northamptonshire archaeology 2002, 30_2002,_hull___preston... · 2009-10-27 · northamptonshire...

Northamptonshire Archaeology 2002, 30

NORTHAMPTONSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGY, 30,2002

Contents

Middle Iron Age occupation at Mawsley New Village, Cransley Lodge, Kettering, Northamptonshire 1 GRAHAM HULL AND STEVE PRESTON

Excavation of Roman settlement at Sponne School, Towcester, 1997 21 ROB ATKINS AND ANDY CHAPMAN

Excavations at Derngate, Northampton, 1997-2000 31 JONATHAN HILLER, ALAN HARDY AND PAUL BLINKHORN

Excavations at the Former Cantor and Silver Site, Brackley, Northamptonshire 63 JON MURRAY

Brickmaking in Holy Sepulchre Parish, Northampton 83 ROB ATKINS

Notes 101 Excavation of a "Triple-Ditch System" at The Larches, Stowe Nine Churches Martin Tingle 101 An Iron Age Site at Brafield Allotments: Pottery from Excavations in 1962 and 2001

Dennis Jackson and Martin Tingle 105 The Prebendal Manor Research Project, Nassington. Jane Baile 116

Northampton: the Double Streets and the Norman Town. T.C. Welsh 119 The Luffield Priory Grange at Monksbarn, Whittlebury, Northants. Richard Jones 126

Fotheringhay: a new Perspective from the 1640s. Glenn Foard and Tracey Britnell 140

Archaeology in Northamptonshire, 2002 145

Errata Volume 29 155


Middle Iron Age occupation at Mawsley New Village, Cransley Lodge, Kettering,

Northamptonshire by

GRAHAM HULL AND STEVE PRESTON

with contributions by Paul Blinithorn, Varian Denham, Steve Ford, Sheila Hamilton-Dyer, Lynne Keys, Nicola Powell and Mark Robinson

SUMMARY

A series of middle Iron Age circular structures comprising an unenclosed occupation site with at least two phases of activity, were radio-carbon dated to a period between the 4th and the 1st centuries BC. There was some evidence of metal working on the site. A similar group of features was revealed by geophysical survey within an enclosure, just to the east of the excavated site. A very small quantity of late Iron Age material was recovered from features unrelated to the occupation area, while a series of shallow linear features, cutting across the site may be of Iron Age date but are more likely the remains of medieval cultivation.

INTRODUCTION

This report documents the results of an excavation carried Out by Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd at Housing Area 3B, Mawsley New Village, Cransley Lodge, Kettering, Northampton- shire. Outline planning permission had been granted by Kettering Borough Council for the development of the area, subject to a condition requiring archaeological investigation. The whole development area covered O3ha, south-west of the village of Cransley (centred on SP 807 760) (Fig. 1). The site lay on essentially flat land on top of a ridge at an average of c.140m above Ordnance Datum. The wider topog- raphy slopes down sharply both to east and west in a series of narrow valleys cut by numerous streams

feeding the River Ise (to the east) and another stream (currently via Pitsford Reservoir) to the south west, both tributaries of the Nene. Geological maps (BGS 1993) indicate that the geology is Boulder Clay and this was confirmed during the excavations.

The archaeological potential of the site was estab- lished by a series of field surveys and evaluation trenching carried out by John Samuels Archaeo- logical Consultants (Nicholls 1999; Slatcher 1999; 2000; Young 2000). As a result, an area of 6250 sq m was identified as archaeologically sensitive (Fig. 1) and a programme of full excavation was instigated. This followed a specification prepared by Mr Myk Flitcroft, Planning Officer (Archaeology) for North-

amptonshire Heritage, the archaeological adviser to the Borough Council. The excavation was funded by David Wilson Homes.

The archive is currently held by Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd, 47—49 De Beauvoir Road, Reading, RG1 5NR, pending identification of a suitable repository. The site code is MNVOO/64.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

The site lies at the head of a valley aligned SW—NE, draining into the river Ise. Fieldwallcing had revealed a concentration of Neolithic finds not far from New Lodge, and Bronze Age sites were known in the vicinity. The Northamptonshire Sites and Monuments Record contains evidence for Iron Age and Roman finds from the parish, although not closely located. Aerial photography mapped by the National Map- ping Programme of the Royal Commission on



Fig I Site location.

2 Northamptonshire Archaeology 2002, 30

MIDDLE IRON AGE OCCUPATION AT MAWSLEY NEW VILLAGE, CRANSLEY LODGE, KETTERING, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

Historical Monuments (England) suggested the

presence of what appeared to be hon Age and/or Roman enclosures and settlement both on the site and nearby. A deserted medieval village also lay close to the site. The site appears to have been farmland from late Roman times onwards.

The site was identified by a desk-based assessment (Slatcher 1999) and geophysical survey (Nicholls 1999) as of high archaeological potential. In particular, two clusters of circular and semi-circular features, one of them enclosed by ditches, appeared to

represent Iron Age or Roman settlement (Fig. Ic). The entire area of the site was then fleidwalked and evaluation trenching was conducted, to ascertain the survival and nature of the archaeological features, Part of the site was also investigated in an open area excavation (Slatcher 2000). Neither the trenching nor the area excavation showed many archaeological features, and those very poorly preserved. The dominant features were the remains of medieval ridge and furrow cultivation. Remarkably few finds were recovered, from fieldwalking, trenching and excavation combined. Even in areas where cropmarks and the geophysical survey suggested definite archaeological features, the trenching revealed no trace of sur-

viving archaeology. Ij particular, nothing was found of the eastern of the two settlement complexes. It was concluded that much of the already poorly preserved archaeology might have been finally ploughed Out

relatively recently. Archaeological features were located in one

portion of the site, around Cransley Lodge, where

preservation was considerably better, and these features were dated to the Iron Age and Roman

periods. These included the western of the two clusters of ring-gully structures located in the geophysical survey. As result, this area was targeted for full excavation. Specific research objectives centred on the date and nature of the occupation and abandonment, the function of the ring gullies, whether the site was enclosed or open, and whether there was any evidence for the integration of an occupied area within a formal arrangement of pad- docks and fields. In addition it was hoped to provide absolute dating for pottery with traditionally recognized Middle and Late Iron Age fabrics and forms, especially in respect of their potential continued use into Roman times.

3

THE EXCAVATION

The excavation took place over the winter of 2000—1 under the supervision of Graham Hull and opened a

single continuous area of 6250 sq m (Fig. 2). Topsoil and overburden were removed by a 360° mechanical excavator fitted with a toothless bucket to expose the

uppermost surface of archaeological deposits. The archaeological deposits encountered included the ring gullies, a series of straight, parallel ditches, a few pits, and some structural features (post holes and post-pads). The vast majority of the features were ditches or gullies. All archaeological deposits were cleaned and excavated by hand. A minimum of 5% of linear features was excavated in slots, in the cases of the ring gullies, rising to 25%, and in some cases closer to 50% was sampled in an attempt to retrieve more dating evidence. All other features were half-sectioned as a minimum. Forty-eight bulk soil

samples were taken from sealed contexts for environmental evidence, but few of these yielded any material.

EXCAVATION RESULTS

The excavated features can be grouped together conveniently as six structures (A to F) and a single series of parallel ditches. Each structure consisted of one or more penannular gullies, usually associated with a number of post-holes and 'scoops' that could have been hearths. Features not clearly associated with either the structures or the ditches were rare. In all cases, the ditches clearly post-dated the structures, and a modern drainage system cut across both.

In spite of a lack of deep stratification, almost all the site's features had at least one direct stratigraphic relationship with other features, and the broad phasing of the site is reasonably clear. What is less clear is whether the features within each phase need all be contemporary, or represent a constantly shifting pattern of similar land-use within each period. This

considerably affects not only the length of each

phase, but all interpretation of the site's status and function, as discussed below.

The modem drains had caused severe but localized

damage to many features, and the whole site had been reduced by ploughing to the extent that few features were more than 0.3—0.4m deep. Recognition of features in the first place was often a problem, as most of the feature fills, invariably yellow-grey silty


75700

75650

0


Fig 2 Mawstey New village, 2000. All features.

4

80300


MIDDLE IRON AGE OccUPATION AT MAWSLEY NEW VILLAGE, CRANSLEY LODGE, KETrERING. NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

clay, were virtually identical, not only to one another, but also to the natural. This problem had been noted during the earlier evaluation exercise (Young 2000) and was only exacerbated by the wintry conditions of the excavation.

PHASE SUMMARY

PHASE I MIDDLE IRON AGE i (4th—3rd century BC) (Figure 3)

No features on the site can be demonstrated to be earlier than the six penannular structures. There is no stratigraphic basis for deciding whether these ring-gullies were all contemporary or successive, nor does the ceramic chronology help to distinguish them, so the first elements of each structure have been phased together for convenience, with the rebuilding episodes likewise all phased together. There are some clear differences between the ceramic assemblages from each structure, which maybe chronological, but could be accounted for in a number of other ways. The radiocarbon dating strongly suggests two separate phases of activity; unfortunately the relationship of structures to phases is less clear. The initial phase of Structure A and the recut of Structure C, for example, produce very comparable radiocarbon dates (see below) white the initial cut of Structure B falls much later. It can only be admitted that the dating is imprecise; the site is discussed as if all the structures were initially contemporary and later remodelled, but this clearly oversimplifies and it is

possible that no more than one structure was ever in use at any one time.

All the structures were morphologically very similar (Fig. 5). With the exception of the markedly smaller Structure B, they consisted of a double gully, almost circular, with clear terminals marking an entrance facing south-east. The case of Structure A is less clear, as its fill was virtually indistinguishable from the natural, but it seems likely it also originally had a double-ring construction. In the cases where it can be demonstrated, it appears that an original plan of two separate concentric rings was replaced by one single, deeper gully, which may then have been recut at least once in each case. The later gullies, or their recuts, also appear to have extended beyond the simple penannular form to include extension 'spurs'. These single-ring replacements, and all their rccuts, have been placed into Phase 2, but it is unclear if this accurately represents the development of the site. It may be that the chronological sequence runs across the site from structure to structure, with internal modifications to each one following a similar pattem time and again, rather than a uniform pattern of structurally similar replacement in near-contemporary structures. There is no convincing difference between the pottery assemblages recovered from the different gullies within each structure. All appear to have been allowed to silt up naturally, and often a small amount of charcoal or ash was all that distinguished their fills from the natural.

Each ring structure seems to have been a building (except perhaps F, see below). In some of the gully segments, post- settings and/or stakcholcs were dimly discemed in the base of the cuts, while both structures B and C had associated post-holes and post pads concentrated in the area of the entrance. Very similar double-ring building plans are known from other Iron Age sites in the region (e.g., Grendon Quarry; Jackson 1995). In all cases the extcmal diameter was l3—15m, except Structure B (7m).

5

In each case, the outer gully (typically O.20—O.30m deep) was markedly shallower than the inner one (typically 0.45—0.60m

deep), which may suggest that the inner ring was structural, forming a slot for upright posts, with an internal diameter of around 9—1 Im in each case, while the outer was an eaves-drip gully. Such an interpretation is problematic, since each structure seems to have been replaced by one with a single deeper trench. However, the later structures may not have had drip gullies because some means was found to allow roof water to drain off via the 'spur' segments of the new single slot (see Phase 2).

Although similar in plan, Structure F was fundamentally different from the others. It consisted of a single pcnannular ditch, up to 3m wide and I m deep, with evidence of several episodes of rccutting. In this case, the stratigraphic evidence consistently suggested that the outermost cuts were the earlier (Fig. 5). The irregularity of the shape in plan also suggests that not all of the cuts followed the whole of the circuit of the circumference, although actual terminals were not recorded other than at the extreme points. Such a massive cut is difficult to reconcile with the structural function suggested for the other ring-gullies. Apart from any other consideration, it created a very much smaller internal space (c. 6m by 4.5m), despite a similar external diameter of c. 13m. In other contexts, such massive cuts could be argued to have been structural (perhaps a monumental tower, for example) but this seems much more likely actually to have been a ditch, and it seems unlikely simply to have been intended to drain this small area. Similar ditches are usually seen as stock pens such as the 'eastern enclosure' at Great Houghton (Chapman 2001, 13-14) but Structure F seems over-elaborate for such a purpose. It could perhaps be interpreted as the quarry ditch for the creation of a round barrow, not normally an Iron Age monument type. The recutting would of course, then, not be related to the original purpose as a quarry, but it may have been regarded as necessary to the proper functioning of the monument to keep its ditch open. It is notable that, in spite of the considerably greater volume of the cut, deposits within Structure F contained only very small quantities of finds (for example 46 sherds of pottery compared to over 250 in each of structures A, B and C). Furthermore, finds from Structure F were mostly from close to the tops of the fills, suggesting they had been introduced when the Structure was already out of use. This may also mean that the structure prc-dates the earliest datable finds. The ditch (and the area within it?) may even have been kept clean deliberately. With this proviso, however, it is also worth noting that in terms of the types of finds, and even the proportions of pottery fabrics represented, Structure F appears virtually identical to Structure A albeit from a much smaller assemblage. The only aspect of the finds that distinguishes Structure F is a concentration of smithing earth bottoms and undiagnostic slags. It is therefore possible that the area within the ditch was a smithy, though why this should require such a massive ditch is unclear.

PHASE 2: MIDDLE IRONAGE ii (2nd—i at century BC) (Figure 3)

In each of the roundhouse structures, A—D, the original double-ring (foundation slot and drip gully) construction was replaced by a single, wider and deeper trench. This was typically also recut at least once. In all cases, the fill materials for all of these cuts were essentially identical, and distinguishing them proved next to impossible; so the interpretations and aequences have had to be based almost entirely on the profiles of the cuts. These can be determined clearly in the cases of Structures B and


75700

75650

0


Fig 3 Mawsley New Village, 2000. hon Age features phases Ito 3.

6

50m


MIDDLE IRON AGE OCCUPATION AT MAWSLEY NEW VILLAGE, CRANSLEY LODGE, KE'Il'ERING, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

75700

75650

0 SOm

Fig 4 Mawsley New Village, 2000. Phase 4, Medieval? and later features.


Structure E

SW1 NE

— — — o mi

— — — — o 5m


E

E

Fig 5 Mawsley New Village, 2000. Details of Iron Age structures A to F.

8

B W

S

34

tI

19

W

NW

0•

NNW

119

/k

133

Structure D

109

B

SW NE

254

7I492 201 199

W B 246

270

21g


MIDDLE IRON AGE OCCUPATIONAT MAWSLEYNEW'VILLAGE, CRANSLEY LODGE. KETFERING, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

C, less obviously in the case of Structure A, but not determined for the less well-preserved ID. At least one of the phases of cutting of this single gully also involved extending it beyond the

penannular ring shape, creating a spur running a short distance south-east from the southern terminus. This must be assumed to have been for drainage purposes, perhaps allowing run off from a redesigned roof construction, removing the need for a separate drip-gully. This form recalls the classic shape of the banjo enclosure', long considered a type-site' for the period. It is

possible that this is another (conscious?) echo in domestic arch- itecture of an existing larger scale ground-plan template. comparable to that resonating between ?barrow ditch (F) and the roundhouses.

As noted above, it is not possible to determine if the sequence of structures involved contemporary buildings each modified in the same way approximately simultaneously, or a more complex, longer pattern of fewer structures being moved around the same site. The latter is suggested by the two distinct radiocarbon dates. However, given the uniformity of development within the structures, it seems simplest to assume that the site consisted of a long-lived central focus (F), flanked by two pairs of

contemporary roundhouses (A and C followed by B and ID) and one smaller ancillary structure (E). The roundhouses were

originally constructed in one form and later replaced in a second form.

PHASE 3: LATE IRONAGE?

A single post hole (6), and a scatter of pottery from the surface of the natural next to it (58), produced a small assemblage of 'Belgic' pottery. The precise significance of this is unclear; it could mean that the latter part of the occupation (possibly even Phase 2, given the uncertainty over Phase 4) extended into the

period after 5DBC when such pottery came into use; it could belong to a separate unrelated use of the location. There was only one other post hole (4) likely to be associated with (6), so little can be deduced from this evidence.

PHASE 4:MEDIEVAL? (Figure 4)

A series of straight parallel ditches cut across the site approximately east to west, clearly truncating each of the Iron

Age structures. Each ditch was 0.6 to I .30m wide (with the

emphasis on the lower part of the range) and survived to only 0.3 to O.4m deep. These were set on average c. 6.4m apart. Again. it is possible these were not all necessarily contemporary, as they seem unusually close together for drainage, so that there may have been two phases of somewhat broader divisions. If they were defining land boundaries, the plots were of an unusual and unlikely shape. Alternatively, they could be

bedding trenches for regularly laid-out rows of plants such as vines (cf, Brown and Meadows 2000; Meadows 1996) or hops (although the latter are generally held to be a medieval introduction; Mabey 1996). The environmental evidence (below) cannot however, support this suggestion, although a further hint comes from the recognition of stakeholes and considerable

irregularity, as of root action, along the bases of some of these trenches. The possibility that these represented medieval ridge and furrow systems, as suggested by the geophysical survey to the south of the excavated area (but on a noticeably different

alignment; Fig. Ic), was considered during excavation but rejected. In retrospect, however, this remains a possibility with

9

the furrows requiring unusually specific definition by deep gullys for drainage, ownership or hedge-based crops, and the presence of medieval ridges may be the reason the Phase I and 2 features survived at all.

There is clearly no suggestion of continuity between Phases 2 and 4, and the Phase 4 features displayed no apparent awareness of the previous use of the site. Finds from these ditches were rare, but not apparently much different from the assenthlage of the earlier Phases, with pottery of fabrics I and 4 the dominant constituent, as in the ring-gully structures, so that it is possible that this phase also falls within the Iron Age. However, most or all of the finds could have been redeposited from the earlier features, where these were cut by Phase 4 features.

PHASE 5: MODERN

Modern drains crossed the site in long parallel lines, at a similar separation (5—bm) to the Phase 4 ditches but on an alignment approximately 20 degrees removed. These had disturbed most of the prehistoric features and may have led to a degree of redistribution of finds amongst them.

ThE FINDS

THE POTFERY by Paul Blinkhorn

The pottery assemblage comprised 1165 sherds with a total weight of 7037g. The estimated vessel

equivalent (EVE), by Summation of surviving rimsherd circumference was 1.75. All the material was of middle-late Iron Age date with the exception of 68 sherds (253g. EVE = 0.20) of late hon Age 'Belgic' material. The range of pottery types present at the site

suggests occupation began around 300BC, although the end date is somewhat more problematic. The site could have fallen from use at any time between 200BC and AD5O. Otherwise, the range of fabrics and forms are typical of the pottery found at con-

temporary Sites lfl the region.

FABRICS

The range of Iron Age fabrics at the site was as follows:

Fabric I: Coarse shell. Moderate to dense temper of angular coarse shell fragments up to 10mm. with rare quartzite, grog, flint, organic material or ironstone. 628 sherds, 3421g. EVE = 0.74. Fabric 2: Fine shell. Sparse to moderate angular shell fragments up to 5mm, although most are usually below 2mm. Other material occurs as Fl. 60 sherds, 409g. EVE = 0.

Fabric 3: Grogged. As F2, with sparse to moderate red grog up to 2mm. 1 sherd, lOg, EVE = 0. Fabric 4: Sand and fine shell. As P2. but with moderate sub-rounded quartz up to 0.5mm, giving sherds a sandy texture. 298 sherds, 1874g. EVE = 0.50.



Fabric 5: Pounded shell. Sparse to moderate fine shell up to 1mm. Vessels are often self-slipped, so that inclusions are only visible in section. 104 sherds, 998g. EVE = 0.31. Fabric 6: As fabric 2, with sparse to moderate sub-rounded ironstone up to 3mm. 6 sherds, 72g, EVE = 0. 'Belgic': Wheel-thrown, grog-tempered ware, 5OBC—AD5O. 68 sherds, 253g, EVE = 0.20.

Such a range is typical of the Iron Age pottery of the region, and csn be paralleled at many sites, soch as Weekley (Jackson and Dix 1987) and Twywell (Jackson 1975). The full quantification of pottery by number and weight of sherds hy fabric type per context is held in archive.

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS

The majority of the context assemblages from this site are so small and fragmented as to make impossible any form of analysis other than providing a probable hon Age date for the deposit. This is borne out by the mean sherd weight of the group, 6.0'Ig, which is very low. In addition, no cross-fits were noted, suggesting that the majority of the assemblage is very much a product of secondary deposition. The poor quality of this group can be seen when this figure is compared with those from other Iron Age sites in the region. For example, the mean sherd weight of the pottery from the Iron Age site at Wilby Way near Wellingborough (Blinkhorn and Jackson in press), was lO.9g, and that from CPI at nearby Wcekley was around 2Sg (Jackson and Dix 1987). Consequently, it is very difficult to give precise dating to much of the assemblage, and equally problematic to derive any sort of functional, morphological or typologicat information.

GENERAL CHRONOLOGY AND THE ASSEMBLAGE IN 1TS REGIONAL CONTEXT

One of the few things that can be said with any certainty about this rather poor assemblage is that there are few grounds to suspect that there was any early Iron Age activity at this settlement. The pottery of the early period is well-attested in the region, and is characterized by the so-called 'Angular Horizon' i.e., jars and bowls with pronounced shoulders, sometimes with fingertip decoration around the carmnation, such as the group from near Gretton (Jackson and Knight 1985, figs 6—9). Two fragments of the same shouldered bowl were noted from Structure B (see below). They were accompanied by scored ware, suggesting that rather than being of early hon Age date, the vessel dates to the 4th—3rd centuries BC, a period which saw the end of the Angular Horizon and a widespread increase in the use of scored ware in the region.

Other than this, however, any statement with regards to chronology must treated with the utmost caution. The few assemblages which produced any diagnostic pottery all appear to be of the same broad character i.e., mainly plain bodysherds in a variety of fabrics, usually with a few scored ware sherds, and the occasional flat-topped rim with fingernail impressions. This suggests that activity at the site was generally limited to the period 4IhI3rd—I st century BC, although there are other factors to consider.

One of the characteristics of later Iron Age pottery assemblages from this region of Northamptonshirc is the presence of 'La Tene' curvilinear decorated pottery (Jackson and Dix 1987,

10

77—85). This has been noted at a number of sites in the valleys of the Nene and its tributaries, but the material is entirely absent from this site. This can be interpreted in several ways. Perhaps the most obvious is that the site fell from use before this material came into use, which is thought to be after 175BC (Jackson and Dix 1987, 77), and given the rsnge of pottery types at this site, this is entirety feasible. However, the size of the assemblage must also be considered. The largest assemblage of curvilinear decorated pottery in the county came from nearby, at Weckley on the northern edge of Kettering. That assemblage comprised 366 sherds of the curvilinear material, all noted in Ceramic Phase 1, which produced a total of 2520 sherds of pottery with a total weight of 63,160g. amounting to nearly 15% of the assemblage by sherd count. As can be seen, the Weckley assemblage, with a mean sherd weight of 25g. is of a far higher quality (in terms of preservation) than the group from this site. If the occupation at Mawsley is contemporary with CPI at Weekley, then it would not be unreasonable to expect around ISO sherds of curvilinear material from the site. It is still possible that occupation at Mawsley was contemporary with CPI at Weekley. Certainly, the small amount of diagnostic pottery from this site, comprising mainly scored vessels with fingernail-impressed rims, is, curvilinear material aside, very similar to that from CPI at Weekly (cf., Jackson and Dix 1987, figs 29—31).

However, Weekley appears to be somewhat exceptional in terms of the amount of curvilinear pottery present at the site. The next largest group of such material in the county is 21 sherds from Hardingstone (Jackson and Dix 1987). Curvilinear pottery was also found at Twywell (Jackson 1975), approximately 5km east of Kettering, but in this case only two sherds, both from the same vessel, were noted. The exact size of the pottery assemblage is not given in the report, but it is obvious from the accomp- anying illustrations that the assemblage was far larger and better preserved than the Mawsley group. Thus, if Mawsley was occupied during the 2nd—Ist century BC and the use of curvilinear pottery at the site was of a similar level to that at Twywell rather than Weekley, it is highly unlikely that it would be represented in such a small assemblage as this. It was said that the lack of curvilinear pottery at Twywell is due to the fact that the site fell from use around the time at which the material was introduced (Jackson 1975, 73). However, the large variation in the occurrence of the material throughout the county would suggest that this need not have been the case, although there was a complete lack of Belgic material from that site. Consequently, it cannot be said with certainly that occupation at this site ceased before the early—mid 2nd century BC when curvilinear pottery was introduced to the region.

Finally, there is the small group of 'Belgic' pottery to consider. None of the material was associated with any of the major structures at the site, although a large proportion of the group came from an isolated post-hole (6). This is the highly fragmented remains of a single large sherd which seems likely to have been used as post-packing, and suggests limited occupation of the site during the first half of the first century AD. It is impossible to say if this represents continuity or re-occupation, although the evidence suggests that the former may be the more likely. None of the features that produced 'Belgic' pottery had any of the more traditional Iron Age pottery stratified with it, but this is a common situation throughout the county. Belgic pottery appears to be similarly rare on sites which do not produce evidence of continuity into the Roman period, indicating a major re-organization of the


MIDDLE IRON AGE OCCUPATION AT MAWSLEY NEW VILLAGE, CRANSLEY LODGE, KETTERING, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

landscape during the first century AD (Foster 1999, 132—3). It is possible therefore that occupation at Mawsley lasted from around 300BC until the middle of the 1st century AD, but the picture is far from clear, and this dating must be regarded as at best tentative.

POTTERY FROM STRUCTURES

Structure A: ?4th — 3rd century BC+ Structure A produced 259 sherds of pottery (2078g), with the EVE = 0.42. The occurrence is shown in Table I. The majority of the pottery occurred in the main ring gully (10). The majority of the contexts produced small, fragmented assemblages, with the only exception to this being deposit 53 from the gully terminal (3). The assemblage from this deposit mainly comprised the highly fragmented remains of a single scored warejar in fabric I (Fig. 6.1), along with a fragment of a loop handle in fabric 4 (Fig. 7.2), and a single foot-ring base-sherd in fabric 5

(Fig. 7.3). The scored ware vessel, with its developed, fingernail-impressed rim is very typical of the period 300—

200BC in Northamptonshire, and such types are known from the 1st century BC (Jackson 1975, 64; Jackson 1995, 14). The

only other diagnostic pottery from this structural group was two small fragments of simple upright everted rims from contexts 76 and 77. These are broadly contemporary with the material from context 53. Context 75 (Group 10) produced a largish fragment of the base and lower body of a scored ware vessel

(Fig. 7.4), and the context also produced a further sherd of scored ware, as did context 71. It seems likely therefore that this group belongs to the middle to late Iron Age, possibly the 3rd century BC, although it is entirely possible it could be later. The rest of the assemblage comprises fragmented plain bodysherds.

Illustrations Fig. 6.1: Context 53. Fl. Fragments of the rim and base of a scored ware jar. Black fabric with reddish-brown inner surface.

Fig. 7.2: Context 53. F4. Fragment of loop handle. Dark grey fabric with variegated orange and light brown surfaces. Fig. 7.3: Context 53. F5. Footring base. Uniform black fabric, lightly burnished outer surface.

Fig. 7.4: Context 75. F4. Base and lower body of scored ware vessel. Black fabric with brown patches on the outer surface.

Structure B: Middle/Late Iron Age? Structure B produced 263 sherds with a total weight of I 199g (EVE = 0.21). A total of 6 rimsherds were present, all of which

Table I: Pottery occunence by number and weight (in g) of sherds per context by fabiic type, Structure A

Cut Dep Group 3 53 10

11 60 10

12 61 10

68 10

75 10 28 76 30 77 41 86 23 71

25 73 33 80

F5 F6 No Wi No Wt No Wt Date 16 201 2 28 6 38 2 10

MIA? IA

1 3IIA 2 4 IA?? 4 81 MIA?

13 93 IA 1 4 IA

IA I 16 MIA?

17 10 IA??

I 5 IA?? 0 61 452 4 38 1 31

OW 0 100mm

Fig6 Pottery.

Fl F2 F3 F4

18 27

No Wt No WI No Wt 85 1336 14 58 27 35

10 11 28 10 10 8 39 22 22 38 48 61

Total 193 1557 0 0 0

11


ORAl-lAM HULL AND STEVE PRESTON

Table 2: Pottery rcunence by number and weighl (in g) of sherds per context by fabric type, Structure B

were 6% or less complete, and the assemblage was largely fragmented with no diagnostic pottery other than 15 sherds of scored ware. The largest rimsherd (Fig. 7.10) had fingernail impressions on the rim, and what may he the beginnings of scoring. This generally suggests a middle to late Iron Age date, but further refinement is impossible.

1/lust ration Fig. 7.10. Context 172. Fl. Fingernail-impressed rimsherd. Black fabric with reddish-brown surfaces.

Structure C: ?4th — 3rd century BC Structure C produced 316 sherds with a total weight of 2025g (EVE = 0.56). Once again, the assemblage is highly fragmented, although there are a small number of sherds that indicate that some of the vessels had quite well developed shoulders (Fig. 7.6). In particular, two fragments of a shouldered bowl (Fig. 7.5) seem relatively early when compared to the rest of the assemblage. Such vessets were noted in quantity at the early hon Age site at Gretton, Northants (Jackson and Knight 1985, figs 1—8). However, scored ware is also present (28 sherds, 225g), so the group appears most likely to date to around the 4th—3rd centuries BC, a time when carinated vessels were falling from use, and scored ware was becoming more common.

1/lust ration Fig. 7.5: Context 50. F4. Two non-joining sherds from a shouldered bowl. Dark grey fabric with dark grey outer surfaces. Fig. 7.6: Context 50, F4. Two non-joining rimsherds from a ?shouldered jar. Black fabric with dark reddish-brown surfaces.

Fl F2 B

126

F4

126 14 126 2

II 94 41

97

F5 F6

IA IA

126

126

126 135 135 335 135 200 200 200 200

Total

FCntx Group No WtNo Wt No Wt No Wt No Wt No Wt Date 117 164 126 55 216 12 170 8 46 MIA?? 121 168

124 171

125 172

132 179 2 22 IA 142 190 IA?? 143 191 4 8 LA 118 165 IA 134 181 IA?? 136 182 IA?? 141 189 IA?? 119 166 NBA 119 170 MIA? 133 180 IA 133 196 IA

LA.

824 6 43

61 106

21 85

31 102

5 8 189

3 II 5 15 1 4

1 3 2 4

1 6

10 40

65525 163 0 0 35 253 14 76 0 0

2 3

10 cc;

- -- 0 100mm

Fig 7 Pottery.


MIDDLE IRON AGE OCCUPATION AT MAWSLCY NEW VILLAGE, CRANSLEY LODGE, KETTERING, NORTHAMFTONSHIRE

Table 3: Potteiy oun-ence by number and weight (in g) of sherds per context by thbric type, Structure C

F Cntxt 208 255

0 55 1 50 7 59 7 151

9 57 106 152 137 183 211 259 212 260 213 26! 236 283 122 162

10 12 48 274 10 42

I 21

22 137

14 105

18 173

15

12 8

240 2 8 Total 160 895 11

4 8 42 357

10 13 97 1 31

30 166

4 58

5 35 1 10

8 18

3 12

10 III 802

IA?? 41A

NIIA? NRA?? IA NRA? NRA? LA??

LA??

8MIA?? MIA? NRA?? NRA?

StructureD: Middle/Lote Iron Age? Structure ID produced 35 sherds with a total weight of 247g (EVE = 0.56). The assemblage is small and highly fragmented, with only a single rimsherd (3% complete) from the whole group. Four sherds of scored ware (25g) were also noted, as was a

partially complete base from a vessel of uncertain type. It is impossible to date this structure other than broadly within the middle-late Iron Age.

Structure E: ?4th —3rd century BC Structure E produced 35 sherds with a total weight of 247g (EVE

= 0.56). The assemblage is small and highly fragmented, with little diagnostic pottery. Context 94 did produced the fingernail- impressed rim of a large scored ware jar (Fig. 7.7) of a type akin to that from structure A. Four scored sherds(45g) were also noted. This would therefore similarly suggest a date of the 4th—3rd century BC for the group, although this must be treated with caution due to the small assemblage size.

Illustration Fig. 7.7. Context 94, Fl. Rim from large scored ware jar. Black fabric with reddish-brown outer surface.

Table 4: Pottery cxcurTence by number and weight (in g) of sherds per context by fabric type, Structure D

F Cntxt 100 94 103 96 104 97 105 98 139 186

F! F2 P3 P4 F5 F6 Gmup No Wt No Wt No Wt No Wt No Wt No Wt Date

9

0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

2 12

28 229

1 35

67

1 52 1 21

140

33 47 43

31 276 2 12

Fl P2 P3 F4 F5 F6 F CntxtGmup No WtNo Wt No Wt No Wt No Wt No Wt Date

107 153 2 16 MIA? 46 91 47 9 147 IA

108 154 110 4 5 TA 109 155 110 8 22 3 12 1 23 MIA?? 109 156 110 6 8 2 14 IA??

Total 14 30 0 ' 0 0 0 11 47 10 170 0 0

Table 5: Pottery xcurrence by number and weight (in g) of shenis per context by fabric type, Structure E

Fl P2 P3 F4 F5 F6 Group No Wt No Wt No Wt No Wt No Wt No Wt Date

102 1 61 2 14 16 44 MIA? 102 4 68 1 5MIA? 102 2 3 LA 102 5 20 1 26 2 29 102 I 19 IA??

Total 6 81 2 14 0 0 22 167 4 32 1 5

13



Table 6: Pottery occurrence by number and weight (in g) of sherds per context by fabric type, Structure F

F Cntxt 149 198

201 199

203 253 209 257 210 258 218 268 222 271 222 272 228 278 242 286

Total 8

29

Fl F2 F3 P4 No Wt No Wt No Wt No

8 11

3 4 6 16 3 4 4 5 3 9 2 23 2 27

2 10

12

77 0 0 0 0 15 75 II 53 2 24 0 0

Structure F Structure F produced 57 sherds with a total weight of 229g (EVE

005). The assemblage is small and highty fragmented, with little diagnostic pottery. A single developed rimsherd was noted during the cleaning of the junction of 198/199, but otherwise there was nothing to suggest a date other than three sherds of scored ware. Thus, the structure can only be given a date of the middle-late Iron Age, although the developed rim (Fig. 7.8) suggests later rather than earlier. However, since the stratification of the sherd is somewhat uncertain, this date must be treated with Caution.

Illustration Fig. 7.8: Contextl98/199. F4. Devetoped rimsherd from closed vessel. Black fabric with reddish-brown surfaces.

POTTERY FROM OTHER FEATURES

As was the case with the ring-gullies, the pottery from the other features, such as pits and linear ditches, was extremely fragmented with little diagnostic material present. The few diagnostic sherds present were either scored ware, or extremely small fragments of rims, which other than providing a general date of the middle to late Iron Age, offered little in terms of refining the chronology.

Illustration Fig. 7.9: Context 178, F2. Pierced bodysherd from lower part of small to medium sized scored ware jar. Dark grey fabric with reddish-brown inner surface.

ANIMAL BONES by Sheila Hamilton-Dyer

Animal bone was recovered from 70 contexts. The condition of the bone is generally poor, with a significant degree of surface erosion. The integrity of the bone is weak and most bones had fresh breaks where it had not.been possible to recover them in a complete state. Following examination it became clear that the 1366 hand collected specimens constit-

14

ute a maximum of 933 individual bones, and probably many fewer than this; 345 tiny fragments were retrieved from sieved soil samples. Fewer than one third of the hand-collected bones were identified to taxon. Although much of the unidentified bone is

fragmented ungulate limb bones, the pieces could not be joined or securely identified. Of the 306 identified remains over a third are of loose teeth. This is a

high proportion and indicative of poor survival as teeth are more resistant than bone. It is expected that there is a bias in the material in favour of large species and the larger anatomical elements. Surface features such as butchery, gnawing and pathology had been largely obliterated and epiphyseal ageing data limited and unreliable.

Despite the obvious limitations of the material there are several observations that can be made. Horse, cattle, sheep, pig, and dog can be positively identified and there is also one fragment of bird bone, which could not be identified. The distribution of the taxa by context, together with other information, is held in archive.

Cattle bones dominate the assemblage with sheep in second position and horse third. In most lion Age assemblages sheep is more frequent than cattle, the dominance here could be a taphonomic artefact as cattle bones are large and more likely to survive. This might also apply to the numbers of horse and pig bones. Although the condition of the bone is not good, it was noted that more meat bones than head and foot bones of cattle are present, particularly from gully terminus 1 (part of Structure C). Several of these are of elements such as the femur which usually preserveless well than the metapodia (foot) and this is therefore a positive observation rather than bias due to poor preservation.

F5 F6 Belgic Wt No Wt No Wt No Wt Date 27 IA

2 4 4 24 IA?? IA?? IA IA MIA?

I 2 IA IA

2 24 MIA?? 6 27 IA??


MIDDLE IRON AGE OCCUPATION AT MAWSLEY NEW VILLAGE, CRANSLEY LODGE. KETI'ERING. NORTHAMFTONStIIRE

Butchery marks made by knives were observed on a few bones, including a horse tibia. One bone showed evidence of canid gnawing, and several of the smaller pieces of bone had been charred.

The three dog remains are of jaws and a tooth of 'average' size. A variety of dog sizes have been recorded for Iron Age material but most fall in the middle of the range.

METALWORK by Nicola Powell

Three pieces of iron were recovered from the excavation in addition to one piece from wet sieving. A very corroded piece similar to a nail stem was recovered from the slot through gully terminal 109

(156) in Structure D and a broken piece of strapping with what may be the remains of a nail or rivet hole was found in posthole 213 (261), part of Structure C.

A triangular-shaped piece of ferrous material was found in slot 12 (61) through gully 10 (Structure A). It may be associated with iron working. A lump of iron-rich material from sample 42 taken from slot 145 (193) through Phase 4 gully 206 could be from a hearth-bottom.

SLAG by Lynne Keys

A small assemblage of material (6.58kg) thought to relate to ironworking was recovered during excavations. The assemblage was visually examined and categorized on the basis of morphology alone. Each category of slag within each context was

weighed and the smithing hearth bottoms were individually weighed and measured. Most of the Mawsley assemblage was highly fragmented and so

fell into the undiagnostic category. A summary is

given in the table below.

Several small fragments or what may be ore were found in several contexts (53, 170, 191, 282); the fragment from context 191 is very magnetic. The identification of the stones is not certain but some appear 10 be roasted, a process sometimes carried out before smelling 10 drive off carbon dioxide, or waler and sulphur (depending on the ore). The porosily is increased, allowing betler penetration of the reducing gases during the smelting process.

A small amount of unstratified tap slag was recovered (at site coordinates I 15E 66N) but it IS 001 known how it relates 10 lhe rest of the assemblage or the dale of its deposit. Such a small amount, by itself is not enough to enable us to say that smelling was taking place on the site.

Nine smithing hearth bottoms were recovered from several contexts, from Structures A and (mainly) F. This slag is the most distinctive waste product of smithing activity. It was the result of high temperature reactions between the iron, iron-scale and silica from either a clay furnace lining or the silica flux used by the smith to clean the surface of the iron and inhibit further oxidation of the iron during hot working. The slag dripped down into the hearth base forming smithing slag which, if not cleared out, grew into the characteristic piano-convex-shaped smithing hearth bottom in front of and below the tuyère where the air from the bellows enters (the hottest part of the hearth). When removed from the hearth they were usually taken outside and deposited in the nearest pit or ditch. The proximity of cut features or dumps with amounts of smithing hearth bottoms to a building is often a good indication the structure may have been a smithy.

Hearth lining can vary from highly vitrified hearth lining nearest the tuyère region to burnt clay. By itself it is not diagnostic of smithing activity but association of vitrified lining with other diagnostic material provides support for the process. Cinder is a very porous, highly vitrified material formed at the interface between the alkali fuel ashes and siliceous material of a hearth lining. On many excavations it represents the lighter portion of vitrified hearth lining.

Structures A and F produced the smithing hearth bottoms, while A and B and posthole 234 produced the possible iron ore. It would seem from this that there is very little overlap between the two types of activity. The smithing evidence probably relates to a limited period of activity; and the possible ore could be accounted for by a small amount of smelting or fragments of local ore being carried onto the site during other activities, especially as ironstone occurs locally.

description firedfbumt clay cinder and undiagnttic roasted ore?

smithing hearth bottom

tap slag undiagnostic

hearth lining total

Table 7: Summary of Iron Slag by weight (g)

structure other atures

29

0 0 0

o o 0 0 0 0 270 170 666 16 0 222 1178 18

0 52 12 0 34 12 1

999 976 62 II 278 3818 318

A B C I) E F 85 115 26 11 22 6 0 129 8 0 0 2 8 14 0 0 0 0

736 0 0 0 0 2620

total 294 139

22 3356 270 2270

Ill 6462

IS Northamptonshire Archaeology 2002, 30


FIRED CLAY by Varian Denham

A total of 109 pieces (336g) was recovered from the site. It is notable that several pieces were in pottery fabrics, and some had been heated to temperatures that caused vitrification. The fired clay did not have the structural traces that are associated with burnt daub, nor was unburned daub recovered. Each of Structures A—F produced some fired clay, but there was no marked clustering.

BURNT FLINT by Nicola Powell

Forty-seven pieces of burnt flint with a total weight of 66g were recovered, all but one from the wet sieving programme. All were examined for evidence of working. None was found and the material was not retained.

STRUCK FLINT by Steve Ford

Nine struck flints were recovered from nine separate contexts. One of the pieces is a scraper made on a large natural flake. One piece is possibly a segment of a large blade. The remainder are flakes. All of the pieces are in good condition and appear to be made from flint available locally. The collection is not chronologically distinctive and some or even all of the pieces could be contemporary with Iron Age occupation of the site. However, flint assemblages unambiguously of Middle or Late Iron Age date are at best rarely recorded in the literature (Saville 1981; Humphrey and Young 1999). Durable prehistoric flint is present widely across the landscape, often at low densities (Ford 1987) and represents the results of a combination of factors of casual loss, the manur-

ing of arable fields, a short-term mobile settlement pattern and ad hoc use. In this case the Mawsley struck flints could easily be residual.

STONE

David Williams of the University .of Southampton has identified twenty-seven pieces of stone recovered from the excavations. Most are burnt quartzite pebbles. Other than burning, none of the pieces can be shown to have been worked or used. Most of the quartzite pebbles appear water-turned and they were

16

probably obtained from a local river. A possible ritual significance has been suggested for white quartz pebbles, in earlier prehistoric and medieval contexts in Ireland and Scotland, and possibly from Anglo-Saxon England, but has not yet been demonstrated for the Iron Age (Baker 1988 and pers. comm.). All the pieces came from ring gully fills, with a particular concentration (14 pieces) in the terminals (117 and 118) of gullies in Structure B, which also contained quantities of burnt flint. The terminals of roundhouse gullies and of ditches in general have long been recognised as preferentially selected for the reception of 'deliberate' or 'structured' deposits. Terminal 117, in particular, seems to have seen the deposition of an unusual concentration of finds of most types, but there is little to suggest this was ritual. A single small irregular lump of ironstone presumably derived from the local North- amptonshire ironstone deposits also came from Structure B.

PLANT MACROFOSSILS by Mark Robinson

Forty-nine samples, mostly of 5-10 litres, were taken from the full range of contexts. In many cases, these

samples represent multiple small samples from the same gully fill.

The samples were floated onto a 0.3mm mesh and dried. A sub-sample of 40 flots were then scanned under a binocular microscope for charcoal and other carbonized remains. The charred seeds observed (chaff is absent) were identified and counted. Char- coal from the flots was broken transversely and examined at up to x50 magnification. While this is an appropriate means for the identification of Quercus, the other charcoal identifications are tentative. Some Quercus charcoal was also picked out of Context 282 from Feature 234 during the excavation.

Carbonized remains are very sparse, only five of the samples containing seeds and no sample containing more than three seeds. While the individual samples were mostly small even 40 litre samples would probably not have given any assemblages with as many as.ten items. With.the exception of one unidentified weed seed, the seeds are all cereal grains. There are several examples of Hordeum sp. (barley) including hulled Hordeum vulgare (six-row hulled barley) and a single grain of Triticum sp. (wheat). Unfortunately, it was not possible to determine


MIDDLE IRON AGE OCCUPATION AT MAWSLEY NEW VILLAGE, CRANSLEY LODGE. KETFERING, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

whether the wheat was T. dicoccum (emmer wheat) or T. spelta (spelt wheat), the two wheat species most

likely to have been grown in the region during the hon Age.

These results show that although the settlement used cereals, there is no evidence for large-scale cereal processing. Indeed, it is possible that the settlement was not involved in cereal cultivation at all but only imported grain for consumption. This low concentration of charred grain on the settlement is of significance to the understanding of the Iron Age economy of the region.

Identifiable charcoal is only present in six of the flots and the concentrations are mostly low. The charcoal includes both Quercus sp. (oak) and thorny scrub / hedgerow species such as cf. Prunus sp. (sloe etc). The charcoal was probably derived from domestic hearths.

RADIOCARBON DATING

Three samples of bone material from sealed contexts within Structures A, B, C and F were submitted for AMS dating of collagen at the Leibniz Labor für Alterbestimmung und Isotopenforschung (Kiel University). Details of the methodology and results are held in archive and only a summary presented here. Calibrated or calendar ages were calculated

using CALIB rev 4.3 (Data set 2, 1998 decadal atmospheric data; Stuiver ci al. 1998). The result from Structure F (KIA 15744) is regarded as almost certainly derived from contaminated material and has been ignored in phasing the site, but is presented below for completeness (details of the reasons causing the Kiel laboratory to doubt this result are held in archive).

THE NATURE OF THE SITh

The site provides a remarkable sequence of structures and landscape use although the detailed

chronology remains uncertain. Excavated open hon Age settlements are still rare in the region, although their presence is increasingly recognized through non-invasive survey methods, and the publication of several important excavations is imminent. The present site provides comparative data to Set

alongside, for example, Ecton (Atkins et al. 2001). The excavated remains contain no indication that the site sat within an enclosure, although the earlier

geophysical survey (Nicholls 1999) suggested a

possibility that this might be so, and the adjacent cluster of very similar features was enclosed (Fig. ic). A combination of enclosed and unenclosed settlement features in close proximity is perhaps not so unusual as might be imagined (cf., Ecton; Atkins

Structure C, Gully 5, (106,152)

Stnicture B, Gully 135,

(118,165)

Structure A,

Gully 10,

(33,53)

Structure F Ditch 300 (209,257)

Table: Radio-carbon dates

95.4% pthabiity 356—287 (Probability 53%) 258-245 (Probability 3%) 233—216 (Probability 12%) 214_169(Probability3l%)

169-50 (Probability 100%)

357—276 (Probability 59%) 259-241 (Probability8%) 234-197 (Probability 28%) 190—175 (Probability 5%) AD402-544 (Probability 93.5%) AD548—559 (Probability 1.9%)

Context years (BC Reference Result, years Calibrated age ranges calendar number BP except as stated)

68.2% robabi1ity KIAI 5741 2177 ± 20 350-316 (Probability 52%)

306-305 (Probability 1%) 229-220 (Probability 13%) 208-197 (Probability 16%) 191-175 (Probability 17%)

K1A15742 2093±21 158-155(Probability3%) 155-130 (Probability 31%) 119-89 (Probabiity4l%) 77-58 (Probability 24%)

K1A15743 2191±19 352-294(Prc*bility7l%) 230-218 (Probability 16%) 210-200 (Probability 13%)

KlAl5744 1588 ± 35 AD428—434 (Probability 10.9%) AD447—463 (Probability 17.4%) AD481—531 (Probability 39.9%)



et at. 2001). A note of Caution should be sounded, since evaluation trenching indicated that many of the features detected by the geophysical survey no longer survived; it is possible that an enclosure did once exist around this site also. However, the geophysical survey results may indicate no more than a trackway along the east side of the roundhouse cluster. Certainly there is little indication of the substantial ditches enclosing Sites such as Wakerley (Jackson and Ambrose 1978).

When the evidence from the earlier survey and evaluation is combined with that from the excavation, the interesting aspect is the dual nature of the settlement. There is little doubt that the second cluster of roundhouses was essentially similar to that excavated. Two possible interpretations arise. The two clusters could be chronologically distinct and represent a single social unit over an extended period, or there could be two contemporary social units living side by side, each perhaps consisting of one extended family or clan. The implication of the two discrete phases indicated by the radiocarbon dates would tend to support the first suggestion.

The precise nature of the structures represented by the successive ring gullies remains unfortunately obscure. The simplest explanation would be to see •them as successive rebuildings of roundhouses, similar to the pattern seen at Wakerley, where it was also unclear how many of the roundhouses would have been occupied at any given time. The complexity of the recutting is similar to a pattern observed at enclosure G5 at Ecton (Atkins et al. 2001), and the 'eastern enclosure' at Great Houghton (Chapman 2001), although the examples at Mawsley (excepting the more massive Structure F) are much slighter cuts, and produce a considerably smaller enclosed space than the c. 20m internal diameter of Ecton enclosure G5. Constant replacement of building frames in the same spot is less easily explained than continual re-cutting of enclosure ditches, but this does appear to be the best explanation of the Mawsley structures.

Based on the radiocarbon determinations, there seems almost no chance that all of Structures A, B and C were in contemporary use. It remains unclear how the other structures relate to this sequence, or indeed how the re-definitions of each structure fit the picture. Allowing an approximately 50 year life for each building, the remaining structures could fill the gap between the later end of the date range for Structures A and C and the early end of the range for B. It would also be possible to suggest a settlement

18

shift to the adjacent site and back again. Within an increasingly regulated landscape, the reuse of the same plot need not seem implausibly coincidental; equally, one of the structures (F, perhaps) could have remained, or left sufficient trace, to allow returning settlers to relocate in the same spot.

The concentration of smithing debris in Structures A and F might suggest a specialist purpose for these buildings, but the quantities are not great, and no other features survived to suggest intensive or

prolonged metalworking on the site.

Unfortunately, there is little scope for a character- izing the surrounding landscape from environmental data, which was virtually non-existent. It is tempting, but probably dangerous, to interpret the lack of plant remains as in itself significant. The suggestion that crops were not processed on the site can, however, be given some support from the lack of storage facilities, and the absence of, for example, querns. Mawsley shows a distinct lack of pits by comparison with c. 1 80 at Twywell. Wakerley also has virtually none and Jackson and Ambrose note (1978, 171) that 'pits are practically non-existent on Belgic sites' in the region. As more sites are excavated, this distinction may come to be seen as functional rather than chronological. In Wessex, a disparity can clearly be seen between the massive storage facility at some sites compared to others and this distinction is not always drawn along the simple lines of hillforts versus open sites. Even if it were argued that shallow pits had

already been ploughed Out at Mawsley, pits of such limited depth would scarcely have been suitable for storage in any case. Nor were any above ground storage facilities (typified by 4-post structures) identified in the excavation. The lack of storage by itself need not suggest that this was a sporadically occupied, seasonal, specialist site, as there seems little reason to suppose that Structures A to D were anything other than dwellings. However, a sporadic occupation cannot be ruled out either, and might account for the complexity of recuts and phases of each Structure.

Cattle dominate the very limited animal bone assemblage. This may be due to preservation or recovery bias, as most Iron Age assemblages tend to be dominated by sheep/goat, although cattle also formed the vast majority of the identified bone from Sywell (Atkins et a!. 2001). If taken at face value, this might also suggest an unusual consumption pattern on this site, but again the evidence is inconclusive.


MIDDLE IRON AGE OCCUPATION AT MAWSLEY NEW VILLAGE, CRANSLEY LODGE, KETFERING, NORTI-JAMPTONSHIRE

The site lies on a distinctive ridge on the watershed between the River 1se to the east and the streams now

feeding Pitsford reservoir to the west. It is on heavy Boulder Clay, not normally thought of as a type of terrain much favoured for Iron Age settlement, and often tacitly assumed to have been wooded. The nearby site at Great Houghton, in an otherwise very comparable location, lay on limestone just at the margin of the Boulder Clay (Chapman 2001, 3). It is therefore interesting to note the evidence here not

only for settlement, but apparently for re-use of the site over the course of several generations, rather than a late 'expansion' Onto the heavy clay.

Whatever the detail of the sequence within the site, the date of final abandonment is important, as a contribution to the broader study of population and settlement expansion, since the use of the agricult- urally marginal Boulder Clay zone has long been

regarded as a sensitive indicator of population pressures. Although there was a small amount of 'Belgic' pottery from the site, it was not associated with the structures, and the weight of evidence

suggests the Phase 2 settlement was abandoned by c. 5OBC. The ditches of Phase 4 display no knowledge of, or relation to, the Phase I and 2 structures, and it is entirely possible that all the finds from their fills have been disturbed from the earlier deposits. If these

represented a later phase of hon Age land use, rather than medieval ridge and furrow, then it does suggest the bringing of this marginal land into cultivation. The 1st century AD provides a likely context for such a re-organization, whether as a consequence of the Claudian conquest or somewhat earlier. Such re-

organization is increasingly recognized in the immed- iate pre-conquest period in parts of the country, such as Kent or Gloucestershire. In this respect, however, a move from a settlement to an agricultural use of the landscape seems to run counter to the general trend, which is generally for an expansion in both the numbers and size of settlements (Haselgrove et al. 2001, 29). One possible explanation may lie in the enhanced ability of farmers at this time to exploit the heavy clays, using iron-tipped plough shares, so that land previously unsuited to arable agriculture could be brought under the plough more easily. Another factor could be that the nucleation of population into

larger central settlements would have meant the abandonment of smaller sites in the vicinity of the new centre as has been suggested may have occurred around the developed hill-forts of Wessex (Cunliffe 2000).

19

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Atkins, R. Parry, S. Holmes, M. and Meadows, 1., 2001. 'Excavations of hon Age Settlements at Sywell Aerodrome (1996) and Ecton (1992—3) Northamptonshire', Northampton- shire Archaeol 29 (for 2000-I), 43—71.

Baker, F.M.C,, 1988. 'White quartz pebbles in ritual contexts in Scotland' unpub BA dissertation, Univ Durham

Blinkhorn, P.W. and Jackson, Di., in press, 'Iron Age Pottery from Wilby Way, Wel)ingborough, Northants' Northampton- shire Archaeology, 31.

B.G.S., 1993, British Geological Survey Map, 1:50 000, Sheet 185, Drift Edition, Keyworth

Brown, A.G. and Meadows, I., 2000. 'Roman vineyards in Britain: finds from the Nene Valley and new research', Antiquity 74,491—2.

Chapman, A., 2001. 'Excavation of an Iron Age Settlement and a Middle Saxon Cemetery at Great Houghton, Northampton- shire, 1996', Northamptonshire Archaeol 29 (for 2000—1), 1-41.

Cunliffe, B. W., 2000. The Danebury Environs Programme: the prehistory of a Wessex Landscape; vol 1. introduction, EngI Heritage and Oxford Univ Comm Archaeol Monogr 49, Oxford.

Denham, V. and Jackson D. A., forthcoming, 'Raunds Survey Iron Age Pottery', in Parry, S, The Raunds Area Survey.

Ford, S., 1987. The East Berkshire Archaeological Survey, Berkshire County Council Dept of Highways and Planning, Occas Pap I, Reading.

Foster, P. J., 1999. 'Lute Iron Age/early Roman Northampton- shire: A study in the use of ceramic analysis to investigate social, economic and landscape changes', Northamptonshire Archaeol 28, 129—35.

Haselgrove, C. Armit, I. Champion, T. Creighton, J. Gwilt, A. Hill, J.D. Hunter, F. and Woodward, A., 2001, Under- standing the British Iron Age: an agenda for action. Cambridge.

Humphrey i. and Young R., 1999. 'Flint use in Later Bronze Age and Iron Age England — still a fiction?', Lithics, 20, 57— 61.

Jackson, D., 1975. 'An Iron Age site at Twywell, North- amptonshire', NorthamptonshireArchaeol 10, 3 1—93.

Jackson, D. and Ambrose, T.M., 1978. 'Excavations at Wakerley, Northants, 1972—75', Britannia 9, 115—245.

Jackson, D. and Knight D., 1985. 'An early Iron Age and Beaker site near Gretton, Northamptanshire', Northamptonshire Archaeology 20, 67—86.

iackson, D. and Dix, B., 1987. 'Late Iron Age and Roman Settle- ment at Weekicy, Northants', Northamptonshire Archaeology 21 (for 1986-87), 41—94.

Jackson, D., 1995. 'Archaeology at Grendon Quarry, North- amptonshire, Part 2: other prehistoric, Iron Age and later sites excavated in 1974-5 and further observations between 1976-80', Northamptonshire Archaeology, 26, 3-32.

Meadows, 1., 1996. 'Woolaston', Current Archaeol, 150, 212—5.

Mabey, R., 1996. Flora Britannica, London. Nicholls, J., 1999. 'Mawsley New Village Northamptonshire',

GSB Prospection Geophysical Survey Rep 99/81

Saville, A., 1981. 'Iron Age fliutworking - fact or fiction?', Lithics, 2, 6-9.

Slatcher, D., 1999. 'A desk-based Archaeological Assessment on the line of the requisitioned sewer at Mawsley New Village, Cransley, Northamptonshire', John Samuels Archaeological Consultants Rep 615/99/001, Newark.



Slatcher, B., 2000, 'A Fieldwalking Survey, Trial Trenching Evaluation and Area Excavation at Mawsley New Village, Kettering, Northamptonshire', John Samuels Archaeological Consultants Rep 531/00/006, Newark.

Stuiver, M. Reimer, P. J. Bard, E. Beck, J. W. Burr, G. S. Hughen, K. A. Kromer, B. McCormac, G. van der Plicht, 1.

and Spurk. 1998. 'INTCAL98: Radiocarbon Age Calibration 24,000—0 cal BP', Radiocarbon 40/3, 1041—83.

Young, J.. 2000. 'Results of an Archaeological Evaluation Excavation of the northern part of Mawsley New Village, Cransley, Northamptonshire', John Samuels Archaeological Consultants Rep 531/00/011, Newark.

20

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The fieldwork was carried out with the assistance of Sian Anthony, Karen Bolchover, Simon Cass, Clare Challis, Sarah Coles, Emma-Jane Evans, Stephen Hammond, Lisa-Maree Hardy, Paul Lambert, Tim Lankshear and Kate Taylor. The pottery was drawn by J0 Richards, and the final illustrations were produced with the assistance of Leigh Torrance and Steve Ford.


northamptonshire archaeology 2002, 30_2002,_hull___preston... · 2009-10-27 · northamptonshire...

Documents