Northamptonshire Archaeology 2002, 30 NORTHAMPTONSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGY, 30,2002 Contents Middle Iron Age occupation at Mawsley New Village, CransleyLodge, Kettering, Northamptonshire 1 GRAHAM HULL AND STEVE PRESTON Excavation of Roman settlementat Sponne School, Towcester, 1997 21 ROB ATKINS AND ANDY CHAPMAN Excavationsat Derngate, Northampton,1997-2000 31 JONATHAN HILLER, ALAN HARDY AND PAUL BLINKHORN Excavationsat the Former Cantor and Silver Site, Brackley, Northamptonshire 63 JON MURRAY Brickmakingin 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 Northamptonshire Archaeology 2002, 30 Middle Iron Age occupation at Mawsley New Village, Cransley Lodge, Kettering, Northamptonshire by GRAHAM HULLAND STEVE PRESTON with contributions by Paul Blinithorn, Varian Denham,Steve Ford, Sheila Hamilton-Dyer, Lynne Keys, NicolaPowell and Mark Robinson SUMMARY feeding the River Ise (to the east) and another stream (currently via Pitsford Reservoir) to the south west, A series of middle Iron Age circular structures both tributaries of the Nene. Geological maps (BGS comprising an unenclosed occupation site with at 1993) indicate that the geology is Boulder Clay and least twophases ofactivity, were radio-carbondated this was confirmed during the excavations. The of the site was estab- to aperiod between the 4th and the 1st centuriesBC. archaeological potential lished by a series of field surveys and evaluation There was some evidence of metal working on the site. A similar was revealed trenching carried out by John Samuels Archaeo- group of features by Consultants Slatcher within an to the logical (Nicholls 1999; 1999; geophysical survey enclosure, just 2000; Young 2000). As a result,an area of 6250sq m east the excavated site. A small of very quantity of was identified as archaeologically sensitive (Fig. 1) late Iron Age material was recoveredfrom features and a programmeof full excavation was instigated. unrelated to the occupation area, while a series of This followeda specification prepared by Mr Myk shallow linearfeatures, cutting across the site may Flitcroft, Planning Officer (Archaeology) for North- be ofIron Age date but are more likely the remainsof amptonshire Heritage, the archaeological adviser to medieval cultivation. the BoroughCouncil. The excavation wasfunded by David Wilson Homes. The archive is currently held by Thames Valley INTRODUCTION Archaeological Services Ltd, 47—49 De Beauvoir Road, Reading, RG1 5NR, pendingidentification of This report documents the results of an excavation a suitablerepository. The site code is MNVOO/64. carried Out by Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd at Housing Area 3B, Mawsley New Village, Cransley Lodge, Kettering, Northampton- ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND shire. Outline planningpermission had been granted by Kettering Borough Council for the development The site lies at the head of a valley aligned SW—NE, of the area, subject to a condition requiring arch- draininginto the riverIse. Fieldwallcing had revealed aeological investigation. The whole development area a concentration of Neolithicfinds not far from New covered O3ha, south-west of the village of Cransley Lodge, and Bronze Age sites were known in the (centred on SP 807 760) (Fig. 1). The site lay on vicinity. The Northamptonshire Sitesand Monuments essentiallyflat land on top of a ridge at an average of Record contains evidencefor Iron Age and Roman c.140m above Ordnance Datum. The wider topog- finds from the parish, although not closely located. raphy slopes down sharplyboth to east and west in a Aerial photography mapped by the National Map- series of narrow valleys cut by numerous streams ping Programme of the Royal Commission on Northamptonshire Archaeology 2002, 30 GRAHAM HULL AND STEVE PRESTON 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 THE EXCAVATION presence of what appeared to be hon Age and/or Roman enclosures and settlement both on the site The excavation took placeover the winterof 2000—1 and nearby. A deserted medieval village also lay under the supervision of GrahamHull and opened a close to the site. The site appears to have been single continuousarea of 6250sq m (Fig. 2). Topsoil farmland from late Roman times onwards. and overburden were removed by a 360° mechanical The site was identifiedby a desk-based assessment excavatorfitted with atoothless bucket to exposethe (Slatcher 1999) and geophysical survey (Nicholls uppermost surface of archaeological deposits. The 1999) as of high archaeological potential. In partic- archaeological deposits encountered included the ular, two clusters of circular and semi-circular feat- ring gullies, a series of straight, parallel ditches, a ures, one of them enclosed by ditches, appeared to few pits, and somestructural features(post holes and represent Iron Age or Roman settlement (Fig. Ic). post-pads). The vast majority of the features were The entire area of the site was then fleidwalked and ditches or gullies. All archaeological deposits were evaluation trenching was conducted, to ascertainthe cleanedand excavated by hand. A minimum of 5% survival and nature of the archaeological features, of linearfeatures was excavated in slots, in the cases Part of the site was also investigated in an open area of the ring gullies, risingto 25%, and in some cases excavation (Slatcher2000). Neither the trenching nor closer to 50% was sampled in an attempt to retrieve the area excavation showed many archaeological more dating evidence. All other features were features, and those very poorly preserved. The dom- half-sectioned as a minimum. Forty-eight bulk soil inant features were the remainsof medieval ridge and samples were taken from sealedcontexts for environ- furrow cultivation. Remarkably few finds were recov- mental evidence, but few of these yielded any ered, from fieldwalking, trenching and excavation material. combined. Even in areas where cropmarksand the geophysical survey suggested definite archaeolog- ical features, the trenching revealed no trace of sur- EXCAVATION RESULTS vivingarchaeology. Ij particular, nothing was found of the eastern of the two settlementcomplexes. Itwas The excavated features can be grouped together concluded that much of the alreadypoorly preserved conveniently as six structures (A to F) and a single archaeology might have been finally ploughed Out series ofparallel ditches. Each structure consisted of relatively recently. one or more penannular gullies, usually associated Archaeological features were located in one with a number of post-holes and 'scoops' that could portion of the site, around Cransley Lodge, where have been hearths. Features not clearly associated preservation was considerably better, and these with either the structures or the ditcheswere rare. In features were dated to the Iron Age and Roman all cases, the ditches clearly post-dated the structures, periods. These included the western of the two and a modern drainage systemcut acrossboth. clusters of ring-gully structures located in the In spite of a lack of deep stratification, almost all geophysical survey. As result, this area was targeted the site's features had at least one direct stratigraphic for full excavation. Specific research objectives relationship with other features, and the broad phas- centredon the date and natureof the occupation and ingof the site is reasonably clear. What is less clear is abandonment, the function of the ring gullies, whether the features within each phase need all be whether the site was enclosed or open, and whether contemporary, or represent a constantly shifting there was any evidence for the integration of an pattern of similar land-use within each period. This occupied area within a formal arrangement of pad- considerably affects not only the length of each docks and fields. In addition it was hoped to provide phase, but all interpretation of the site's status and absolute dating for pottery with traditionally recog- function, as discussedbelow. nized Middle and Late Iron Age fabrics and forms, The modem drains had caused severebut localized especially in respectof their potential continued use damage to many features, and the whole site had into Roman times. been reduced by ploughing to the extent that few featureswere 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 3 Northamptonshire Archaeology 2002, 30 GRAHAM HULLAND STEVE PRESTON 75700 75650 80300 0 Fig2 Mawstey New village, 2000. All features. 4 Northamptonshire Archaeology 2002, 30 MIDDLE IRON AGE OccUPATION AT MAWSLEYNEW VILLAGE, CRANSLEY LODGE, KETrERING.NORTHAMPTONSHIRE clay, were virtually identical, not onlyto one another, In each case, theouter gully (typically O.20—O.30m deep) was but also to the natural. This had been noted markedly shallower than the