On behalf of Ann and Tony Whyte, MOLA were instructed to carry out archaeological recording at Beauvale Priory, Nottinghamshire. The work was concerned with 2 areas ( area A, area B) of investigation previously excavated by the Thoroton Society in 1908, however, the sites were left only partially backfilled. The study was designed to expose sufficient masonry which would allow the conservation and presentation of the 2 areas as part of an existing wider scheme of conservation already in place over the rest of the site – funded by a grant from Historic England. The previously backfilled soils were removed revealing well preserved remains in area A – thought to be the remains of a church and later chapel. The walls found in area B were less well preserved, the report states that some of the masonry is likely have been stolen for building stone. Vegetation and topsoil were removed which exposed loose masonry rubble, subsequently this rubble was removed revealing the extent and condition of the walls. The exposed features were recorded in plan and elevation at a scale of 1:20 and photographically. Area A dimensions – 6m west to east, 4m north to south. The area encompassed the eastern end of the southern wall of the church and the excavated remains of the northern most chapels. 3 clear structural phases were identified and assigned context numbers (report contains plans). • The south wall of the church – 1.2m wide and 1.4m high constructed on a roughly dressed stone footing 0.5m high, the wall had a rubble sandstone core and dressed stone to the south and north faces. It has been suggested that the church had at least 2 phases of construction, though this could not be confirmed as a result of this investigation. • The northernmost chapel was rectangular, although its full size was not determined during this investigation. It is recorded as being ‘11ft. 6in. wide’ (de Boulay Hill and Gill 1908 – SNT335) or 3.53m wide. The southern and eastern walls lay outside of the trench. The western wall was 1.34m thick and a surviving height of 1.30m (visually demonstrated in this report). The report states “The western side of the wall was not fully exposed to depth and there was no obvious footing level on the eastern side of the wall. The wall was of massed wall construction with the outward facing sides of the stonework dressed and a rubble and mortar core. The blocks were of varying size but of a similar height (90mm). The chapel wall abutted the church wall and was not keyed in. In the north-western corner and inserted into the church wall was the lower portion of a vaulting shaft with a square sub-base and round shaft, 0.28m high. • The western doorway (Figs 6 & 7) was 1.22m wide with shaped tapered door jambs. At a later date this doorway fell out of use and was blocked [107] with masonry comprising a rubble core and roughly dressed outward faces (Fig 8, Section 10). The blocking wall had at least five surviving courses and was 0.54m thick and at least 0.7m high. The report contains further, more thorough details of the works. Area B dimensions – 10m west to east 5m north to south, this area was located to the south east of the cloister range. 2 walls were recorded, one to the east and one to the south of the area. The report states that there was no obvious physical relationship. • The eastern wall in this area extended northwards beyond the area, appearing as a very low earthwork bank. A 5.0m length x 0.96m wide 0.7m high wall lay within the trench. • The southern wall contrasts with the 1908 plan where a straight length of wall is recorded. Wall, aligned east to west, was 4.80m long and 1.74m high and 0.84m thick. The wall was constructed on a roughly dressed stone footing and the superstructure comprised a rubble and mortar core encased in roughly-dressed sandstone blocks of varying sizes. The report goes on to describe the walls and courses in more detail and is visually demonstrated in ar-chaeological plans. The report concludes “The archaeological recording of two of the 1908 excavations succeeded in elucidating the plan and the sequence of a small portion of the priory. For the southern wall of the church and northernmost chapel (Area A) the sequence and descriptions of the 1908 excavations were broadly correct although it was clear that the eastern range of the Little Cloister post-dated the church. In addition the chapel wall was not keyed in; rather it abutted up against the southern wall of the church”. The east cloister range (Area B) is more complex than the 1908 plan would suggest although later robbing of the walls and the reduction in ground level in this area has meant that the structural his-tory of this part of the building has been lost. It was thought that ‘the 1908 excavation determined that the south wall of the west range extends some 8 m to the east of the range before it returns to the south’(Coppack 2015). Although this seems to be the case, it would appear that the southern wall was more complex and that there are more rooms/buildings in this area than was thought. An unmanned craft took images of the site from above, these and other photos were later used to create a 3D model of the site. The report contains ariel photos taken by the craft, site plans, historic site plans (1908), section drawings and photographs of the trenches and exposed areas.