1 Introduction

& me they turned me inside out divides into two channels, the north-western For sand and grit and stones one canalised in the 18th century, which join & turned my old green hills about again at Stanwick, forming Irthlingborough & pickt my very bones ‘island’, an area of approximately 70ha. The plateau and the valley sides are cut by John Clare, The Lament of Swordy Well tributaries. At the time of the fieldwork described in this publication the embank­ This publication presents the pre-Iron Age ment of a disused railway ran across the aspects of the Raunds Area Project, which island and along the floodplain (Fig 1.2). was undertaken between 1985 and 1993 in The floodplain in the study area has been north-east Northamptonshire, in an area almost entirely quarried for gravel. about to be transformed by gravel extraction The plateau to either side is capped with and road and housing construction. The chalky, probably Anglian, Boulder Clay, the project identified more than twenty chief erratics of which are ironstone, sand­ Neolithic and Early Bronze Age monu­ stone, Jurassic limestone, quartzite, flint ments, as well as smaller contemporary and chalk. There are patches of plateau features and evidence for the establishment gravel. Jurassic strata of the Great Oolite of agricultural land divisions after the last series underlie the Boulder Clay and are monuments had been built. This is comple­ exposed in the valley sides, comprising – mented by an impressive body of informa­ from the base upwards – Upper Lias Clay, tion on the wider development of the Northampton Sand with Ironstone (often landscape during these periods, derived quarried), sands, clays and gravels of the from environmental analysis, fieldwalking Lower and Upper Estuarine Series, Great survey and geophysical survey. Oolite Limestone and Clay, Cornbrash Limestone, Kellaways Clay and Sand, and 1.1 Location and topography Oxford Clay (Fig 1.3). The Northampton Sand with Ironstone lines the valley on both The Raunds Area is centred at TL000730, sides as a narrow and discontinuous 25km downstream from Northampton and outcrop of near-level bedded deposits. Solid 35km upstream from Peterborough, and deposits below the Lias Clay are masked by covers the parishes of Ringstead, Raunds gravel terraces and fans, while the lowest (including the medieval parish of Stanwick slopes and the Devensian periglacial gravels and the deserted hamlet of West Cotton) and sands of the valley floor are covered by and Hargrave, with parts of Irthlingbor­ fine-grained silty and clayey alluvium, ough, Denford and Shelton. It provides a which became extensive in late Saxon and 40km2 sample of the middle Nene valley early medieval times (A Brown 2006; and the interfluve between the Nene and the Chapman forthcoming a). This has buried Ouse to the south-east. Relief is undulating, the original soils to a substantial depth in with the valley sides rising to 80m OD and some cases and has obscured the former the present valley floor lying at 32 to 36m. riverscape under a blanket of recent sedi­ The gentle gradient makes the Nene slow- ments, which has had the effect of both flowing and anastomosed. To the north­ hiding and preserving features of the past west lie the Northamptonshire Uplands, the landscape. Beneath the alluvium, the northern end of the Cotswolds, where the surface of the gravels and sands is uneven Nene, Ouse and Welland rise. To the south­ and dissected by palaeochannels that silted east and east extend the lower, flatter lands at various dates (Ch 2; A Brown and of East Anglia through which all three rivers Keough 1992c, 186–7), with numerous drain to the Fenland basin and the Wash small gravel ‘islands’, a few breaking the (Fig 1.1). At Irthlingborough the Nene surface, most of them completely alluvium­

1 A NEOLITHIC AND BRONZE AGE LANDSCAPE IN NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

covered. The main components of the a gravels are flint, quartzite and ironstone, with some sandstone, limestone and chalk. N A range of soils has developed on these b Peterborough deposits, but the coverage of the area is available only at 1:250,000 scale (Soil Northampton Survey of England and Wales 1983). However, detailed maps are available of some areas of soils in the valleys of the Nene, Welland and Windrush within the same geological series and similar environ­ ments (Burton 1981; Jarvis and Hazelden 1982; Reeve 1978). In the absence of detailed soil survey prior to the beginning of 0 100km excavation and gravel extraction, a detailed picture of the site can be constructed only

b West Deeping Deeping St. Nicholas 10 Barholm Uffington

Barnack Etton/Maxey Northborough

Eyebury Farm Upton 300 000 Fengate/Flag Fen Harringworth

Orton Gretton Meadows R iver Welland Southwick Elton

90 Tansor Crossroads Cowthick e n e N r e iv R

80 Husbands Kelmersh Bosworth Aldwincle Haddenham

Over Barleycroft Farm

Brampton 70 Godmanchester

Chapel Brampton Buckden/Diddington

Dallington Ecton Earls Barton Grendon 60 Duston Briar Hill Radwell Eynesbury e s u O at re r G Roxton ve Ri Willington

50 Goldington Ravenstone Raunds Area Project Bunyan Centre Cardington Survey Area Gayhurst Quarry The Fens

Cotton Valley Farm 40 Little Pond Ground 0 10km Land above 100m O.D. Warren Farm Milton Keynes ring ditch 500 000 60 70 80 90 10 20 30 40

2 INTRODUCTION

by analogy with these other locations. The terrace gravels, the fluvioglacial gravels and Figure 1.1 (opposite) soils on the first terrace, and presumably on the Northampton Sand with Ironstone. The Location, showing selected any of the formerly exposed glacial sands alluvium has also given rise to a number of sites mentioned in the text. and gravels, appear as one of three major soils. These vary from the brown alluvial The courses of rivers are soil types. Those with a high carbonate soils on the higher areas, sometimes on top shown dotted once they content in a freely drained environment are of river terrace soils or soils formed on enter the Fenland Basin typical brown calcareous earths; those that fluvioglacial sands and gravels, through to because they have altered are freely drained but on older deposits, the very wet alluvial gleys, some of which considerably in historical usually with a lower carbonate content, are are peaty. The extent of profile development times. argillic brown earths; and those in lower within these alluvial soils varies consider­ situations in the valleys are cambic gleys. ably, largely due to difference in age, and Figure 1.2 (above) Where soils have been covered by later allu­ some have buried palaeosols at depth within The area today and the vium it may not be easy to distinguish which them. On the till-covered plateau, present area of the Raunds Area of these types was initially present. The soils are typically fine-textured calcareous Project. in situ ironstones give a sequence of soils pelosols of the Hanslope series (Hodge et al varying from a brown ranker through a 1984, 209–12). Post-Roman settlements are ferritic brown earth to an argillic brown concentrated on the valley sides, along the earth; it is possible, in some locations where tributaries. The surviving farmland is used the terrace gravels have a high carbonate mainly for general cropping and cereal content, that a brown rendzina is also cultivation with some dairying. The found. Therefore, there is likely to be some traditional use of the floodplain was as similarity of soils between those from the pasture and hay meadow.

3 A NEOLITHIC AND BRONZE AGE LANDSCAPE IN NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

Figure 1.3 1.2 Previous and subsequent compared with other regions. Shortly after Geology of the area shown work in the area George’s paper was published, many of his in Figure 1.2. conclusions were negated, when observation At the beginning of the 20th century, the of gravel quarrying on the fen edge east of area was thought to have been little occu­ Peterborough, principally by Wyman pied in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Abbott, led to the identification of According to George (1902), there was ‘one Neolithic, Beaker and Iron Age settlements vast forest… lying between the two valleys at Fengate (Abbott 1910; Hawkes and Fell now occupied by the fertile meadows of the 1943; Leeds 1922), and barrows were exca­ Nene and the Welland, which were at this vated a little to the north (Leeds 1912; early period but marsh and morass’, and 1915). A summary of the prehistory of the prehistoric populations would have favoured county published in the middle of the 20th upland areas. There were few flint and stone century was essentially a fusion of George’s implements, no known settlements, no synthesis and Wyman Abbott’s discoveries Neolithic burials, and few round barrows (Fell 1953).

4 INTRODUCTION

One barrow at Raunds (Northamptonshire (ie a Collared Urn) found in Irthlingborough SMR 1344/1/0, close to Barrow 9, which is and since lost, and six possible round described in this publication) was investigated barrows, including the one investigated by Dr by a local GP, Dr Robb of Irthlingborough, Robb (RCHME 1975, 56–7, 78–9). There as it was being quarried away in the 1930s was also a single ring ditch in Ringstead (RCHME 1975, 78, fig 6: 1). Photographs, (RCHME 1975, 83). A large circular crop- notes and sketches preserved in Northamp­ mark on the gravel terrace at Raunds, identi­ ton Museum are difficult to decipher. fied by Dr J K S St Joseph in the course of He seems to have observed the truncated aerial reconnaissance in 1962 (Fig 1.4: ap_id base of a barrow with at least two concentric 038700270001) seems to have aroused little ditches, and to have cut a trench into it. interest, although most of it was plotted by One photograph shows an inverted Food RCHME (1975, fig 88). Where fieldwork Vessel Urn, another shows heaps of burnt was done, it was generally in and around stone removed from the trench. Burnt stone Northampton, the main centre of popula­ and burnt earth both figure in the notes. tion, as reflected in distribution plots A cutting from either the Northampton published in 1980 (RCHME 1980). These Evening Telegraph or the Kettering Telegraph – show the same barrows in Irthlingborough probably (on the evidence of the interna­ and Raunds as the earlier Inventory, although tional news on the reverse) from an edition by then two stone axeheads were recorded published in July 1936 – reads: from Irthlingborough and increased air photographic coverage was reflected by a ‘The discovery of a number of burnt cropmark henge monument on the valley patches in the ground, in which the heat side in Raunds (the Cotton ‘Henge’) and an had been so intense that the constituent additional ring ditch. parts of the gravel bed had been The extent of Neolithic and Bronze Age converted into a conglomerate mass, was sites on the alluvium-covered floodplain the first indication that the workmen had gravels of the Nene was, however, already made a discovery of some importance… becoming apparent from rescue excavations There were five distinct rings of fire, indi­ undertaken in advance of, and sometimes in cating the holding of ancient burial rites the course of, quarrying – again almost all at different times.’ in the Northampton area. Among these When the wealth and vulnerability of the were a ‘Wessex’ burial from a partly allu­ archaeology of English river gravels was vium-covered mound at Earl’s Barton in brought to attention by the publication of A 1969 (Jackson 1984), Middle Neolithic Matter of Time in 1960, the lower reaches of settlement at Ecton in 1971–2 (W Moore the Nene and Welland, where they entered and Williams 1975), and Neolithic and the Fens, stood out as rich in cropmarks, in Early Bronze Age funerary monuments at contrast to the almost bare upper reaches of Grendon in 1974–5 (Gibson and the valleys, where many prehistoric monu­ McCormick 1985; Jackson 1995) and at ments were rendered invisible by alluvium Aldwincle in 1975–6 (Jackson 1976). (RCHME 1960, figs 1–3). Large-scale inves­ Further downstream, well-preserved allu­ tigation of prehistoric landscapes and sites vium-covered Neolithic and Bronze Age proceeded on the lower reaches, accelerated barrows in Orton Meadows, on the eastern by the development of Peterborough New outskirts of Peterborough, were excavated in Town (RCHME 1969). The spectacular 1980–81 (Mackreth forthcoming). Exten­ results are summarised by Pryor (1991) and sive field survey emphasised the concentra­ reported in numerous publications (eg tion of Neolithic and Bronze Age Donaldson 1977; French 1994a; 1994b; monuments in the Nene and Great Ouse French and Pryor 1992; 2005; Hall 1987; valleys by locating scarcely any among Pryor 1974a; 1978a; 1980; 1984; 1998a; numerous newly discovered sites of later 2001a; Pryor et al 1985; W Simpson 1967; periods on the interfluves, in a distribution 1976; 1981; W Simpson et al 1993). In the that prompted the conclusion that forest on 1970s, prehistoric activity in the upper the interfluve claylands was first cleared in reaches of the Nene still seemed slight the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (RCHME 1975, figs 5–8). The Neolithic (Hall and Hutchings 1972, 8). Aerial recon­ record for Raunds and Irthlingborough naissance was also making headway. By the consisted of a group of flint axeheads found time barrows and ring ditches were plotted in Stanwick village in 1938; the Bronze Age for the first Grendon report, there was a record consisted of an ‘overhanging rim urn’ scatter of sites along the valley (Gibson and

5 A NEOLITHIC AND BRONZE AGE LANDSCAPE IN NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

Figure 1.4 McCormick 1985, fig 26), among a monument at Elton (French 1991; French The Nene valley in the palimpsest of other, mainly later, cropmarks 1994b). The location of this site, and of an Raunds area, showing on the terraces. Neolithic and Early Bronze Early Bronze Age barrow covering an earlier Neolithic and Bronze Age Age pits discovered in the course of several mortuary enclosure excavated at Tansor monuments and main flint of the rescue excavations showed that Crossroads in 1995, showed that burial and concentrations. Palaeochan­ barrows and ring ditches were only the more monument-building had extended up the nels that were possibly, but conspicuous part of the contemporary valley side (Chapman 1997a). not definitely, active at the record, as did a probably Neolithic multiple Aerial photography has also shown that time are diagonally hatched. burial with no trace of any accompanying there is a cluster of causewayed enclosures in

6 INTRODUCTION and around the Nene and Welland valleys, so-far unique trapezoid Early Neolithic concentrated near the fen edge, but enclosure at Godmanchester, near Hunt­ extending up the Nene to Briar Hill and ingdon, Cambridgeshire (McAvoy 2000; Dallington, both just upstream from Parker Pearson 1993, 65). On the middle Northampton (Oswald et al 2001, figs 5.1, and upper Ouse, an abundance of 6.3). The Raunds area lies approximately ploughed-out ring ditches became evident mid-way between the two enclosures at rather sooner than those on the Nene, Briar Hill and Dallington, upstream to the largely due to a lack of alluvial cover (Field south-west, and the single one at South- 1974; RCHME 1960, figs 1 and 2). The wick, near Oundle, downstream to the result has been a series of excavations such north-east. The excavation of Briar Hill in as those carried out in advance of the 1974–8 showed that this monument – and, development of Milton Keynes, Bucking­ by inference, the other comparable crop- hamshire, in 1971–2 (H Green 1974) and mark sites – was indeed of Early Neolithic of gravel quarrying, as at Roxton, Bedford­ date (Bamford 1985). This helped to shire, in 1972–4 (A Taylor and Woodward demonstrate an extension of contemporary 1985), Radwell in the same county in enclosure-building, and the gamut of asso­ 1974–5 and again in the 1980s (Hall and ciated practices, across a far wider area Woodward 1977; Pinder 1986a), Willing- than had appeared likely in previous ton on the outskirts of Bedford in the decades. The subsequent excavation of 1980s (Dawson 1996; Pinder 1986b), in Etton, in the lower Welland valley near Bedford itself in the 1990s (Steadman Peterborough, has enriched the record for 1999), at Ravenstone, Buckinghamshire, in the period with evidence for the distinct 1978 (D Allen 1981), and Gayhurst, in the use of the two halves of the enclosure and same county (Chapman et al 1999; for the contemporary working and use of Chapman 2004; Chapman forthcoming b). organic materials (Pryor 1998a). Evalua­ tion at Dallington has also demonstrated a 1.3 The Raunds Area Project Neolithic date (Keevill 1992a). Beyond the excavations and cropmarks, The project took shape in the late 1970s extensive human presence from the and early 1980s, following the excavation Mesolithic onwards was evidenced by arte­ of Furnells Manor in Raunds (Boddington fact finds, whether collected from the 1996) and an examination of priorities for surface or recovered during the excavation rescue in Northamptonshire (Foard 1979), of later sites (P Martin and Hall 1980; which identified Raunds as the most RCHME 1980). An exceptional find is a intact area of historic landscape in the uniserial barbed bone point found in gravel upper Nene valley, a conclusion that owed workings at Grendon and dated to much to fieldwork by David Hall who had 9200–7900 Cal BC (9240±160 BP; OxA­ documented the extent and survival of its 500; Gowlett et al 1986, 120; W Moore open fields (eg Hall 1988). This landscape 1985). Duston, in the Nene valley opposite was likely to be destroyed during the 1980s Briar Hill, is distinguished by a large by gravel extraction, road building and collection of Mesolithic to Bronze Age housing construction. The project was lithics, some of it of a heavy, industrial designed to link the large-scale rescue aspect, made over an area of about 50ha excavations prompted by these threats (Bamford 1985, 5). The wealth of into a single exercise in landscape history, resources that the diverse environments of integrating them with fieldwalking, earth­ the valley floor and sides would have work and geophysical survey, environmen­ offered to prehistoric inhabitants is tal investigations and documentary outlined by Gibson (1995a). research (Foard and Pearson 1985). The To the south-west, the Great Ouse main partners were the then Central valley presents a similar picture of much- Excavation Unit of English Heritage and used low terraces in the upper and middle the then Northamptonshire Archaeology reaches, and substantial activity near the Unit (now Northamptonshire Archaeol­ fen edge (Dawson 2000). There is a further ogy). Alongside the formerly constituted causewayed enclosure at Cardington, near Raunds project, a Middle Iron Age Bedford, in a cropmark complex that settlement and an undated stone and includes a cursus, further examples of brushwood platform near the river were which occur in the middle and lower recorded during a watching brief on the reaches (Malim 1999). One post-dates a construction of a silt pond in Stanwick

7 A NEOLITHIC AND BRONZE AGE LANDSCAPE IN NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

Figure 1.5 (opposite) quarry in 1984 (Fig 1.5: Stanwick Silt Pond; 1.4 The prehistoric project Trench layout. Numbers Jackson 1985 (SMR 5235/0/1)). The combi­ prefixed with ‘B’ denote nation of intensive excavation, extensive 1.4.1 Irthlingborough island trenches in the Irthlingbor­ fieldwork and multi-disciplinary investiga­ ough area (ie the ‘Barrow’ tion followed the pattern of other projects of At the start of the project, Irthlingborough area). Mounds are shown the period, such as the Stonehenge Environs island was identified as the main focus for in solid black, ditches in Project (J Richards 1990) or the South the investigation of the prehistory of the area. outline. Dorset Ridgeway Project (P Woodward It combined the potential for preservation 1991). In this case, however, the emphasis of earlier land surfaces and of waterlogged was initially on landscape development from environmental evidence beneath the the Late Iron Age onwards, and the bound­ alluvium with clear evidence of prehistoric aries of the survey area were fixed to permit activity in the form of cropmark ring ditches full examination of the surviving open-field and of upstanding round barrows, project­ landscape. As work progressed, the scale and ing above the alluvium on the higher part of significance of the area’s prehistory became the island, originally identified by David apparent, and three main foci emerged: the Hall (Hall and Hutchings 1972, 2–3, 14). development of a large and diverse monu­ An evaluation of the island was undertaken ment complex through the 4th and 3rd by Paul Garwood in 1985 with the aim of millennia BC; agricultural expansion in the assessing the nature and archaeological Iron Age and Roman periods, with the potential of the three known mounds and development of a complex rural economy in two ring ditches, determining whether there the latter; and the formation of villages was a buried suballuvial landscape, and during the Saxon period (Dix 1987). defining the possibilities for palaeoenviron­ The results of area survey, which are mental work. This established that there had particularly relevant to the Iron Age and been some pre-Bronze Age activity; that all later settlement and land use, have three mounds (Barrows 1, 2 and 3) and one been published by Northamptonshire ring ditch (Barrow 4) were, or were likely to Archaeology (Parry 2006). Where the pre- be, barrows, in one case of multiphase Iron Age use of the area is concerned, the construction; that they were sited on the most significant contribution of the survey north or north-west ends of low north-south has been the lithics from fieldwalking, spurs or ridges on the higher, southern part which complement the evidence of of the island; that they had undergone excavation by reflecting Mesolithic and considerable erosion before alluviation Early Neolithic activity on the valley floor began; and that beneath the alluvium there and sides, especially along streams, with was a buried soil that had been ploughed at some expansion onto the Boulder Clay least up to Roman times and was crossed by plateau in the later Neolithic and the a Late Iron Age/early Roman ditch and gully Bronze Age (Humble 2006). Iron Age and (Garwood 1985). It was thought that Roman aspects of the project are undergo­ ground conditions were not conducive to ing analysis by English Heritage (Crosby in the recovery of environmental data, with prep). The Saxon and medieval archaeol­ only carbonised organic remains likely to ogy has been analysed by Northampton­ survive because of decalcification, a basic- shire Archaeology, who will complete the to-neutral pH, high faunal activity (espe­ series with a further volume. cially by rabbits and moles), and a Bronze In 1989 the Oxford Archaeological Unit Age water table lower than the present one. (OAU) carried out an assessment for ARC It was therefore concluded that landscape of an area of c 86ha immediately south of history would be best defined by pedological Irthlingborough island, mainly on the flood­ and sedimentological investigations between plain. This was carried out under a PPG 16 and below the mounds. Garwood recom­ brief from Northamptonshire County mended that all the mounds should be fully Council, as part of the conditions attached excavated in advance of quarrying; that to planning permission for gravel extraction open areas between the mounds should be (J Moore and Jackson 1990). The assess­ further tested to establish the use of the area ment led to the excavation of a long barrow, before, during and after the life of the round barrows, other prehistoric features, cemetery; that pedological, sedimentological and a Roman villa (Keevill 1992b). For the and geomorphological survey should be purposes of publication, the results of this undertaken to place the mounds and other fieldwork have been combined with those of sites in a clear framework of landscape the Raunds Area Project. change; and that a research design be

8

A NEOLITHIC AND BRONZE AGE LANDSCAPE IN NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

formulated to elucidate the wider social, contemporary waterlogged environmental cultural, economic and temporal context of data (Windell 1989; Windell et al 1990; M the mounds, perhaps by the sampling of Robinson 1992a). plough-damaged barrows and ring ditches In 1993, the Cotton ‘Henge’, which was in the region, and by fieldwalking followed visible in air photographs as two concentric, by selective excavation of likely prehistoric irregular ditches with a maximum diameter settlements. of some 75m on the valley side above the The following years saw the execution of West Cotton complex (Fig 1.4), was investi­ many of these recommendations. Work was gated by means of topographical and undertaken by the Central Excavation Unit geophysical survey and limited excavation, of English Heritage, largely under the direc­ under the direction of Jon Humble for tion of Claire Halpin (1987). All the barrows English Heritage (Humble 1994). identified during the assessment were exca­ vated, except for Barrow 2, which survives 1.4.3 Stanwick unquarried. Machine trenches sampled much of the available area of the island. A To the east of the island, the excavation of programme of environmental research was the Stanwick Iron Age and Roman settle­ integrated with the excavation. Flint scatters ment by the Central Excavation Unit within the project area were recorded and formed part of the project from the outset collected by the Northamptonshire County (Neal 1989a; 1989b). As work progressed, Council Archaeology Unit in the course of Neolithic and Bronze Age features were the landscape survey. The trial excavation of identified. Chief among these was the scatters was, however, confined to those that Neolithic Causewayed Ring Ditch and the happened to coincide with Iron Age or later Early Bronze Age Barrow 5. In addition, an sites, except in the case of a cropmark extensive system of ditched enclosures and Neolithic enclosure (the Cotton ‘Henge’). droveways, with associated post-built struc­ Geophysical survey of this monument, tures, pre-dated the Iron Age and later Barrow 2 and several ring ditches was under­ features. taken by the Ancient Monuments Labora­ In 1991 a short season of excavation was tory of English Heritage. Work did not, undertaken by the Central Archaeological however, extend to barrows and ring ditches Services’ Mobile Field Team led by Frances outside the project area. Blore, in order to recover dating evidence from the ditched enclosure system and to 1.4.2 West Cotton complete trial trenching of the remaining unquarried fields to the south of the Stan- To the north-east of the island, on a slightly wick Iron Age and Roman settlements. The elevated gravel terrace at the edge of the trial trenching revealed the undated, possi­ floodplain, hitherto unknown monuments bly prehistoric, Southern Enclosure, as well of exceptional forms were revealed during as a small post-built round house and fence- the Northamptonshire County Council lines apparently related to the ditched enclo­ Archaeology Unit’s excavation of the sure system, all of which were investigated deserted Saxon and medieval hamlet at more fully by the same team the following West Cotton, directed by David Windell year. Stripping in advance of this 1992 and Andy Chapman. Beneath the settle­ season revealed a further two previously ment were largely turf-, earth- and timber- unknown prehistoric monuments, the built Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments, Avenue and the Segmented Ditch Circle including the Long Mound and the Long (Fig 1.4), which were also investigated. Enclosure, both over 100m long and oriented on a single point, as well as the 1.4.4 Redlands Farm ovoid Ditched Enclosure, the Turf Mound, the large and elaborate Barrow 6 and the The Oxford Archaeological Unit’s investiga­ much smaller Double Ring Ditch (Fig 1.6). tions were initially independent of the Immediately adjacent ploughed-out ring Raunds Area Project and funded entirely by ditches beyond the alluvium to the north­ ARC. They entailed the excavation of the east were not investigated. The West Cotton Long Barrow and Barrow 9, and limited excavations also provided a section across a excavation of Barrows 7 and 8. The results timber structure of the 3rd millennium Cal enhanced and complemented those of the BC at the edge of a palaeochannel of the Project, especially in recovery of water­ Nene, with the concomitant wealth of logged Early Neolithic deposits from the

10 INTRODUCTION

Figure 1.6 West Cotton. Plan of prehistoric monuments and features.

11 A NEOLITHIC AND BRONZE AGE LANDSCAPE IN NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

ditches of the Long Barrow, and English Heritage took over responsibility for the environmental programme and for the later stages of analysis and writing-up. By 1989 the focus of the prehistoric project had expanded from Irthlingborough island to include the low terrace to the west and the small islands to the south (Figs 1.4, 1.7). Its main aims had become the elucida­ tion of the spatial and chronological devel­ opment of what was perceived as a single monument complex, the form and construction of the monuments, mortuary and ceremonial practices, and the relation­ ship between ceremonial, mortuary, domes­ tic and agricultural activity.

1.5 Excavation and recovery on site

1.5.1 Irthlingborough island The 1985 assessment entailed contour surveys of Barrows 1, 2 and 3, the excava­ tion of single trenches across the apparent sites of the ditches, two area excavations, one on and one off the alluvium, and three transects of soil pits across the island. Some cuttings were expanded to answer questions that arose in the field. All were machine-dug to the base of the alluvium, then hand-exca­ vated where appropriate. The opportunity was also taken to excavate and record part of a ring ditch (which later proved to be of Iron Age date) about to be destroyed by quarrying to the north of the island. One mound, which lay within ARC’s plant area, was preserved as a Scheduled Ancient Monument (Barrow 2, SAM 13667). Subsequent excavations on the island were designed specifically to investi­ gate the remaining mounds and to locate and record other evidence of activity on the alluvium-covered surface between them. This latter was done by the excava­ tion of machine trenches. Size and layout varied with circumstances, but the trenches were generally 30m long and 2.5m wide, spaced at intervals of 30m in rows 30m apart, and aligned on the north­ east to south-west axis of the site grid (Fig 1.5). Extensions and additional trenches were cut to investigate particular features, and hand-excavation was employed as appropriate. Recording followed the system developed by the Central Excava­ tion Unit, in which every entity – whether Figure 1.7 Monuments known in 1983 (above) and 1992 (below). cut, layer, structural element, find, or

12 INTRODUCTION sample – is given an unique number from a contexts, plans, sections, small finds, flota­ single sequence (Jefferies 1977). A watch­ tion samples, other samples, and photo­ ing brief was maintained when the over­ graphic films. Artefacts and samples from burden was later stripped from the area known or possible prehistoric contexts were prior to gravel extraction. recorded three-dimensionally, except at the north end of the Long Mound, where they 1.5.2 Stanwick were recorded two-dimensionally within 100mm spits. Neolithic and Bronze Age features were excavated and recorded according to the 1.5.4 Redlands Farm CEU system as they were encountered during the area excavation of the later The evaluation of c 86ha was undertaken by complex. fieldwalking, geophysical survey, and trenching. One discrete area of settlement 1.5.3 West Cotton defined during the evaluation was set aside from gravel extraction. The Long Barrow The location of the main part of the excava­ mound and ditches, and the underlying old tions was determined by the route of the land surface were excavated in quadrants, A45/A605, which was about to be built. The with some machining as an adjunct to hand- excavated area was originally designed to excavation. Sieving of a five per cent sample encompass the medieval tenements that lay of mound layers and ditch fills was aban­ within the road corridor, extending beyond it doned when few artefacts were retrieved. in an attempt to investigate entire medieval Discrete features were half-sectioned or plots. This part of the investigation was totally excavated as appropriate. Barrows 7 completed in 1985–6. Excavation was and 8, discovered during ARC’s stripping in extended to the west in 1987–8, when it advance of gravel extraction, were set aside became apparent that the remaining area of from quarrying once limited excavation had the hamlet was to be destroyed by gravel established their date and character. Both quarrying. Strategies for identifying and circuits of Barrow 9, a double cropmark recording the Neolithic and Bronze Age ring ditch, were investigated by a combina­ archaeology were developed as its extent and tion of hand- and machine-excavation, the significance were realised (Fig 1.6). The triple central graves being excavated by hand. ring ditch of Barrow 6 was recognised when During the 1989 excavation of the long an area was stripped down to gravel at the barrow and Barrows 7 and 8, recording beginning of the first season in 1985, to test followed a method devised by the OAU for the depth and nature of the stratigraphy. By use on rural sites (the ‘Thornhill Farm the end of that season, the progressive system’, Wilkinson 1992). Each feature was removal of medieval and Saxon deposits had numbered in a continuous sequence; each revealed that the barrow mound and another excavated segment or section of that feature prehistoric monument, the Long Mound, was then given a letter (A for the first to be survived as earthworks beneath the deposits excavated, B for the second, etc); and each that underlay the settlement. Extension of the fill or spit within that segment or section excavated area to the west in advance of gravel was given a number (1 for the topmost quarrying conformed to the visible limits of deposit, 2 for the next, etc). Thus, in the the hamlet, and, in the event, fell short of the case of the Redlands Farm long barrow, west end of the Long Mound. The recogni­ 161/A/8 represents the lowest layer (8) of tion of the monuments prompted machine- the north-west section (A) of the façade stripping of the intervening gravel, in order to trench (161) (Fig 3.26). The section letter find minor features. A watching brief on strip­ was omitted where features or layers were ping by ARC in 1987 located the Turf Mound excavated in plan, as was the layer or spit (already suspected from a buried soil at the number where there was only a single fill. south of the excavated area) and the west end Where stratigraphy was complex, as in the of the Long Mound. The timber structure to long barrow ditches (Fig 3.27), layers were the north of the excavated area was discovered given individual numbers from the same during the cutting of a palaeochannel section sequence as the features. The 1990 excava­ for environmental sampling in the same year, tion of Barrow 9 employed a single-number and was further investigated in later seasons. recording system similar to that of the Single numerical sequences were Central Excavation Unit, although section employed throughout the excavation for letters were retained.

13 A NEOLITHIC AND BRONZE AGE LANDSCAPE IN NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

1.6 Strategies of environmental 1.7 The physical survival of recovery the evidence Gill Campbell and Mark Robinson 1.7.1 Earthworks All the monuments were sampled. Particular attention was paid to those The later alluvium ensured the survival of contexts that produced significant unditched turf and earth monuments of quantities of charcoal. There was not, which there would have been no trace had however, a policy of sampling all there been no buffer between medieval and prehistoric contexts. Samples for later ploughing and the Saxon land surface. micromorphology, recovery of insect and However, an interval of at least three thou­ waterlogged plant remains, molluscs and sand years between construction and alluvi­ so forth, were taken either by the specialists ation meant that they and other mounds themselves or by their assistants. Details were subject to prolonged degradation by of these samples and their contexts are humans, animals and other agents of distur­ given in the digital publication. bance and erosion. In the case of the upper At West Cotton, nearly 250 samples for parts of the mounds that projected above flotation and wet-sieving were taken from the alluvium on Irthlingborough island, prehistoric contexts and, in a few cases, these processes continued to the time of from the overlying soil horizon. Samples excavation. Barrow 1, for example, survived were typically c 10 litres, although some of c to 0.50m at most above the underlying old 20 litres were taken from mound or ditch land surface, much of the visible mound contexts, and 100% samples of between 1 consisting of alluvium and topsoil. At West and 5 litres were taken from some small Cotton, the Long Mound and Long Enclo­ features such as cremation burials or stake- sure were not only ploughed but were also holes. cut by a mill leat, and their survival varied Around 430 samples were taken from laterally according to whether they lay prehistoric features during the main excava­ within, under or outside the embankment tions at Irthlingborough between 1985 and that surrounded the later hamlet. The 1987. Samples were typically 20 litres, monuments were better-preserved than although some features, such as the central those of much of lowland Britain, but they pits of some of the barrows, were sampled in were still severely reduced, and may not their entirety. provide complete sequences, whether struc­ During the 1991 and 1992 seasons at tural or depositional. The surfaces between Stanwick, where one of the main aims was and beyond the barrows were exposed up to to date the ditched enclosure system, 100 the Saxon period, subject, even beyond the litre samples were taken from each exca­ limits of ploughing, to continued soil forma­ vated length of ditch, 80 litres of each tion, bioturbation, and perhaps erosion. sample being wet-sieved and 20 litres reserved for flotation. Both processes were 1.7.2 Environmental evidence carried out on site. At least two 50-litre samples were taken from each pit of the Despite the valley-bottom location, the segmented ditch circle and at least one 50­ preservation of waterlogged organic material litre sample from other features. Cremation is very uneven. In the upper and middle deposits were bagged whole. Nene valley, dates for palaeochannels, their Each of the units involved in the excava­ associated deposits and land surfaces sealed tions used a different system to float its by fluviatile deposits cluster between samples, although the same mesh sizes 10–9,000 BP (c 9600–8200 Cal BC) and were used throughout: 500 microns for the 4–2,000 BP (c 2600 Cal BC–Cal AD 50). flot, and 1mm for the residue. All residues This probably reflects the stability of the were sorted for bone, artefacts, and mater­ mid-Holocene channels in the valley (A ial that had failed to float, down to 4mm, Brown and Keough 1992b, 193, fig 18.9), and a minimum of 25% down to 2mm. and perhaps the erosion of channel deposits. The remaining portions of the residues The dearth of mid-Holocene channel were retained for possible further process­ deposits is seen in the direct superimposition ing, dependent on the results of this of Late Neolithic deposits over Pleistocene sorting, but, in the event, no further work ones in the West Cotton palaeochannel (M on them was required. Robinson 1992a, fig 19.2). As a result, the

14 INTRODUCTION reconstruction of landscape and vegetation aerial and geophysical survey and a possible for the Mesolithic and earlier Neolithic rests barrow still standing in an unquarried field on a narrower base than for later periods, (Payne SS5). South-west of Irthlingborough although the lack of palaeochannel deposits island, two ring ditches and an isolated is to some extent balanced by the water­ Middle or Late Bronze Age cremation logged fills of the Long Barrow ditches, an burial, identified during evaluation in effect of proximity to the Nene. Insects, advance of commercial development, show wood, seeds and pollen from these ditches that burials extend beyond the previously vastly expand a record otherwise confined to investigated area (Parry 1995a; 1995b). The soils sealed under monuments and to ring ditches are preserved unexcavated charred plant remains. Neolithic and Bronze beneath the all-weather training pitch of the Age archaeological deposits were decalcified, Rushden and Diamonds Football Club. so that, despite extensive sampling, mollus­ Parts of the valley floor were inaccessi­ can analysis was possible only for the West ble. The disused railway embankment Cotton palaeochannel and a couple of dry running along the floodplain covered, with land features. Bone preservation was corre­ its flanking quarries, a band at least 50m spondingly less than optimal. The survival of wide. The south-east quarter of Irthlingbor­ a cairn of numerous cattle skulls and other ough island, between the embankment and bones in Barrow 1 may owe something to the the Nene, was occupied by ARC’s sorting locally more calcareous environment created plant, and there were disused sludge beds by such a mass of bone and by the limestone on the bank of the Nene in the north-west of cairn over which it was placed. the island. Fieldwalking on both the valley sides and the plateau was restricted by the 1.8 Other implications for the presence of built-up areas, woodland and limits of inference pasture, as well as former and current quar­ ries (Dix 1987, fig 1). While most excavations were planned and Neolithic and Bronze Age artefacts in thorough, ongoing gravel extraction meant Iron Age and later contexts may well reflect that some were salvage. This occurred the disturbance of earlier deposits. The large where monuments were unknown prior to areas covered by the Stanwick and Redlands the stripping of overburden, as in the case of Farm settlements may have entailed signifi­ Barrow 5 or the Turf Mound, or where their cant destruction of earlier archaeology. It is extent was unknown, as in the case of the unlikely to be a coincidence that pre-Iron west end of the Long Mound. Information Age features seem more frequent at the is therefore of uneven quantity and quality. south and north ends of the Stanwick settle­ It is impossible to tell how complete the ment, where later features were scattered, picture of the complex presented here is. than in the centre, where later features were Excavation was focused on areas under dense (Fig 1.5). Some surviving earlier immediate threat. Work at West Cotton, for features may have gone undetected here, as example, did not extend east of the road not all pits in the area were excavated and line, despite the continuation of a monu­ not all of it was excavated down to undis­ ment, known as the Ditched Enclosure, turbed natural deposits. Destruction was beyond that limit (Fig 1.6), and the pres­ certainly effected by quarrying on the valley ence to the north and east of the excavated floor prior to the project, as in the case of area of ring ditches identified by aerial the barrow recorded by Dr Robb (1.2), and photography and geophysical survey. a record of an ‘overhanging rim urn’ found Indeed, the density of Saxon and early in Irthlingborough (RCHME 1975, 57) medieval features in the unexcavated parts points to destruction of another burial. of the West Cotton settlement is such that The incidence of evaluation trenches in other features identified by geophysical the alluvium was uneven (Fig 1.5). Even on survey there may or may not be further Irthlingborough island, where trenching was prehistoric monuments (Payne SS5). The most intensive and systematic, the 30m inter­ fringes of the Stanwick area, where Iron Age val between trenches will have favoured the and Roman settlement traces were becom­ location of extensive or of linear features. ing thin, were explored by trenching rather Any relatively substantial archaeology than area excavation (Fig 1.5), so that between the trenches would have been features between the trenches would have recorded in the subsequent watching brief, as gone undiscovered. Barrow 2 remains unex­ was an ovoid slot-and-post structure, cavated, as do ring ditches identified by surrounded by a gully – probably dating to

15 A NEOLITHIC AND BRONZE AGE LANDSCAPE IN NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age – in in perspective and priorities, especially as Scours Field, at SP 968 721 (Tomalin 2006). the value of traditional archaeological Small, discrete features, like the isolated pits monographs, sometimes so coldly neutral and cremation deposits found in area excava­ and monolithic as to be estranged from tions off the island, may have escaped discov­ present and past human experience, was ery. Perhaps also relatively unlikely to have increasingly questioned, as by Hodder been found are small-scale living sites (1989) and Tilley (1989). exemplified by concentrations of Early While the vast body of data from the Mesolithic artefacts and animal bone on a project, much of it of high quality, could be land surface sealed under fluviatile deposits applied to pursue any number of questions, at Thatcham, Berkshire, which measured at there was a need to focus on some of the most 12m across (Wymer 1962, figs 3–5), or more important issues. These were defined by a localised Neolithic artefact scatter as the spatial and chronological develop­ associated with nebulous features at Ecton ment of the monument complex; the (W Moore and Williams 1975, figs 4–5). processes of monument-construction; The data from the project are nonethe­ mortuary and ceremonial practice; the rela­ less of high quality. There have still been tionship between ceremonial, mortuary, relatively few investigations of substantial domestic and agricultural activity; the possi­ parts of Neolithic and Bronze Age monu­ ble importance of spatial alignments ment complexes, let alone one as diverse between the monuments; and the establish­ and long-lived as this. The most comparable ment of a methodology for the analysis and in these respects may be Barrow Hills, dissemination of the project results. These Radley, Oxfordshire (A Barclay and Halpin issues constituted a distinct agenda around 1999). Even fewer such complexes have which to structure the future development been so effectively embedded in the history of the project, and, given the interpretive of local landscape and settlement. The emphasis of these themes, the decision was record of the Raunds area furthermore taken in 1998 to pass their execution to the complements that of the very different and Department of Archaeology at the Univer­ thoroughly researched environment of the sity of Newcastle upon Tyne. The remit of fen edge to the north-east. this final stage of the project, which was under the management of Jan Harding, was 1.9 Post-excavation strategies to complete the post-excavation analysis and produce a bipartite publication, consisting Analysis began in parallel with the later of a synthetic text that focused on the main stages of fieldwork, largely co-ordinated by issues already defined, linked to a digital Jon Humble, who was Project Director from publication in which the data and specialist 1991 to 1997. Initially, the stratigraphy of analyses could be made fully available each excavated monument was analysed, (J Harding and Rault 1999). radiocarbon samples were submitted, and detailed site descriptions were written. 1.10 Report structure Finds were analysed and recorded by the appropriate specialists during this stage. The bipartite publication strategy reflects the There were interim publications of spectac­ importance of both disseminating the full ular finds (eg Davis and Payne 1993), and range of specialist data and writing a detailed the project figured in general publications interpretation of the evidence. In many (eg Parker Pearson 1993). The blocks in monographs the two are combined in a text which the data were described and analysed that first describes methods and empirical became formalised as Landscape Units, results, and then interprets them. Yet the some of them single monuments (like the outcome of this approach is often less than Long Mound), others groupings of appar­ satisfactory. What can result is an excessively ently related features (like parts of a field long but fragmented and often unreadable system). It was intended to publish the pre- account in which key discursive themes are Iron Age material in a series of monographs, marginalised at the end of a text mostly with a concluding synthetic volume. concerned with catalogue-type data. At the However, the expanding role and increased same time, this traditional format was responsibilities of the Central Excavation considered as practically unrealistic given the Unit, as it became Central Archaeological sheer wealth and diversity of the specialist Services, made progress increasingly diffi­ data generated by the Raunds Area Project. cult. The passing of time also entailed shifts A different approach was consequently

16 INTRODUCTION required and the outcome is this synthetic native countryside and its traditional land­ volume, which brings together the evidence scape and lifeways, which he saw as in an interpretative overview of the Neolithic despoiled by enclosure in the early 19th and Bronze Age landscape, supported by a century, makes his voice a fitting echo of a supplementary studies volume, its chapters far older past. prefixed with ‘SS’ in which the full and Panels have been employed to emphasise extensive range of specialist analyses is particularly pertinent specialist data or to presented. Providing both volumes as elec­ present analyses in more detail than is avail­ tronic publications on the Internet, plus able elsewhere in the synthetic text. These availability in printed form as print-on­ act as bridges between the thematic struc­ demand, enables the large number of ture of the synthetic volume and the detailed detailed datasets, including an impressive analysis contained within the supplementary range of graphical material, to be made fully volume. But the panels also refer to the available. As a result, future researchers will debate, uncertainty and disagreements have access to the primary evidence and will about the data, and, accordingly, highlight be able to develop their own models in rela­ the ambiguity and complexity of the inter­ tion to the sites and landscape. pretive process. The panels are designed so The synthetic volume is structured into that the reader can either continue with the thematic chapters that reflect the research narrative flow of the text or break off to goals of the project (1.9). Each chapter follow a particular topic. draws from and refers to the data contained The supplementary volume comple­ in the supplementary volume, emphasising ments the synthetic volume. It principally the quality and range of evidence relevant to includes detailed data, including catalogues, each of the themes. This is an approach that databases and associated graphics, and provides flexibility in terms of the cross- photographic data. A significant part of this referencing and integration of information. data consists of the full Landscape Unit The varied evidence will be combined for Reports and extensive sections, written by the purpose of creating interpretations and the specialists, on the artefactual and envi­ models. This is the means by which the ronmental evidence. It also contains a range available evidence is provided with a narra­ of GIS images, relating the local topography tive or ‘story-line’, and the approach is to the distribution of both monuments and particularly apparent in chapters 4 and 5. artefacts, and an account of the project’s Indeed, the contents of both these chapters archive. reflect many general research concerns of Published on the English Heritage web Neolithic and Bronze Age studies. site, both the synthetic and supplementary Lines by the Northamptonshire poet volumes are separately available in print as John Clare (1793–1864) introduce the print-on-demand bound volumes from synthetic chapters. Clare’s feeling for his English Heritage Publishing.

17