 11th- to 13th-century radiocarbon date from charred remains beneath the causeway appearing to confirm this. The material dated was derived from the burning of what may have been unthreshed material, waste ash from a kiln or corn-drier, which it is presumed would have lain within the Countess Close enclosure; similar material dumped against the walls of the causeway- here including fragments of burnt clay, one of which was curved -was probably redeposited from the same source.
The quantities of domestic refuse such as pottery and animal bone, recovered from the fills of the ditch, were generally small, however, and give very few clues as to the economy and status of the settlement. The pottery was unexceptional in character and the small animal bone assemblage contained little that represented waste from butchery or food preparation. Fragments representing the main domestic stock (cattle, sheep, pig) were few, though bones from the skeletons of several dogs were recovered from the ditch fills in Trench 1, at least some of which had possible chop- and knife-marks derived from the removal of skins. It is impossible to determine if these were the remains of dogs used for hunting, though it is interesting to note that bones of sparrowhawk were also recovered from the fills of the enclosure ditch -it may not be going too far, therefore, to suppose that the presence of these animals corroborates the site's supposed status as a medieval manor site.

Other than the lenses of charred material, the ditch fills were generally sterile with a predominantly sandy matrix, and assessment of sediment samples for biological remains from the fills has confirmed this. The moat was probably always a dry feature -there was no apparent source of groundwater which would have fed it -and with open ends to the west it would have quickly drained directly onto the steep scarp above the Flats. If there was no attempt to keep the ditch free of debris and if material was not being deliberately dumped, the feature would undoubtedly have slowly infilled naturally through the action of wind and rain. No useful dating evidence was recovered from any of the fills post-dating the causeway, however, so it is not possible to determine how long after its construction the moat fills continued to accumulate before they were effectively sealed beneath a cover of topsoil and turf, a mantle which remained substantially in place until the episode of earthmoving in the 1960s.

No traces were found of the position or extent of the internal bank known to have flanked the ditch, it having been very thoroughly levelled in the 1960s, with the bank material being bulldozed into the ditch, burying the surviving topsoil there. It was not, therefore, possible to establish, for instance, whether the ditch had been accompanied by an inner bank from the 'very beginning (being formed from upcast from excavation of the ditch) -with a gap through its south-western side being created when the causeway was constructed -or whether the bank was added later with the causeway.’ [13 - 15, 18]

'From the termination of the Hermen-street, just by the knoll of old Wintringham, and the hedge on the side of a common, a lesser vicinal branch of a Roman road goes directly to Aukborough, passing over Whitton brook… Aukborough I visited, because I suspected it the Aquis of the Romans, in Ravennas, and I was not deceived; for I presently descried the Roman castrum. There are two little tumuli upon the end of the road entering the town. The Roman castle is square, three hundred foot each side, the entrance north: the west side it objected to the steep cliff hanging over the Trent, which here falls into the Humber; for this castle is very conveniently placed in the north-west angle of Lincolnshire as a watch-tower over all Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire, which it surveys… I am told the camp is now called Countess Close, and they say a countess of Warwick lived there; perhaps owned the estate; but there are no marks of building, nor I believe ever were. The vallum and ditch are very perfect: before the north entrance is a square plot called the Green, where I suppose the Roman soldiers lay pro castris.'

Plate showing Alkborough as Stukeley saw it headed 'Prospect of Aukborough Aquis of the Romans' on July 24 1724. [16]

SMR Record card. [17]

English Heritage Monuments at Risk report. [19]

An additional four trenches were investigated within the scheduled area of Countess Close in June 2006, carried out as part of the continuing Heritage Lottery-funded South Humber Bank Wildlife and People Project. The archaeological contractors were Humber Field Archaeology, with participation in the excavation by SHWAP volunteers. The second phase within all four trenches was medieval.

Trench 1 was located in the north-eastern quarter of the enclosure, excavated into the internal face of the enclosure bank and extending into the interior. The bank material was found to be firm brown clay silt, with fragmented oolitic limestone. It was up to 1m thick within the excavated section. Parallel to the bank, and cutting into its southern edge, was a linear ditch, measuring up to 0.5m deep. It had been backfilled with clay sand and large fragments of oolitic limestone. A sherd of 12th-14th century pottery and two fragments of a medieval dressed stone block were found within this fill. Thre post-medieval or modern post-holes were recorded in the northern part of the trench.

Trench 2 was positioned in the interior of the enclosure, perpendicular to the eastern boundary bank. Two ditches were recorded in the western end of the trench. The location of the westernmost ditch coincided with a geophysical anomaly detected in 2003. It was NE-SW aligned, 0.82m wide and up to 0.3m deep. The fill contained early medieval pottery (Torksey and Lincolnshire Fine Shelled ware) and some residual Romano-British sherds. The second feature appeared to curve from ENE to WSW, was 1.45m wide and 0.35m deep. Its fill included a Beverley ware sherd and residual RB pottery. Nearby, a post-hole cut into a Phase 1 pit feature; the fill contained an early medieval shell-tempered rim sherd and fragments of animal bone.

Several features in Trench 2 were assigned to Phase 1 (Romano-British period). Two post-holes were identified, measuring up to 0.45m long and 0.16m deep. Another post-hole or small pit was up to 0.8m long and 0.3m deep. All had silt clay fills, containing animal bone and Romano-British pottery. Two other oval features may have been ploughed-out man made features or natural hollows; the fill of one contained a sherd of greyware. In the same area of the trench, a possible slot measured 0.24m wide and 0.35m deep. The fill contained Romano-British pottery, animal bone and shell. In the centre of the trench, a large oval pit extended into the trench from the south. It measured 2m long by 0.45m deep, and the fill contained Romano-British pottery. It was noted that four of these postholes and pits lay on a west-east straight line, with the large oval pit marking the corner of a possible rectangular timber building, measuring at least 9m long. Although assigned to Phase 1, the excavation report speculates that this could equally have been a medieval structure, on the grounds that the Romano-British pottery was abraded and possibly residual.

At the eastern end of Trench 2 were two pits or post-holes and a shallow gully. One pit contained a single sherd of 12th - 14th century coarseware pottery. Both pits lay just inside the enclosure bank, and appeared to be parallel to the edge, indicating a possible inner fence or palisade. The second pit and the gully did not contain any pottery. They were sealed by 3 dumped deposits of silt and clay, possibly used to level the interior close to the bank. In turn, they were sealed by post-medieval and modern layers incorporating material from the bank, caused by levelling and ploughing.

Trench 3 was located in the southern central interior of the enclosure. It contained no recognisable medieval features,

Trench 4 was excavated through the eastern enclosure bank and ditch, close to the south-eastern corner of the enclosure. The ditch was measured at 7.7m wide and 2.05m deep, with steeply sloping sides. The excavated material had been used to form the inner core of the enclosure bank, up to 0.42m thick and 3.10m wide, lying 0.58m below the present day top of the bank. It have been covered by a clay layer up to 0.73m thick. The primary fill of the ditch was up to 1m thick, and contained animal bone, shell, residual Romano-British pottery and one sherd of 12th-14th century medieval pottery. A secondary fill was up to 0.95m thick and incorprated medieval coarseware sherds, possibly from the same vessel. A tertiary fill was dated to the post-medieval period. [20]

6 aerial photographs, taken July 2012. [21- 26]

Aerial photograph, 1995. [27]

<1> Loughlin, N and Miller, KR, 1979, A Survey of Archaeological Sites in Humberside, 179 (BOOK). SLS523.

<2> English Heritage, Scheduling notification, MPP23/AA31603/1 (ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS). SLS1405.

<3> National Record of the Historic Environment, Ordnance Survey/NAR/NMR/NRHE Records, SE82SE 5 (COLLECTION / PARENT). SLS1263.

<4> Yorkshire Archaeological Society, YAS card index, 5332 (CARD INDEX/INDEX CARD). SLS1339.

<5> Society for Lincolnshire History and Archaeology, Lincolnshire History and Archaeology, No.3, 1968, 38 (SERIAL - PERIODICALS, ANNUAL REPORTS, MONOGRAPH SE). SLS1352.

<6> East Midlands Archaeological Bulletin, 10, 1974, 37 (JOURNAL - RECORD OF EVENTS). SLS2704.

<7> Pevsner, N and Harris, 1989, The Buildings of Lincolnshire, 96 (BOOK). SLS2706.

<8> Surtees Society, 1870, The Diary of Abraham de la Pryme, 138, 164 (BOOK). SLS1404.

<9> North Lincolnshire Museum, Parish files, Alkborough (MUSEUM RECORDS). SLS1344.

<10> CUAC, 1984, Untitled Source, CUAC RC8 GA231 (AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH). SLS530.

<11> MSRG, Moated Sites Research Group, Alkborough SE880217 (RECORD SHEET/FORM). SLS2707.

<12> Humberside Archaeology Unit, 1984-1998, HAU Fieldwork Record Sheet (RECORD SHEET/FORM). SLS2708.

<13> North Lincolnshire HER, 2003, Countess Close trial trench excavations, 5-9, 11-14, 17-37, 44-56, 60-61, Figs 3-20 (PHOTOGRAPH - DIGITAL). SLS5168.

<13> Bradley, J., Fraser, J. & Steedman, K., 2004, An Archaeological Evaluation at Countess Close, Alkborough, North Lincolnshire, 5-9, 11-14, 17-37, 44-56, 60-61, Figs 3-20 (REPORT - INTERIM, RESEARCH, SPECIALIST, ETC). SLS2687.

<14> Noel, M., 2003, Geophysical Survey of the Countess Close Earthwork Site, and an adjoining area, at Alkborough, North Lincolnshire (SAM no.32622), 2-6, Figs 1-6 (REPORT - INTERIM, RESEARCH, SPECIALIST, ETC). SLS2424.

<15> Boyle, A. & Hemblade, M., 2003, Alkborough Community Fieldwalking and Countess Close, Slides 16-21 (COMPUTER DISK/TAPE). SLS2688.

<16> Stukeley, William, 1724, Itinerarium Curiosum, Vol.1, 96 Vol.2 Pl.17 (BOOK). SLS2910.

<17> Humber SMR, 1985 - 1998, SMR Record Sheet, 44 (RECORD SHEET/FORM). SLS527.

<18> Atkinson, D., 2004, HFA Evaluation and Watching Brief Reports, Report 153 p15-20 Figs 8-135-9,11-14,17-37,44-56,60-61 Figs 3-20 (COMPUTER DISK/TAPE). SLS2723.

<19> English Heritage, 2009, Monuments at Risk data, 32622 (ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS). SLS3978.

<20> Fraser, J., 2007, Further Archaeological Evaluation at Countess Close, Alkborough, North Lincolnshire., 6-7, 10-16, 17-22, 37-38 (REPORT - INTERIM, RESEARCH, SPECIALIST, ETC). SLS3512.

<21> Innervisions Aerial Photography, 2012, Untitled Source (AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH). SLS5301.

<22> Innervisions Aerial Photography, 2012, Untitled Source (AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH). SLS5296.

<23> Innervisions Aerial Photography, 2012, Untitled Source (AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH). SLS5297.

<24> Innervisions Aerial Photography, 2012, Untitled Source (AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH). SLS5298.

<25> Innervisions Aerial Photography, 2012, Untitled Source (AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH). SLS5299.

<26> Innervisions Aerial Photography, 2012, Untitled Source (AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH). SLS5300.

<27> K Leahy, 1995, Untitled Source (AP SLIDE). SLS5729.

Sources and further reading

Related records

Search results generated by the HBSMR Gateway from exeGesIS SDM Ltd.