Iron Age, Roman and Saxon Occupation at Grange Park: Excavations at Courteenhall, Northamptonshire, 1999 9781841719979, 9781407320793

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures
List of Plates
List of Tables
CHAPTER 1. Summary and Introduction
CHAPTER 2. The Excavations
CHAPTER 3. The Pottery
CHAPTER 4. Finds of Metal, Stone and Clay
CHAPTER 5. Environment, People and Economy
CHAPTER 6. Synthesis and Discussion
Acknowledgements
Bibliography

Citation preview

BAR  425  2006  JONES, WOODWARD & BUTEUX  IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK

9 781841 719979

B A R

Birmingham University Monograph Series 1

Iron Age, Roman and Saxon Occupation at Grange Park Excavations at Courteenhall, Northamptonshire, 1999

Laurence Jones Ann Woodward Simon Buteux

BAR British Series 425 2006

Birmingham Archaeology Monograph Series 1

Iron Age, Roman and Saxon Occupation at Grange Park Excavations at Courteenhall, Northamptonshire, 1999

Laurence Jones Ann Woodward Simon Buteux with contributions by Lynne Bevan, Megan Brickley, Marina Ciaraldi, Jane Cowgill, Lucie Dingwall, Chris Gaffney, Rowena Gale, James Greig, Annette Hancocks, Kay Hartley, Rob Ixer, Erica Macey Bracken, Emily Murray, Stephanie Rátkai, Val Rigby, David Smith, Roger Tomlin, Roger White and Steven Willis and illustrations by Mark Breedon, Nigel Dodds, John Halsted, and Bryony Ryder

BAR British Series 425 2006

ISBN 9781841719979 paperback ISBN 9781407320793 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841719979 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

Contents LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................................... v LIST OF PLATES ............................................................................................................................................................ vii LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................................................... viii CHAPTER 1 SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION by Simon Buteux Summary ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Background to the investigations ................................................................................................................................. 3 Topography, geology and location ............................................................................................................................ 3 Archaeological research prior to the 1999 investigations.......................................................................................... 3 Research objectives .................................................................................................................................................... 11 Iron Age / early Roman ........................................................................................................................................... 11 Late Roman ............................................................................................................................................................. 12 Early / Middle Saxon............................................................................................................................................... 12 Strategy....................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 12 Pre-excavation survey results .................................................................................................................................. 14 Magnetic susceptibility and phosphate surveys....................................................................................................... 14 Further detailed gradiometry survey........................................................................................................................ 17 Experimental geophysical survey............................................................................................................................ 18 Geophysical data: discussion................................................................................................................................... 22 Intensive fieldwalking and test-pitting (Figs. 13 to 17).............................................................................................. 22 Metal detector survey ................................................................................................................................................. 31 CHAPTER 2 THE EXCAVATIONS by Laurence Jones Excavation methodology ............................................................................................................................................ 32 Size of areas excavated............................................................................................................................................ 32 Procedure for machine stripping of topsoil ............................................................................................................. 32 Preliminary survey of features................................................................................................................................. 32 Sampling and recording strategies........................................................................................................................... 32 Excavation results....................................................................................................................................................... 32 Geomorphology and deposition............................................................................................................................... 32 Phasing and terminology ......................................................................................................................................... 37 Phase 1 Early / early Middle Iron Age (400 to 200 BC) (Fig. 20).............................................................................. 37 Area 1 (Fig. 21, also Figs. 23 to 29) ........................................................................................................................ 37 Area 2 (Fig. 22 and Figs. 29 to 31).......................................................................................................................... 45 Areas 9 and 10 (Fig. 32; also Figs. 24, 29, 31, 34 and 35) ...................................................................................... 48 Area 6 (Fig. 33) ....................................................................................................................................................... 54 Phase 2 Late Middle / Late Iron Age (200 to 1 BC) (Fig. 36) .................................................................................. 54 Area 6 (Fig. 33; also Figs. 29, 31 and 37 to 40) ...................................................................................................... 54 Area 1 (Fig. 21) ....................................................................................................................................................... 60 Area 5 (Figs. 41 and 43) .......................................................................................................................................... 60 Phase 3 Transitional (Belgic) Late Iron Age / early Roman (AD 1 to 100) (Fig. 42) ............................................... 60 Area 5 (Fig. 41; also Figs. 24, 28, 38 and 43 to 44) ................................................................................................ 60 Area 6 (Fig. 33; also Figs. 29, 31 and 37 to 40) ...................................................................................................... 66 Area 1 and Area 10 (Figs 21 and 32; also Figs. 26 and 34)..................................................................................... 66 Phase 4 Roman (AD 50 to 450) (Fig. 45)................................................................................................................... 66 Area 5 (Fig. 41; also Figs. 29, 38, 43 to 44 and 46) ................................................................................................ 66 Area 6 (Figs. 33 and 39) .......................................................................................................................................... 70 Phase 5 Early / Middle Saxon (AD 450 to 850) (Fig. 47; also Figs. 22, 32, 33, 37, 40 and 48)................................ 71 Area 2 (Fig. 22) ....................................................................................................................................................... 71 Area 6 (Fig. 33) ....................................................................................................................................................... 71 Area 10 (Fig. 32) ..................................................................................................................................................... 74 Phase 6 All later features ........................................................................................................................................... 74 Area 1 (not illustrated) ............................................................................................................................................ 74 Area 2 (not illustrated) ............................................................................................................................................ 74 Area 5 (not illustrated) ............................................................................................................................................ 74 Unphased features ...................................................................................................................................................... 74 i

Area 1 (Fig. 21) ....................................................................................................................................................... 74 Area 2 (Fig. 22) ....................................................................................................................................................... 74 Area 5 (Fig. 41) ....................................................................................................................................................... 74 Area 6 (Fig. 33) ....................................................................................................................................................... 74 Area 10 (Fig. 32) ..................................................................................................................................................... 74 CHAPTER 3 THE POTTERY by Annette Hancocks, Stephanie Rátkai and Ann Woodward Iron Age pottery by Ann Woodward and Annette Hancocks ...................................................................................... 75 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................... 75 Fabric....................................................................................................................................................................... 75 Form ........................................................................................................................................................................ 75 Decoration ............................................................................................................................................................... 77 Colour...................................................................................................................................................................... 77 Residues .................................................................................................................................................................. 77 Vessel size and function .......................................................................................................................................... 77 Key phase groups .................................................................................................................................................... 79 Possible deliberate deposits..................................................................................................................................... 90 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................................... 90 Transitional (Belgic) pottery by Annette Hancocks, with a contribution from Val Rigby .......................................... 91 Summary ................................................................................................................................................................. 91 Introduction and methodology ................................................................................................................................ 91 Chronology.............................................................................................................................................................. 92 Taphonomy.............................................................................................................................................................. 92 Fabric....................................................................................................................................................................... 93 Surface finish........................................................................................................................................................... 93 Colour...................................................................................................................................................................... 93 Sooting .................................................................................................................................................................... 93 Forms....................................................................................................................................................................... 93 Vessel size and function .......................................................................................................................................... 93 Catalogue................................................................................................................................................................. 94 Detailed analysis of key groups in Areas 5 and 6.................................................................................................. 106 Potter’s marks on Local Coarse Wares by Val Rigby ............................................................................................ 106 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................................. 107 Roman Pottery by Annette Hancocks, with contributions by Steve Willis, Brenda Dickinson and Kay Hartley ...... 107 Summary ............................................................................................................................................................... 107 Introduction and methodology .............................................................................................................................. 109 Chronology............................................................................................................................................................ 110 Taphonomy............................................................................................................................................................ 110 Fabrics ................................................................................................................................................................... 110 Surface finish......................................................................................................................................................... 110 Forms..................................................................................................................................................................... 111 Vessel size and function ........................................................................................................................................ 111 Catalogue (Figs. 62 to 66) ..................................................................................................................................... 111 Detailed analysis of Roman key groups in Area 5 (EN4, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12) ...................................................... 124 Mortaria catalogue by Kay Hartley ....................................................................................................................... 124 Samian pottery by Steven Willis, with a contribution from Brenda Dickinson...................................................... 126 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................................. 131 Belgic and Roman Pottery: Northamptonshire Fabric Descriptions by Annette Hancocks, with a contribution from Kay Hartley................................................................................................................... 131 Saxon Pottery by Stephanie Rátkai, with a contribution from David Williams ........................................................ 132 Fabrics ................................................................................................................................................................... 133 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................................. 139 Catalogue............................................................................................................................................................... 140 CHAPTER 4 FINDS OF METAL, STONE AND CLAY The Worked Flint by Lynne Bevan ........................................................................................................................... 142 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 142 Dateable material................................................................................................................................................... 142 Catalogue............................................................................................................................................................... 142 Area summaries..................................................................................................................................................... 143 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................................. 144 ii

Roman Coins by Roger White .................................................................................................................................. 144 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................................... 144 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................................. 146 Coin catalogue....................................................................................................................................................... 147 Roman Brooches by Roger White............................................................................................................................. 149 Description and catalogue (Fig. 68) ...................................................................................................................... 149 Identification and dating........................................................................................................................................ 152 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................................. 152 Finds of metal, stone and glass by Lynne Bevan....................................................................................................... 152 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 152 Roman vessel glass................................................................................................................................................ 152 Copper alloy .......................................................................................................................................................... 153 Iron objects............................................................................................................................................................ 154 Lead objects........................................................................................................................................................... 154 The worked stone by Lynne Bevan and Rob Ixer .................................................................................................. 155 Clay tile by Erica Macey Bracken......................................................................................................................... 157 Fired clay and daub by Annette Hancocks............................................................................................................. 157 Slags and related material by Jane Cowgill, Ivan Mack and Gerry McDonnell.................................................... 164 Analysis of Iron Age Grey slag by Ivan Mack and Gerry McDonnell .................................................................. 166 CHAPTER 5 ENVIRONMENT, PEOPLE AND ECONOMY Human Remains by Martin Smith............................................................................................................................. 173 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 173 Inhumation HB1 .................................................................................................................................................... 173 Inhumation HB2 .................................................................................................................................................... 173 Foetus or neonate................................................................................................................................................... 173 Inhumation HB3 .................................................................................................................................................... 173 Inhumation HB4 .................................................................................................................................................... 174 Inhumation HB5 .................................................................................................................................................... 174 Cremated bone....................................................................................................................................................... 174 Animal remains by Emily Murray ............................................................................................................................ 174 Bone retrieval methods.......................................................................................................................................... 174 Methods of analysis............................................................................................................................................... 174 Quantification........................................................................................................................................................ 176 Ageing ................................................................................................................................................................... 177 Sexing.................................................................................................................................................................... 178 Measurements........................................................................................................................................................ 178 Gnawing, butchery and burning ............................................................................................................................ 178 Results ................................................................................................................................................................... 178 Summary and conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 185 Insect remains by David Smith ................................................................................................................................. 185 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 185 Sample processing and analysis ............................................................................................................................ 185 Results ................................................................................................................................................................... 185 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................................. 189 Charcoal by Rowena Gale ........................................................................................................................................ 190 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 190 Methods................................................................................................................................................................. 190 Results ................................................................................................................................................................... 190 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................................. 192 Environmental evidence and woodland resources................................................................................................. 193 Comparable sites ................................................................................................................................................... 194 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................................. 194 The plant economy by Marina Ciaraldi ................................................................................................................... 194 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 194 Methodology and identifications ........................................................................................................................... 194 Results ................................................................................................................................................................... 195 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................................. 210 Pollen by James Greig.............................................................................................................................................. 212 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................................... 212 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................................. 213 iii

Phosphate analysis by Marina Ciaraldi.................................................................................................................... 213 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 213 Sampling strategy .................................................................................................................................................. 213 Laboratory methods............................................................................................................................................... 214 Possible biases....................................................................................................................................................... 214 Interpretation ......................................................................................................................................................... 217 Spherulite and pH Tests by Matt Canti..................................................................................................................... 219 CHAPTER 6 SYNTHESIS AND DISCUSSION by Ann Woodward Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 220 Environment ............................................................................................................................................................. 220 Neolithic / Bronze Age............................................................................................................................................. 222 Iron Age / Roman ..................................................................................................................................................... 224 Setting.................................................................................................................................................................... 224 Chronology............................................................................................................................................................ 224 Economy................................................................................................................................................................ 228 Social organisation ................................................................................................................................................ 233 Cultural contact, trade and exchange..................................................................................................................... 241 Saxon........................................................................................................................................................................ 243 Future research ......................................................................................................................................................... 245 Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................................... 249 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................................................... 250

iv

List of Figures Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 9 Fig. 10 Fig. 11 Fig. 12 Fig. 13 Fig. 14 Fig. 15 Fig. 16 Fig. 17 Fig. 18 Fig. 19 Fig. 20 Fig. 21 Fig. 22 Fig. 23 Fig. 24 Fig. 25 Fig. 26 Fig. 27 Fig. 28 Fig. 29 Fig. 30 Fig. 31 Fig. 32 Fig. 33 Fig. 34 Fig. 35 Fig. 36 Fig. 37 Fig. 38 Fig. 39 Fig. 40 Fig. 41 Fig. 42 Fig. 43 Fig. 44 Fig. 45 Fig. 46 Fig. 47 Fig. 48 Fig. 49 Fig. 50 Fig. 51 Fig. 52 Fig. 53 Fig. 54

Site location ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Topographic plan of the site .............................................................................................................................. 5 Archaeological sites and features recorded in the desk-top assessment ............................................................ 6 Archaeological sites and features recorded in the air photo assessment (Air Photo Services) .......................... 7 Plot of flint finds recorded by extensive fieldwalking in 1997 .......................................................................... 9 Overall plan showing 1997 geophysical survey results, the extent of the Saxon pottery scatters and the location of the 1997/8 trial trenches................................................................................................................. 10 Overall plan showing magnetic susceptibility and phosphate survey test areas in relation to plot of full geophysical survey results and extent of Saxon pottery scatters..................................................................... 15 Magnetic susceptibility survey results in Test Area A..................................................................................... 16 Pre-topsoil strip phosphate survey results in Test Area A ............................................................................... 18 Interpretative plot of full gradiometer survey results (Geophysical Surveys of Bradford).............................. 19 Greyscale plot of full gradiometer survey results (Geophysical Surveys of Bradford) ................................... 20 Comparative results of experimental surveys with conventional fluxgate gradiometer and caesium vapour gradiometer (Geophysical Surveys of Bradford) ................................................................................. 21 Overall plan showing intensive fieldwalking areas and extent of Saxon pottery scatters in relation to plot of full gradiometer survey results ............................................................................................................. 23 Distribution plot of Saxon pottery recovered during intensive fieldwalking of Area 1 ................................... 25 Distribution plot of Saxon pottery recovered during intensive fieldwalking of Area 2 ................................... 25 Distribution plot of Saxon pottery recovered during intensive fieldwalking of Area 3 ................................... 27 Distribution plot of Saxon pottery recovered during intensive fieldwalking of Area 6 ................................... 27 Areas of pre-topsoil strip metal detector survey .............................................................................................. 30 Overall plan showing excavation areas and features revealed by excavation.................................................. 33 Overall plan showing Phase 1 (Early / early Middle Iron Age) features ......................................................... 34 Area 1 phase plan............................................................................................................................................. 35 Area 2 phase plan............................................................................................................................................. 36 Area 1 RG2, CD1 to CD3, CG4 and CD16 ..................................................................................................... 38 Ring gullies RG1-3, ring-ditches RD1 to RD4 and four-post structure FP3 sections...................................... 39 Area 1 RD1, PC1 and FP1 and FP2................................................................................................................. 40 Area 1 enclosure EN2 and RG1, RD2, FP3 and FP4....................................................................................... 41 Area 1 enclosure EN1 and PC2 ....................................................................................................................... 42 Enclosure ditch sections, EN1 to EN7 ............................................................................................................. 43 Pit sections ....................................................................................................................................................... 44 Area 2 enclosure EN18 and 19, EN25 and CD32............................................................................................ 46 Enclosure ditch sections, EN8 to EN15 ........................................................................................................... 47 Areas 9 and 10 phase plan .............................................................................................................................. 49 Area 6 phase plan ............................................................................................................................................ 50 Area 10 EN22 and 23, LD14 and15 and PC3 .................................................................................................. 51 Area 9 enclosure EN20, LD14 and LD15........................................................................................................ 52 Overall plan showing Phase 2 (Late Middle / Late Iron Age) features............................................................ 55 Area 6 enclosure EN13, RG3 and RD4 ........................................................................................................... 56 Enclosure ditch sections, EN8 to EN15 ........................................................................................................... 57 Area 6 enclosures EN16 and EN17 ................................................................................................................. 58 Area 6 enclosure EN14 .................................................................................................................................... 59 Area 5 phase plan............................................................................................................................................. 61 Overall plan showing Phase 3 (Transitional (Belgic) Late Iron Age / early Roman) features......................... 62 Area 5 enclosure EN3 ...................................................................................................................................... 63 Area 5 enclosure EN5 and 7 ............................................................................................................................ 64 Overall plan showing Phase 4 (Roman) features ............................................................................................. 67 Area 5 enclosure EN11 and 12 ........................................................................................................................ 69 Overall plan showing Phase 5 (Early / Middle Saxon) features....................................................................... 72 Sunken floored building, plan and section profiles.......................................................................................... 73 The variation in Iron Age vessel rim diameters in Phases 1 and 2 .................................................................. 78 The variation in Iron Age vessel rim diameters: major form types.................................................................. 79 Iron Age pottery: numbers 1 to 16................................................................................................................... 81 Iron Age pottery: numbers 17 to 33................................................................................................................. 83 Iron Age pottery: numbers 34 to 55................................................................................................................. 85 Iron Age pottery: numbers 56 to 72................................................................................................................. 87

v

Fig. 55 Fig. 56 Fig. 57 Fig. 58 Fig. 59 Fig. 60 Fig. 61 Fig. 62 Fig. 63 Fig. 64 Fig. 65 Fig. 66 Fig. 67 Fig. 68 Fig. 69 Fig. 70 Fig. 71 Fig. 72 Fig. 73 Fig. 74 Fig. 75 Fig. 76 Fig. 77 Fig. 78 Fig. 79 Fig. 80 Fig. 81 Fig. 82 Fig. 83 Fig. 84 Fig. 85 Fig. 86 Fig. 87 Fig. 88 Fig. 89 Fig. 90 Fig. 91 Fig. 92 Fig. 93 Fig. 94 Fig. 95 Fig. 96 Fig. 97

Iron Age pottery: numbers 73 to 88................................................................................................................. 89 Belgic pottery: numbers 1 to 25....................................................................................................................... 97 Belgic pottery: numbers 26 to 44..................................................................................................................... 99 Belgic pottery: numbers 45 to 61................................................................................................................... 101 Belgic pottery: numbers 62 to 74................................................................................................................... 103 Belgic pottery: numbers 75 to 95................................................................................................................... 105 Belgic pottery stamps: numbers 96 to 97....................................................................................................... 107 Roman pottery: numbers 1 to 19.................................................................................................................... 113 Roman pottery: numbers 20 to 45.................................................................................................................. 115 Roman pottery: numbers 46 to 78.................................................................................................................. 121 Roman pottery: numbers 79 to 88.................................................................................................................. 123 Roman pottery: numbers 89 to 91; mortaria, numbers 1 to 5 and decorated samian, numbers 1 to 6 ........... 125 Saxon pottery ................................................................................................................................................. 141 Brooches ........................................................................................................................................................ 151 Copper alloy and lead finds ........................................................................................................................... 153 Iron finds........................................................................................................................................................ 155 Stone finds ..................................................................................................................................................... 156 Fired clay: numbers 1 to 6 ............................................................................................................................. 160 Fired clay: numbers 7 to 12 ........................................................................................................................... 161 Fired clay: numbers 13 to 16 ......................................................................................................................... 163 Animal bones: Relative proportions (total number of fragments) of the main domesticates......................... 180 Insect remains: Ecological groupings for the insect fauna from the Grange Park well ................................. 189 Charred plant remains: percentage of different categories, Phase 1 .............................................................. 198 Charred plant remains: percentage of wheat and barley grains, Phase 1 ....................................................... 198 Charred plant remains: percentage of different categories, Phase 2 .............................................................. 201 Charred plant remains: percentage of grains and chaff, Phase 2.................................................................... 201 Charred plant remains: percentage of different categories, Phase 3 .............................................................. 206 Charred plant remains: percentage of grains, Phase 3 ................................................................................... 206 Charred plant remains: percentage of different categories, Phase 4 .............................................................. 211 Charred plant remains: percentage of grains, Phase 4 ................................................................................... 211 Post-topsoil strip phosphate survey results, Area 5 ....................................................................................... 215 Post-topsoil strip phosphate survey results, Area 6 ....................................................................................... 216 Post-topsoil strip phosphate survey results, Area 10 ..................................................................................... 218 Location of environmental samples analysed ................................................................................................ 221 Local topography and the location of neighbouring Roman sites.................................................................. 222 Central Northamptonshire: distribution of Iron Age sites.............................................................................. 223 Central Northamptonshire: distribution of Roman sites ................................................................................ 225 Area 5: the location of brooches and other finds of metal and glass.............................................................. 226 Area 5: the location of coins and samian ....................................................................................................... 227 Area 5: the location of finds related to production: fired clay and slags........................................................ 229 Area 6: the location of finds related to production: fired clay and slags........................................................ 230 The variation in dimensions of enclosures: length against width, by phase .................................................. 234 The variation in size of enclosures: area of enclosure against size of ditch (average width times average depth), by phase................................................................................................................................ 234 Fig. 98 Summary site plans: Phases 1 and 2 .............................................................................................................. 237 Fig. 99 Summary site plans: Phases 3, 4 and 5 .......................................................................................................... 238 Fig. 100 The variation in areas of structures, by phase ................................................................................................ 239 Fig. 101 Central Northamptonshire: distribution of Early to Middle Saxon sites........................................................ 244

vi

List of Plates Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3 Plate 4 Plate 5 Plate 6 Plate 7 Plate 8 Plate 9 Plate 10 Plate 11 Plate 12 Plate 13 Plate 14 Plate 15 Plate 16

Iron Age four-post structure FP4, Area 1, from east ....................................................................................... 45 Iron Age ring-ditch RD5, Area 10, from north ................................................................................................ 53 Iron Age enclosure EN22, Area 10, with pit cluster PC3 in foreground, from northeast ................................ 53 Late Iron Age (Belgic) enclosure EN7, Area 5, from west.............................................................................. 65 Belgic pottery in situ in ditch of enclosure EN7, Area 5 ................................................................................. 65 Roman well in enclosure EN7, Area 5............................................................................................................. 68 Rubble-filled foundation ditch of semi-circular structure EN12, Area 5......................................................... 71 Late Roman double grave (HB1 and HB2) in ditch of enclosure EN8, from south......................................... 71 Early / Middle Saxon sunken floored building, Area 10.................................................................................. 73 Flints .............................................................................................................................................................. 143 Fused quartz grains with numerous gas pores (Scale 1mm) .......................................................................... 170 Crystallisation of some iron oxide (white), probably wustite (FeO) (Scale 100µm) ..................................... 170 Ultrafine iron oxide dendrites (white, FeO) in a silicate matrix (Scale 10µm).............................................. 170 Very fine metallic iron prills clustered within a silicate matrix (Scale 100µm) ............................................ 170 A remnant corroded metallic micro-structure, possibly originally pearlitic (Scale 10µm)............................ 170 Finds related to production; 16.1 Iron Age fired clay triangular object, 16.2 Iron Age scored ware, 16.3 Belgic kiln furniture and 16.4 Belgic jar .............................................................................................. 232 Plate 17 Finds related to status and trade and exchange: Roman copper alloy brooches; 17.1 ‘Polden Hill’, 17.2 ‘Colchester derivative’ and 17.3 ‘T-shaped’ types, late 1st / early 2nd centuries AD. Roman coins; 17.4 Maximus I (AD310-3), 17.5 Constantine I (AD 330-1, obv) and 17.6 Constantine I (AD 330-1, rev) and 17.7 to 17.10 lead weights ............................................................................................................. 242 Plate 18 Post-Roman finds: 18.1 possible post-Roman knife and 18.2 Early / Middle Saxon pottery ....................... 246

vii

List of Tables Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18 Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table 22 Table 23 Table 24 Table 25 Table 26 Table 27 Table 28 Table 29 Table 30 Table 31 Table 32 Table 33 Table 34 Table 35 Table 36 Table 37 Table 38 Table 39 Table 40 Table 41 Table 42 Table 43 Table 44 Table 45 Table 46 Table 47 Table 48 Table 49 Table 50 Table 51 Table 52

Area 1 fieldwalking and test-pitting: quantification by sherd count .......................................................... 14 Area 2 fieldwalking and test-pitting: quantification by sherd count .......................................................... 24 Area 3 fieldwalking: quantification by sherd count ................................................................................... 24 Area 6 fieldwalking: quantification by sherd count ................................................................................... 26 Comparison of quantities of Saxon pottery from fieldwalking and excavation ......................................... 26 Size of excavated areas .............................................................................................................................. 29 Iron Age pottery: occurrence by site phase and period .............................................................................. 76 Iron Age pottery: occurrence of pottery fabric groups by phase (sherd count) .......................................... 76 Iron Age pottery: occurrence of profile forms by phase (sherd count) ...................................................... 76 Iron Age pottery: occurrence of rim forms by phase (sherd count)............................................................ 76 Iron Age pottery: correlation between profile forms and fabric groups (sherd count) ............................... 77 Iron Age pottery: occurrence of decoration by phase (sherd count)........................................................... 77 Iron Age pottery: correlation between modes of decoration and fabric groups (sherd count) ................... 77 Iron Age pottery: occurrence of surface colour differences within form types (sherd count).................... 78 Iron Age pottery: occurrence of surface colour differences by phase (sherd count) .................................. 78 Iron Age pottery: occurrence of selected attributes in sub-phased contexts and structures in Area 1 (sherd count) .............................................................................................................................................. 80 Iron Age pottery: occurrence of selected attributes in sub-phased contexts and structures in Area 2 (sherd count) .............................................................................................................................................. 82 Iron Age pottery: occurrence of selected attributes in sub-phased contexts and structures in Area 9/10 (sherd count) ...................................................................................................................................... 86 Iron Age pottery: occurrence of selected attributes in sub-phased contexts and structures in Area 6 (sherd count) .............................................................................................................................................. 88 Iron Age pottery: characteristics of some possible deliberate deposits ...................................................... 90 Belgic pottery: fabric, sources and quantities ............................................................................................ 91 Belgic pottery: average sherd weight by phase ......................................................................................... 93 Belgic pottery: totals by phase and area .................................................................................................. 106 Roman pottery: fabric, sources and quantities ......................................................................................... 108 Roman pottery: average sherd weight by phase ...................................................................................... 110 Roman pottery: totals by phase ............................................................................................................... 110 Samian pottery: number of vessels represented by date range; see catalogue for details ........................ 128 Samian pottery: totals by phase and fabric/source in Areas 5 and 6 ........................................................ 129 Samian pottery: numbers of types represented in Areas 5 and 6 ............................................................. 129 Samian pottery: average sherd weights of the sample in Area 5.............................................................. 130 Saxon pottery: vessel form by fabric (sherd count) ................................................................................. 137 Saxon pottery: fabric occurrence from excavated features by Area (quantification by % sherd count: % sherd weight) ............................................................................................................................ 137 Saxon pottery: fabric occurrence by context in Area 2 (sherd count and sherd weight) ......................... 137 Saxon pottery: fabric occurrence by context in Area 6 (sherd count and sherd weight) ......................... 138 Saxon pottery: fabric occurrence by context in Area 10 (sherd count and sherd weight) ....................... 138 Saxon pottery: occurrence of pottery from fieldwalking by Area (quantification by % sherd count: % sherd weight) ....................................................................................................................................... 140 Worked flint: composition of the assemblage .......................................................................................... 142 The occurrence of clay tile by phase and site location ............................................................................. 157 Fired clay and daub: the occurrence of debris by phase and area ............................................................ 158 Slags and related material: composition of the assemblage by area and type .......................................... 165 Iron Age Grey slag: magnetic susceptibility results................................................................................. 167 Iron Age Grey slag: XRF analysis results ................................................................................................ 168 Iron Age Grey slag: SRD data.................................................................................................................. 169 Iron Age Grey slag: SEM-EDX data (normalised) .................................................................................. 171 Iron Age Grey slag: SEM-EDX data (normalised) .................................................................................. 171 Human remains: summary of age and sex attributions............................................................................. 173 Numbers of hand-collected mammal and bird bones and teeth (NISP) ................................................... 175 Numbers of mammal and amphibian bones and teeth from finely sieved assemblage (NISP) ................ 176 Numbers of mammal and amphibian bones and teeth from coarsely sieved assemblage (NISP) ............ 176 Animal bones: frequency of ‘countable’ elements (hand-collected) by phase and area........................... 177 Animal bones: frequency of ‘countable’ elements (hand-collected) by phase and feature type .............. 177 Animal bones: frequency of ‘countable’ elements (sieved) by phase and feature type............................ 177

viii

Table 53 Table 54 Table 55 Table 56 Table 57 Table 58 Table 59 Table 60 Table 61 Table 62 Table 63 Table 64 Table 65 Table 66 Table 67 Table 68 Table 69 Table 70 Table 71 Table 72 Table 73 Table 74 Table 75 Table 76 Table 77 Table 78

Animal bones: frequency of ‘countable’ elements (sieved) by phase and area........................................ 177 Animal bones: body parts in Phases 1, 1 / 2 and 2 combined (Areas 1, 2, 6, 9 and 10 combined) ......... 179 Animal bones: body parts in Phases 3 / 4 and 4 combined (Area 5) ........................................................ 180 Teeth: mandibular wear stages (number) for cattle and pig ..................................................................... 181 Teeth: mandibular wear stages (number) for sheep / goat........................................................................ 181 Teeth: cattle wear stages of individual teeth ............................................................................................ 182 Teeth: sheep / goat wear stages of individual teeth .................................................................................. 183 Animal bones: number of fused and unfused epiphyses of cattle ............................................................ 183 Animal bones: number of ‘countable’ bones of sheep / goat and Equid with cut marks, signs of gnawing and/or burning by period ........................................................................................................... 184 Animal bones: number of cattle bones with butchery marks, gnawing or signs of burning by period..... 184 Insect remains from well F180, Phase 4 (context 1611) .......................................................................... 186 Insect remains: ecological groupings and statistics for the insect fauna from the well ............................ 188 Charcoal: species identification from Iron Age, Roman and Saxon features ........................................... 191 List of plant taxa identified from contexts of Phase 1.............................................................................. 196 List of plant taxa identified from contexts of Phase 2.............................................................................. 199 List of plant taxa identified from contexts of Phase 3.............................................................................. 203 List of plant taxa identified from contexts of Phase 4.............................................................................. 208 Waterlogged seeds from well F180, Phase 4............................................................................................ 210 List of plant taxa identified from contexts of Phase 5.............................................................................. 212 List of pollen and spores recovered from well F180, Phase 4.................................................................. 213 Results of pH tests.................................................................................................................................... 219 A summary of evidence for farming practises ......................................................................................... 213 The occurrence of small finds categories on selected Iron Age sites in central Northamptonshire ......... 241 The occurrence of small finds categories on selected Roman sites in Northamptonshire........................ 241 Summary of Saxon evidence from fieldwalking and excavation ............................................................. 243 Dimensions of selected Early to Middle Saxon sunken floored buildings in south Northamptonshire (rural sites) ................................................................................................................. 245

ix

x

CHAPTER 1

Summary and Introduction Simon Buteux SUMMARY

two small enclosures. The settlement as a whole appeared to be unenclosed.

Between January and September 1999 archaeological investigations were undertaken by Birmingham University Field Archaeology Unit (BUFAU, now Birmingham Archaeology) in advance of a major residential and employment development at Grange Park, Courteenhall, Northamptonshire. The investigations, of an extensive area of Iron Age, Roman and Saxon landscape containing several settlement foci, were commissioned by John Samuels Archaeological Consultants on behalf of Bellway Homes.

At another location (Area 9/10), some 400m to the east, was a second focus of occupation of this period. This comprised a ditched trackway or droveway, terminating in a polygonal enclosure, along one side of which a sequence of four subrectangular enclosures had developed. One of the later enclosures in the sequence overlay the trackway and was associated with a large cluster of pits, many of which were laid out in rows immediately outside the enclosure ditch. This enclosure complex also included a partial, unenclosed ring-ditch, probably representing the site of a roundhouse.

The 1999 investigations followed a programme of archaeological evaluation of the 193 hectare site in 1997 and 1998, comprising a desk-based assessment, aerial photographic assessment, extensive fieldwalking, geophysical survey and trial trenching. The 1999 investigations likewise utilised a variety of techniques and comprised, prior to the mechanical stripping of the topsoil, a programme of intensive fieldwalking and testpitting, phosphate, magnetic susceptibility, metal detector and further magnetometer survey; and documentary and cartographic research.

A third, smaller enclosure complex lay some 300m to the south (Area 2). This comprised a large partial, rectilinear enclosure, of which only three sides were represented but which contained evidence of internal subdivision and pits. A later, subrectangular enclosure, containing clusters of pits, was inserted into one corner of the earlier enclosure. A third, less substantial enclosure lay immediately to the south. In the second phase of occupation, the late Middle / Late Iron Age (200-1 BC), settlement was concentrated at a single enclosure complex at a new location to the north (Area 6). The complex comprised three enclosures, representing at least two sub-phases of occupation. Early in the sequence was a subrectangular settlement enclosure containing two ring gullies representing the sites of two roundhouses, one large and one smaller. To the east lay a second subrectangular enclosure, with evidence of internal subdivision, a few internal pits and a kiln. A third, D-shaped enclosure cut the enclosure first described and belonged to a later stage of occupation. It contained two clusters of pits in the corners, a four-post structure (possibly a raised granary), and evidence of internal subdivision. All three enclosures presented evidence of redefinition or recutting of the ditches on at least one occasion. Late in the sequence a linear ditch was dug, cutting through the easternmost enclosure and running parallel to the two enclosures to the west, creating an access route or droveway.

A total of 20 hectares was subjected to detailed gradiometer survey, following scanning of the whole site. The geophysical survey produced excellent results and enabled the definition of four ‘enclosure complexes’ comprising clusters of enclosures, some with internal ring-ditches, with associated trackways and some elements of field systems. Intensive fieldwalking covering over nine hectares defined four discrete scatters of Early to Middle Saxon pottery (three of these scatters having first been recorded in the 1980s), together with scatters of Iron Age, Roman and medieval pottery, and flints. The area excavations that followed totalled 16 hectares. The earliest evidence of occupation at Grange Park is provided by the scatter of worked flints, which covered most of the development area, although without distinct clustering. The few diagnostic artefacts point to some form of low-intensity use of the landscape in the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Early Bronze Age periods.

In the third major phase of activity, the ‘Belgic’ or Transitional Late Iron Age / early Roman period (AD 1100), the main focus of occupation shifted once again to a new location (Area 5). The principal features here were a complex of at least five subsquare and subrectangular enclosures. Two of the smaller enclosures were probably settlement enclosures, one of which contained the

The first major phase of occupation on the site dates to the Early to early Middle Iron Age (400-200 BC), and was represented at three locations. In Area 1 at least three ring-ditches or gullies, representing former Iron Age roundhouses, were present, together with four ‘four-post’ structures, possibly the remains of raised granaries, and

1

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK truncated remains of a ring-ditch indicating the site of a roundhouse; a third smaller enclosure, forming an annexe, was later added to the south side of this enclosure. The ditches of the settlement enclosures had been recut on at least one occasion. The two larger enclosures probably had a stock or agricultural function. One of these was initially defined by ditches on only three of its sides, the fourth side being formed by a former stream channel, and was probably sited to exploit this source of water, presumably for stock. Later, when the stream channel had silted up, the enclosure was redefined by the excavation of a ditch on all four of its sides.

the north of this enclosure, while a fifth inhumation, in a deeper grave, was located some distance to the south. The fifth and final major phase of activity at Grange Park is of the Early to Middle Saxon period (AD 450-850). This is principally represented by four scatters of pottery which were defined during intensive fieldwalking prior to excavation. The subsequent area excavations, although very extensive, failed to identify significant Saxon period features other than the occasional pit. The only exception was the remains of a single sunken floored building, containing a considerable assemblage of Saxon pottery. Despite the very poor survival of Saxon period structures, comparison of the pottery assemblages from fieldwalking and excavation, together with consideration of microtopographical factors, suggests that the pottery scatters do represent former small settlements, the remains of which have been almost entirely eradicated by the plough.

In this ‘Belgic’ phase, activity also continued on Area 6, some 400m to the east of the main settlement focus. The principal feature here was a large enclosure approached by a possible droveway with a ‘funnel’ entrance, presumably related to stock control. Various ditches subdivided the large enclosure and a small enclosure was situated in its northwest corner. This area also produced evidence of pottery production. The remains of a possible pottery kiln were found in a possible ditch terminal close to the large enclosure, while three oval pits cutting various enclosure ditches contained dumps of kiln furniture.

In the Late Saxon period the present day pattern of villages and parishes began to be established and during the medieval period virtually the whole of the site at Grange Park was drawn into open field ridge-and-furrow cultivation, belonging principally to the parish of Courteenhall.

In the fourth phase of activity, the Roman period (AD 50450), occupation continued on the main settlement focus of the preceding period, Area 5. The pottery evidence suggests that the settlement remains belong principally to the earlier part of the Roman period, and that the settlement had largely fallen into disuse by the 4th century. A large rectangular enclosure was laid out to the north of a droveway or access route. This large enclosure contained two smaller enclosures within it, together with the remains of other linear ditches indicative of further smaller enclosures and subdivisions. It also contained a deep, stone-lined well and evidence for small-scale iron working in the form of smithing slag and a cobbled working surface. Immediately to the east of the large enclosure a smaller rectangular enclosure was laid out. This contained a large circular structure with foundations of limestone rubble. This building can be variously interpreted as the major domestic building of this phase of activity, as an open-sided barn or grain store, or as a circular shrine.

INTRODUCTION This report provides the results of archaeological investigations undertaken by Birmingham University Field Archaeology Unit (BUFAU, now Birmingham Archaeology) in advance of a major residential and employment development at Grange Park, Courteenhall, Northamptonshire (NGR SP 760550). The investigations, of an extensive area of Iron Age, Roman and Saxon landscape containing several settlement foci, were undertaken between January and September 1999. They were commissioned by John Samuels Archaeological Consultants, the archaeological consultants for the project, on behalf of Bellway Homes. The 1999 investigations followed a programme of archaeological evaluation of the 193 hectare site in 1997 and 1998, comprising a desk-based assessment, aerial photographic assessment, extensive fieldwalking, geophysical survey and trial trenching. The investigations were undertaken as a requirement of a section 106 legal agreement, and were carried out in accordance with the Archaeological Recording Action Brief prepared by Northampton Heritage (Kidd 1998) and the Project Design prepared by Birmingham University Field Archaeology Unit (BUFAU 1998).

In the later Roman period the main focus of settlement may have shifted to the Wootton Brook villa, which lies just to the northeast of Grange Park. The assemblage of 25 Roman coins, mostly metal detector finds, from Area 5 is however dominated by 4th-century issues and a small amount of late Roman pottery has been identified. Also likely to belong to this period is a group of five inhumation burials. A double inhumation, one body on the top of the other with the upper skeleton decapitated, was inserted into the fill of a Roman period enclosure ditch. Two inhumations in shallow graves were located to

The investigations utilised a variety of techniques and comprised, prior to the mechanical stripping of the topsoil, a programme of intensive surface collection and test-pitting; phosphate, magnetic susceptibility, metal detector and further magnetometer survey; and

2

SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION documentary and cartographic research. The objective of these investigations was both to better characterise the ancient landscape and to inform the location and extent of subsequent area excavations and salvage recording. As the work progressed, variations in the programme of works, including the balance of resources devoted to the different techniques, were agreed in writing with Northamptonshire Heritage, particularly following a site meeting of the project’s academic advisory committee on 23rd April 1999 when a detailed review of progress was undertaken. An Updated Project Design (BUFAU 2001) benefited considerably from comment and advice provided at the second meeting of the project’s academic advisory committee, held on 23rd May 2000 after the preliminary phasing of the site had been established and preliminary assessments of the finds had been undertaken.

for settlement, a situation seen in microcosm at Grange Park, with the claylands probably remaining heavily wooded until they were largely cleared in the Iron Age and Roman periods. The Iron Age settlements at Grange Park may be seen as outliers of the concentration of settlements in the Upper Nene Valley around Hunsbury hillfort. In the Early and Middle Saxon periods the claylands appear to have been largely abandoned for agriculture, with resultant regeneration of woodland, before in the Late Saxon and medieval periods intensive arable exploitation expanded over most of the claylands from nucleated villages generally located on the permeable geologies. Again the site at Grange Park reflects this broader pattern in microcosm, with the whole of the 193 hectare site being brought into ridge-andfurrow cultivation during the medieval period, as evidenced by documentary and cartographic sources, aerial photographs and surviving earthworks.

BACKGROUND TO THE INVESTIGATIONS Archaeological investigations

Topography, geology and location Overall the development site at Grange Park covers 193 hectares (Figs. 1 and 2). Prior to development the site was used mainly for arable agriculture, but there was also a substantial quarry in the northwest of the site. The topography was undulating (major earthmoving associated with the development has now substantially altered the topography of the site) and slopes gently northwards towards Wootton Brook, a tributary of the Nene, which defines the northern boundary of the site. A north flowing tributary of the Wootton Brook bisects the site, dividing it into an eastern and western zone. Research prior to the 1999 investigations indicated that the archaeological potential of the site lay principally in the eastern zone, an area of some 108 hectares, and it was upon this zone that the archaeological investigations were almost exclusively focused.

research

prior

to

the

1999

Desk-based assessment (Fig. 3) The first stage of archaeological research preceding the development of the site comprised a desk-based assessment carried out by Nansi Rosenberg of John Samuels Archaeological Consultants (JSAC 1997). This identified a number sites, primarily from the Sites and Monuments Record, including the former Courteenhall Grange landscaped park (SMR No. 1657; Fig. 3), the possible site of a post-medieval moated site (4629), the site of a former post-medieval windmill mound (1482), a possible medieval settlement site (4710) and two cropmarked features - a possible trackway (1481) and a D-shaped enclosure of putative Iron Age / Roman date (1486). Of particular significance were four surface scatters of pottery located during fieldwalking by David Hall and colleagues in 1983. These comprised three scatters of Early to Middle Saxon pottery and one scatter of Iron Age pottery (Fig. 3).

The northern part of the site lies mainly on glacial sands and gravels, with smaller areas of alluvium towards the northeastern corner and associated with a palaeochannel that further subdivides the eastern zone. In the southern part of the site boulder clay predominates. However, this generalisation masks considerable local variation in the geology and topography of the site, which the excavations have suggested strongly influenced the exploitation of the land. For example, the various settlement foci which have been identified in the southern part of the site, where boulder clay predominates, appear to have been located on ‘islands’ of sand and gravel rising slightly higher than the surrounding land.

The pottery scatters, the cropmarks within the development area and further cropmark features beyond the development area to the east, suggested that the main focus of archaeological interest lay in the eastern zone of the development site, to the east of the brook that transects the site. Aerial photographic assessment (Fig. 4)

Taking a wider perspective, the site lies at the interface between the higher quality agricultural land and permeable geologies of Upper Nene Valley at Northampton and the boulder clay uplands of the Salcey and Whittlewood Forest areas. From the early prehistoric period onwards the sands and gravels had been favoured

An assessment of existing aerial photographic coverage of the site was undertaken by Air Photo Services (Air Photo Services 1997). No new pre-medieval features were identified but the cropmarks of the trackway and Dshaped enclosure were accurately mapped (Fig. 4). The assessment also showed that medieval ridge-and-furrow

3

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK

Fig. 1 Site location

4

SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION

Fig. 2 Topographic plan of the site

5

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK

Fig. 3 Archaeological sites and features recorded in the desk-top assessment

6

SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION

Fig. 4 Archaeological sites and features recorded in the air photo assessment (Air Photo Services)

7

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK probably covered most of the site, and was identified in earthwork form mainly in fields that were pasture in 1947 and 1949.

EC3: Enclosure Complex 3 corresponded with the southwest-northeast aligned trackway identified by aerial photography (Fig. 4), but again the geophysical survey revealed numerous additional features. These included an apparently associated subrectangular enclosure lying across the line of the trackway, and numerous linear and pit-type anomalies. A possible ring-ditch was identified to the east of the trackway. The trackway appeared to terminate at its southwestern end in a polygonal enclosure, with other linear anomalies suggesting a second, larger enclosure. The northeastern corner of the survey area corresponded approximately with one of the three scatters of Saxon pottery recorded in 1983 (see Fig. 3).

Extensive fieldwalking (Fig. 5) Extensive fieldwalking of the whole of the available area of the site (some 148 hectares) was undertaken by Birmingham University Field Archaeology Unit in 1997 (Hancocks 1997). The fieldwalking was carried out along 50m transects and 20m stints, with the survey narrowing to 20m transects where significant artefact concentrations were identified. No Iron Age or Saxon pottery was identified at this intensity of survey, and only small quantities of Roman pottery. The most important finding was an extensive scatter of flints, concentrated mainly in the eastern part of the site (Fig. 5). A total of 181 items of humanly struck flint was recovered, including 23 retouched implements, such as an arrowhead pre-form and four scrapers, 33 cores and core fragments, one core/hammerstone, and 119 flakes. The character of the assemblage suggested a Bronze Age date for the majority of the collection. This fieldwalking flint assemblage together with part of the assemblage from the excavations, which included a substantial component of probable Iron Age date, remains the most significant evidence for pre-Iron Age activity on the site.

EC4: The fourth enclosure complex did not correspond with any previously recorded features or pottery scatters. It comprised a rectangular enclosure, approximately 30m by 40m, containing several strong pit-type anomalies in its interior. Weaker linear anomalies extending from the enclosure, and on the same alignment, suggested the presence of some form of larger enclosure or possibly a field system. Given the strength of the geophysical anomalies recorded in the four areas referred to above, an important conclusion of the survey report was that “it seems unlikely that other sites have remained undetected by scanning, unless they lie within areas of alluvial cover which may have masked or weakened the responses” (GSB 1997, i).

Geophysical survey (Fig. 6) A gradiometer survey of the site was carried out by Geophysical Surveys of Bradford (GSB 1997) and produced excellent results. Scanning of the whole available area (approximately 160 hectares) was followed by eight hectares of detailed magnetometry, which identified four principal concentrations of archaeological anomalies, subsequently termed ‘enclosure complexes’ (Fig. 6).

Trial trenching (Fig. 6) Following on from the desk-based assessment, aerial photographic assessment, fieldwalking and geophysical survey, trial trenching was carried out by the Cotswold Archaeological Trust in December 1997 and January 1998 (Thomas 1998). The machine trenches, 1.9m wide and generally either 15m or 20m in length, were targeted on the four enclosure complexes revealed by geophysical survey (EC1 to EC4) and on the three scatters of Saxon pottery (SAX1 to SAX3) recorded by fieldwalking in 1983. The results of the trial trenching are summarised in the report as follows:

EC1: Enclosure Complex 1 comprised three enclosures, each about 30m square, with associated linear anomalies suggesting an accompanying field system. Other linear anomalies on a slightly different alignment suggested a different phase of occupation, and numerous pit type anomalies were also recorded. The location of this complex corresponded with the scatter of Iron Age pottery identified during fieldwalking in 1983 (see Fig. 3).

“A total of 40 trenches were excavated. Those excavated in Enclosure Complexes 1 to 4 confirmed the results of the geophysical survey. In addition, the pottery recovered from Enclosure Complexes 1 and 2 indicates that they were of at least two phases, namely Middle to Late Iron Age and early Roman. Enclosure Complexes 3 and 4 appeared to be solely of Middle to Late Iron Age date. Three of the Enclosure Complexes were aligned alongside ditched trackways and all are probably small scale agricultural settlements.

EC2: The second enclosure complex corresponded with the D-shaped enclosure recorded as a cropmark by aerial photography (see Fig. 4). However, the geophysical survey recorded numerous associated features which had not been picked up by aerial photography. These included a rectangular enclosure immediately to the north of the Dshaped enclosure, containing slight evidence of a ringditch. The two enclosures formed part of the southwestern side of a ditched trackway. To the northeast of the trackway two further possible enclosures, apparently of different date, were also identified.

Very few archaeological features were found within potential Saxon Sites 1 and 2, although it is possible that any archaeological signs of occupation lie outside of the 8

SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION

Fig. 5 Plot of flint finds recorded by extensive fieldwalking in 1997

9

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK

Fig. 6 Overall plan showing 1997 geophysical survey results, the extent of the Saxon pottery scatters and the location of the 1997/8 trial trenches

10

SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION area targeted for evaluation. However, a concentration of several undated pits and ditches were found in Saxon Site 3. Given the quantity of Saxon pottery previously recovered in this area from fieldwalking, it is reasonable to suggest that these features are also of Saxon date. In addition Early to Middle Saxon pottery was recovered from two features in Enclosure Complex 2, indicating Saxon occupation of a former Iron Age and Roman site” (Thomas 1998, 7).

rather than seeds. Cereal grains were recovered from only four samples, mainly in small quantities. Charred pulses (pea or lentil) were also recovered, again in small quantities. It was concluded that the assemblages all probably represented redeposited hearth sweepings, and that larger samples would be needed from future work to allow statistically valid analysis.

The pottery from the trial trenching was studied by Paul Blinkhorn, whose principal conclusions were as follows:

Informed by the results of the initial evaluation work summarised above, the Archaeological Recording Action Brief for the 1999 investigations was drawn up by Northampton Heritage (Kidd 1998). The initial research objectives for the project were set out in this Brief, and may be summarised as follows:

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

Iron Age The fabrics were typical of the Nene Valley. Seven scored sherds typical of the Middle Iron Age of the area were represented in the collection. The presence of Belgic pottery suggested that there may have been continuous occupation at the site from the Middle Iron Age until the Roman period. However, no sherds of La Tène curvilinear decorated wares were recovered, the presence of which would evidence occupation during the later Iron Age.

Iron Age / early Roman Chronological development Establish • Date and function of the four enclosure complexes and whether they represent contemporary or shifting settlements or growth from an original core site. • Origins and layout of the field system and trackways to identify evidence for ‘planning’ and possible origins as pit alignments. • Chronology and social significance of Iron Age / early Roman ceramics.

Roman Mainly grogged and shell-tempered coarsewares and ‘Belgic’ types, were recovered, along with a small number of sherds of various greywares, suggesting a date range of the 1st to 2nd century AD.

Economic basis • Compare and contrast use of permeable and impermeable geologies. • Establish function and inter-relationships of the enclosure complexes. Do they represent selfsufficient settlements or inter-dependent activity areas? • Identify areas of distinctive land use (eg arable / pasture).

Early to Middle Saxon All the sherds were undecorated, making it impossible to date the material more closely than to the Early to Middle Saxon period (c AD 450-850). Finds other than pottery were relatively sparse. Fortyeight fragments of daub and fired clay were recovered, mainly from Roman contexts but also from Iron Age contexts. Seven probable clay loomweight fragments were recovered from EC1, together with an iron ring, a possible hobnail and some formless iron fragments. One fragment of vessel glass, possibly Roman, was recovered from EC3 and four small slag fragments from EC2.

Social organisation •

With regards to the animal bone, EC1 produced the largest quantity of bone, with the other enclosure complexes producing only small amounts. The bone was generally highly fragmented. Cattle, sheep / goat, pig and red deer were represented. A few specimens produced evidence of butchery.

•

Investigate social status of occupants on basis of nature of buildings, form of settlements and artefactual remains, especially metalwork and imports. Investigate social basis of land ownership and utilisation by establishing functions of the enclosure complexes, the relationships between them and the layout of the field systems / trackways.

Other themes

A limited programme of environmental sampling was carried out, with ten samples, each of ten litres, being taken from features of Iron Age or possible Saxon date. Few biological remains of significance were recovered, with the charred material consisting mainly of wood

•

11

Investigate the relationships between the natural and human landscapes by reconstructing the local geology, topography and hydrology of the Iron Age / early Roman period.

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK • •

Examine the longer-distance contacts of the Iron Age / early Roman settlements by identifying imported artefacts. Interpret the Iron Age / Roman settlement pattern at Grange Park with reference to a) the wider archaeological context of the Upper Nene Valley and adjacent uplands and b) significant comparative sites (eg Crick and Wollaston).

•

Late Roman The evaluation results suggested that the enclosure complex landscape came to an end by the 3rd century. Grange Park lies within a concentration of Roman villas to the south and east of the small towns at Duston and Towcester, and a villa has been identified close to the site to the north of the Wootton Brook. It was therefore considered possible that the establishment of the villa might have provided the catalyst for a wider reorganisation of the local landscape.

new development. Also, consider whether there is any meaningful relationship between the Iron Age and Early / Middle Saxon settlement patterns. Establish if the fieldname ‘Cotton Closes’ is likely to be a survival from the Early / Middle Saxon period by reconstructing the medieval furlong patterns and names and relating this evidence to the Early / Middle Saxon settlement pattern as revealed by archaeological investigation. Date the desertion of the Early / Middle Saxon sites and relate their pattern to the medieval open field system to attempt to determine any relationships between the two.

STRATEGY Introduction

Research objectives:

On the basis of the research objectives defined, a strategy for further investigation was set out in the Brief. In the western zone of the site only an intermittent watching brief was required, but in the eastern zone the following measures were proposed:

•

•

•

Establish the dates of abandonment of the Roman settlements. Attempt to establish the pattern and character of later Roman land use by identifying later phases of the field system and trackways to see if they continue in use after the settlements are abandoned.

• • •

Early / Middle Saxon A dispersed pattern of generally small-scale settlements is typical of the Early / Middle Saxon period in Northamptonshire, and such sites are fairly common in the Hunsbury / Collingtree area. A coincidence between Iron Age and Early / Middle Saxon occupation has been noted by Jackson but its significance is uncertain.

• •

It has been suggested that field or furlong name containing the element cot, cote (and other habitative or Saxon personal names) represent the sites of Saxon settlements. In this context it was considered possible that one fieldname within the site at Grange Park, ‘Cotton Closes’ recorded in 1835 (SMR No. 4710), represented the survival of an Early / Middle Saxon place name.

• • •

Research objectives: •

•

Quantify the intensity, distribution and extent of Early / Middle Saxon artefacts within the ploughsoil and establish their relationship to any surviving cuts features and variations in soil magnetic susceptibility and phosphate levels. Investigate the pattern and character of Early / Middle Saxon land use. Compare and contrast it with the later Roman situation to attempt to determine whether the low intensity of Early / Middle Saxon activity is a continuation of later Roman practice or a

Reconstruction of medieval furlong pattern and names by documentary analysis and survey. Extensive magnetic susceptibility and phosphate surveys. Detailed gradiometer survey of the field systems and trackways. Intensive fieldwalking, metal detecting and excavation of hand-dug trial pits around Saxon pottery scatters SAX1 to 3, the Saxon features on EC2 and some sample ‘control’ areas of the glacial sand and clay geologies. Detailed metal-detecting of the enclosure complexes EC1 to 4 prior to topsoil stripping. Trial trenching and small-scale open area excavation targeted on key elements / intersections of the field system and trackways; geophysical anomalies; ‘control’ areas of intensive field survey; the postmedieval windmill and moated sites and to examine possible areas of colluviation, alluviation and palaeochannels. Open area excavation of enclosure complexes EC1, EC2, EC3 and EC4, and of Saxon pottery scatters SAX2 and SAX3. Detailed recording of local topography and geology. Stripping of road corridors under archaeological supervision with a detailed watching brief and contingency for salvage recording.

In the Project Design produced by BUFAU (1998) in response to the Brief prepared by Northamptonshire Heritage, it was proposed that a flexible approach be adopted to the strategy for the investigations. The effectiveness (including the cost effectiveness) of some of the techniques proposed, for example extensive preexcavation magnetic susceptibility and phosphate surveys, were untested at Grange Park. It was therefore 12

SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION agreed that the application of these techniques would be limited initially to substantial test areas, and that the results would then be reviewed. On the basis of such review the strategy might be altered and the balance of resources devoted to the different techniques might be shifted.

1980s fieldwalking is not available, the impression was that the 1999 intensive fieldwalking produced substantially more material (up to three or four times), and that an accurate picture of the density and extent of the Saxon pottery scatters was being obtained. The testpitting, on the other hand, involving 1m by 1m test-pits excavated at 20m intervals, produced poor results, with only very small quantities of Saxon pottery being recovered.

While the process of review was ongoing throughout the project, a major review was carried out at the first meeting of the project’s academic advisory committee. This was held about one third of the way into the fieldwork, when preliminary results were available for the following: documentary and cartographic research on the medieval landscape; substantial test areas of phosphate and magnetic susceptibility survey prior to topsoil stripping; intensive fieldwalking and test-pitting in the areas of the three Saxon pottery scatters identified in the 1980s; detailed metal detector survey prior to topsoil stripping in the areas of the three Saxon pottery scatters and the four enclosure complexes; and a watching brief on contractor’s soil stripping in areas adjacent to those designated for detailed archaeological investigation. Preliminary results were also available for the first of the open-area excavation areas, Area 1.

It should be emphasised at this point that a major objective of the investigation strategy employed at Grange Park was the elucidation of Early and Middle Saxon settlement within the site. It was assumed that the discrete Saxon pottery scatters in the ploughsoil related to underlying or adjacent settlement features (rather than being manuring spreads). However, it was recognised, particularly in the light of the trial trenching results, that such features may only survive as ephemeral, truncated features cut into the subsoil, or that they may have been removed altogether by subsequent ploughing, leaving only indirect traces in the form of pottery in the ploughsoil and, perhaps, enhanced soil magnetic susceptibility and phosphate levels. Unfortunately, the results of extensive test surveys employing magnetic susceptibility and phosphate measurement indicated that these techniques were unlikely to register the presence of former Saxon settlement areas. Given these results, much discussion at the meeting of the academic advisory committee revolved around the question of how the possibility of locating Saxon settlement evidence might be maximised. A watching brief on the contractors’ topsoil strip demonstrated that the method of working and machinery employed were not generally conducive to the detection of archaeological features, let alone ephemeral features. As a result, two possibilities emerged. Firstly, extensive topsoil stripping to archaeological standards of areas at and around the Saxon pottery scatters, with subsequent sample excavation (ie substantially increasing the extent of open-area excavation). Secondly, experimental geophysical survey, employing conventional gradiometry at increased sample density, with an aim to detecting smaller and more ephemeral features, combined with caesium vapour magnetometry, which has been claimed to have a finer resolution than conventional gradiometry.

Details of the methods employed and the results achieved for each of the investigative techniques used at Grange Park are provided in the relevant sections below. However, it is useful to summarise here some of the conclusions drawn at the review meeting of the academic advisory committee (at which most of the relevant specialists were present) and the changes in strategy consequent upon these. The extensive magnetic susceptibility and phosphate surveys were carried out over a number of test areas, totalling ten hectares, which encompassed both ‘clay’ and ‘gravel’ geologies, an Iron Age enclosure complex, Saxon pottery scatters and archaeological ‘blank’ areas. It was concluded that enhanced magnetic susceptibility readings related to Iron Age occupation foci rather than Saxon occupation, and that the magnetic susceptibility data provide only a very coarse-grained image of the much more detailed picture of Iron Age occupation provided by detailed gradiometry. The phosphate results generally mirrored the magnetic susceptibility results, but were even more coarse-grained and less informative.

In the light of these results and considerations, the following variations to the investigation strategy were agreed:

The further detailed gradiometer survey was much more successful. A further 12 hectares of survey were carried out, more than doubling the area covered by the initial evaluation survey, and it proved possible to define the probable full extent of the four Iron Age and Roman enclosure complexes together with elements of the associated field systems.

• • • •

Also successful was the intensive fieldwalking, involving total collection on a 5m by 5m grid, over the areas of the three Saxon pottery scatters first recorded in the 1980s. Although exact quantification of the material from the

• •

13

Abandon further extensive phosphate and magnetic susceptibility survey. Abandon further test-pitting. Extend intensive fieldwalking. Extend magnetometer survey and carry out experimental work. Transfer effort on phosphate survey to intrasite work. Extend massively area to be stripped under

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK archaeological control and reallocate the bulk of the resources earmarked for watching brief and salvage recording work to this.

no correlation, suggesting widespread renaming of the newly enclosed fields in the mid 17th century. The ‘Cotton Closes’ field name

The purpose of extending the intensive fieldwalking was to ensure that, insofar as practically possible, the full extent of the Saxon pottery scatters was recorded. The result of extending the areas stripped under archaeological control was to increase the total area of excavation from the seven hectares required by the Brief to a total of 16 hectares (Table 1).

Contra the information in the SMR, no 1835 map could be located in the NRO recording the name ‘Cotton Closes’. A map of this date does record three adjacent fields bearing the names ‘Cotton Ricks’, ‘Cotton Leys’ and ‘Cotton Great Ground’, and these fields do encompass Saxon pottery scatters SAX2 and SAX3. However, there is an absence of any furlong bearing the name ‘Cotton’ or any derivative of it in the 1608 terrier and no ‘Cotton’ names in any document earlier than the 1794 estate map. Therefore it was concluded that the name was likely to be modern.

Table 1 Area 1 fieldwalking and test-pitting: quantification by sherd count

Area 1 (Sax3) Iron Age Roman Saxon Medieval

Fieldwalking 15 53 34 91

Test pits 6 5 16 11

Magnetic susceptibility and phosphate surveys The Northamptonshire Heritage Brief (Kidd 1998) proposed that magnetic susceptibility and phosphate surveys should be carried out over the core area of the eastern zone (c 70 hectares). The sample interval varying from 20m for broad land use characterisation down to 5m and 10m within and immediately around settlement foci.

Pre-excavation survey results The following is a summary of the results of preexcavation survey and research. In most cases detailed reports have been prepared by the relevant specialists, these are housed in the project archive.

The subsequent BUFAU Project Design (BUFAU 1998) proposed that an initial 10 hectare sample was surveyed using these techniques, and that their effectiveness was then evaluated (phosphate sampling is particularly labour intensive and costly). This provided the flexibility to redirect effort to other investigative techniques if this seemed a better use of resources. Three areas were selected for the 10 hectare sample (Fig. 7). Area A, in the ‘gravel zone’ of the site, encompassed part of EC2 and ‘blank’ areas to its west. Areas B and C, in the ‘clay zone’ of the site, encompassed Saxon pottery scatters SAX3 and SAX2 respectively, together with adjacent ‘blank’ areas.

Documentary research and survey Documentary and cartographic research and a walkover survey (Hopkins 1999) were carried out in order to address some of the research objectives outlined above. Reconstruction of medieval open field system From a combination of walkover survey (about 30% of the headlands survived) and the aerial photographic evidence it was possible to reconstruct the system of headlands and ridge-and-furrow across the site. This showed that, with the exception of small areas of meadow along the stream valleys, virtually the whole of the 193 hectare site was brought into ridge-and-furrow cultivation during the medieval period.

Magnetic susceptibility survey Volume magnetic susceptibility survey was carried out by GSB Prospection using a field coil. Readings were taken at 20m intervals and, over approximately one third of the survey, 10m and 5m intervals. Full details are in the GSB report (GSB 1999); a summary of the results and conclusions is provided below.

Most of the site falls within the parish of Courteenhall, with a portion in the east lying within the parish of Quinton. Quinton was enclosed later than Courteenhall (1814) and there is an open field map which records the pre-enclosure furlongs. It was, therefore, possible to reconstruct the pre-enclosure open fields for this section of the site.

Area A (Fig. 8). The data showed two broad areas of increased magnetic susceptibility enhancement in the northeast and southwest of this L-shaped test area. The former is the more clearly defined and corresponds with the gradiometer results for the Iron Age enclosure complex EC2 (compare Figs. 7 and 8). The gradual increase in susceptibility in the southwest appears to correspond with the eastern limits of the Iron Age and Roman period settlement focus designated EC1. The comparative low susceptibility in between was interpreted as either representing an absence of

Unfortunately, although there is a list of 39 furlong names from Courteenhall, which can be traced to a terrier in the PRO dated to 1608, there are too few abbutal references to allow furlong names to be fixed within the open fields. Comparison of the 1608 list with the enclosed field names from the 1794 estate map revealed 14

SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION

Fig. 7 Overall plan showing magnetic susceptibility and phosphate survey test areas in relation to plot of full geophysical survey results and extent of Saxon pottery scatters

15

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK

Fig. 8 Magnetic susceptibility survey results in Test Area A

16

SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION settlement, or possibly as reflecting partial alluviation and recent farming practices.

gradiometry survey. The weak results appeared to be inconclusive and it was thought they may represent residual traces of phosphate resulting from subsequent land use.

Area B (not illustrated). This test area was situated over the Saxon pottery scatter SAX3. The results showed a slight increase in magnetic susceptibility in the northern central zone of the area. Subsequent excavation showed that this increase corresponded with an Iron Age enclosure and related features.

Area B (not illustrated). A slight grouping of weak and positive results from the northern central part of Area B (5m intervals) generally match the results obtained by the magnetic susceptibility survey (see above) and were interpreted in a similar manner.

Area C (not illustrated). This test area was situated over the Saxon pottery scatter SAX2. Enhancement at the northern edge of the survey area was interpreted as being a consequence of the proximity of the Iron Age enclosure complex EC4, which lay directly to the north, rather than the Saxon pottery scatter. Subsequent intensive fieldwalking strengthened this conclusion, the main focus of the Saxon pottery scatter lying to the south of the enhanced magnetic susceptibility readings (see Fig. 7).

Area C (not illustrated). Few positive results were obtained, but the weak results generally clustered in the northern central part of Area C (5m intervals), in the proximity of Iron Age enclosure complex EC4. Again this generally mirrored the results of the magnetic susceptibility survey. Overall, it was concluded from the qualitative analysis that the phosphate results generally mirrored the magnetic susceptibility results, but were even more coarse-grained and less informative. Furthermore, few positive results were recorded and a reliance on weak results to locate areas of past human activity was considered to be possibly misleading due to subsequent land use.

Overall, it was concluded that the absolute values of magnetic susceptibility were relatively low, making it difficult for the technique to locate sites of an ephemeral or short lived nature, and that enhanced magnetic susceptibility readings related to Iron Age occupation foci rather than Saxon occupation. The magnetic susceptibility data provided only a very coarse-grained image of the much more detailed picture of Iron Age occupation provided by detailed magnetometry. With respect to varying the sample interval, it was concluded that the 5m data invariably documented soil rather than archaeological variation. While the 10m data were less influenced by the soil cover, this density appeared to show no additional information above the 20m measurements.

In order to establish the sensitivity and reliability of the field results, 98 samples were analysed quantitatively by the Department of Archaeology, University of Durham, for total phosphorus content (Clogg and Taylor 1999). The analysis was undertaken using energy dispersive Xray fluorescence (EDXRF). Comparison and analysis of the two sets of results tentatively suggested that there was a broad correlation between the data. This, however, was not consistent and there were obvious areas in which the three categories of ‘spot test’ result overlapped. While it was still possible to distinguish higher and lower values of the total phosphorous content by means of the ‘spot test’ method, it was considered that this method may reflect intermediate values of the available phosphorous.

Phosphate survey The phosphate survey was carried out by Andy Hammon; full details are provided in his report (Hammon 1999). Samples of approximately 25g were taken from the upper horizon of the subsoil after the ploughsoil had been dug through, at intervals of 5, 10 and 20m. All the samples were then processed in the lab using a qualitative ‘spot test’ method. This technique was based on the methods outlined by Gurney (1985a) and Eidt (1973; 1977). The colour change on the filter paper was graded as follows:

Further detailed gradiometry survey The original gradiometry survey carried out by GSB Prospection in 1997 involved eight hectares of detailed gradiometry following scanning of the whole available area of the site. A further 12 hectares of detailed gradiometry was carried out in the context of the principal investigations (GSB 1999). The aim of the additional survey was to determine the full extent of the four enclosure complexes and, insofar as possible, of associated field systems.

Positive: dark blue, almost purple staining Weak: blue staining Trace: very ephemeral staining The results of the ‘spot tests’ were illustrated by survey area as scatter plots.

The further survey produced the same excellent results as the initial survey. An interpretation of the results is presented in Fig. 10 and a ‘grey-scale’ plot of the data in Fig. 11. It was concluded that the full extent of the enclosure complexes had been adequately defined, together with substantial portions of the associated field systems. It was noted that a number of the enclosure

Area A (Fig. 9). The positive results produced by the spot tests were generally located within the area of the Iron Age enclosure complex EC2 (compare Figs. 7 and 9). This is generally consistent with the findings of the magnetic susceptibility survey and the detailed 17

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK

Fig. 9 Pre-topsoil strip phosphate survey results in Test Area A

ditches were characterised by magnetically strong ditchtype anomalies (black in Fig. 10) while weaker linear anomalies (grey in Fig. 10) were associated with the field systems. Variation in the strength of the magnetic response thus probably relates not only to feature size but also to the organic debris content of ditches. The gradiometry data may therefore be used as a technique for functional analysis, eg for contrasting between settlement and non-settlement enclosures, or between ‘infield’ and ‘outfield’.

Experimental geophysical survey While the results of the extensive conventional fluxgate gradiometer survey at Grange Park (using a 1m by 0.5m sample density) were unambiguous, it was felt that some of the detail, especially for individual dwellings, was missing. This raised particular problems for the detection of unenclosed settlements, or settlements with only insubstantial enclosures, such as might be anticipated for the Saxon period. Indeed, the cluster of unenclosed Iron Age roundhouses excavated in Area 1 (at the time of the review meeting the only area to have been fully 18

SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION

Fig. 10 Interpretative plot of full gradiometer survey results (Geophysical Surveys of Bradford)

19

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK

Fig. 11 Greyscale plot of full gradiometer survey results (Geophysical Surveys of Bradford)

20

SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION

Fig. 12 Comparative results of experimental surveys with conventional fluxgate gradiometer and caesium vapour gradiometer (Geophysical Surveys of Bradford)

21

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK excavated) had been ‘missed’ by the conventional gradiometer survey. Would an increased sample density achieve significantly better results? Furthermore, claims had been made that caesium vapour gradiometers were more sensitive than fluxgate gradiometers – was this the case? With these questions in mind a small programme of experimental work was carried out at Grange Park by GSB Prospection (Buteux et al. 1999).

Geophysical data: discussion Following the completion of the excavations it has been possible to make comparisons between the three geophysical data sets and the results of excavation. From this it is clear that the correspondence between the geophysical data and the buried archaeological features is generally good, although not always uniformly so. For example, while what appeared on three gradiometer surveys to be a partial ring-ditch, RD5 in Area 10, turned out on excavation to be, indeed, an incomplete ring-ditch, similar ring-ditches in Area 1 were not detected. Presumably local factors affecting the magnetic enhancement of the soil are responsible for such variation. It is also apparent that the use of a smaller sample interval improves the definition of both larger and smaller archaeological features, although not to an extent to justify the very substantial increase in effort involved.

In addition to the potential value of this experimental work for the detection of more ephemeral features at Grange Park, the work had a wider significance. While comparison between different instruments and different sample intervals had been carried out before, only rarely had such experiments been followed by archaeological excavation, so that direct comparison could be made between the instruments and the physical reality of the buried evidence, and not just between different geophysical data sets.

With the benefit of the excavation results it can be seen that in some cases the geophysical data were ‘underinterpreted’. For example, excavation showed that outside the eastern side of enclosure EN22 in Area 10, there are rows and clusters of pits. The majority of these pits can, through comparison with the excavation plan, be identified on the greyscale plot of the gradiometer data (GSB 1997, fig 3.A2). However, comparatively few of these pits were identified as potential archaeological features in the accompanying interpretative plan (GSB 1997, Fig 3A.3) while other anomalies were interpreted as being of a potentially archaeological nature but were not subsequently identified by excavation. This pattern is repeated elsewhere on the site. Given the extensive nature of both the geophysical survey and the area excavations at Grange Park, detailed comparison of the geophysical data with the excavation results may be rewarding in terms of refining the definition of what constitutes the ‘signature’ of various types of archaeological features and how these ‘signatures’ can be distinguished from those of non-archaeological anomalies.

Four test areas were re-surveyed (Fig. 12). These comprised a 20m by 20m archaeologically ‘blank’ area; two enclosures with potential internal features, enclosure EN14 in Area 6 (enclosure complex EC2) and enclosure EN20 in Area 9 (enclosure complex EC3); and an apparently partial unenclosed ring-ditch, RD5, in Area 10. The purpose of surveying a ‘blank’ area was to analyse soil noise in an effort to understand true levels of identifiable anomalies. The areas were surveyed using a Geoscan FM 36 fluxgate gradiometer, with data collected on a 0.5 by 0.125m grid, and using a Scintrex Smartmag SM-4G caesium vapour gradiometer on the same nominal sample intensity. The results were analysed to highlight (1) the differences between the two fluxgate gradiometer surveys and (2) the interpretable differences between the fluxgate and caesium vapour data. Detailed analysis of the geophysical data has not been carried out, but preliminary comparison suggested that the data sets produced by the fluxgate gradiometer and the caesium vapour gradiometer were highly compatible (Fig. 12). Furthermore, few major differences were noted between the two re-surveys and the results of the original fluxgate survey, carried out on a 1m by 0.5m grid, although unsurprisingly anomaly resolution was somewhat clearer and sharper for the surveys carried using the smaller sample interval. On the basis of these results it was decided that extensive survey with a high sample density, using either a fluxgate gradiometer or a caesium vapour instrument, would not solve the problem of locating more ephemeral archaeological features at Grange Park, especially in view of the greatly increased costs of such survey in comparison to the conventional approach; resources were better devoted to extensive topsoil stripping and sample excavation.

INTENSIVE FIELDWALKING PITTING (FIGS. 13 TO 17)

AND

TEST-

Method Intensive fieldwalking, involving total collection on a 5m by 5m grid, was carried out over the areas of the three Saxon pottery scatters (Area 1, SAX3; Area 2, SAX2; Area 3, SAX1) and over enclosure complex EC2 (Area 6), where features containing Saxon pottery were recorded during the trial trenching, together with two ‘control’ areas – one on the ‘gravel’ (Area 7) and one on the ‘clay’ (Area 4) geologies (Fig. 13). The areas were all ploughed especially for the purpose and left to weather before the fieldwalking was undertaken.

22

SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION

Fig. 13 Overall plan showing intensive fieldwalking areas and extent of Saxon pottery scatters in relation to plot of full gradiometer survey results

23

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK The Brief specified that a total of six hectares of intensive fieldwalking should be undertaken. In the case of two areas, Area 2 and Area 3, it was felt following preliminary plotting of the results and discussion at the review meeting of the academic advisory committee that the areas fieldwalked may have been insufficiently large to fully define the extent of the Saxon pottery scatters. These areas were therefore extended, and a total of 9.3 hectares was ultimately fieldwalked.

pottery corresponding with the location of EC1 was recorded during fieldwalking in the 1980s (Fig. 3). Area 1 covered an area of 1.3 hectares. A somewhat amorphous scatter of 34 sherds of Saxon pottery was revealed (Fig. 14). A scatter of 53 sherds of Roman pottery was also recorded, together with 15 sherds of Iron Age pottery. In addition 91 sherds of medieval pottery were recovered. Much smaller quantities of pottery were recovered from the test-pitting, although in rather different proportions, with Iron Age and Saxon pottery relatively over-represented and Roman and medieval pottery under-represented. However, the quantities are probably too small to have statistical significance.

The Brief also specified that hand-dug and screened testpits should be excavated across the intensive fieldwalking areas, on a suggested 20m by 20m grid reducing to 5m by 5m in areas of more intense activity. Test-pits, 1m by 1m in area and excavated to the base of the plough soil, were dug at 20m intervals across Areas 1 and 2. The heavy clay soils and wet conditions made sieving virtually impossible, and the soil from each pit took at least oneperson day to process. The results did not justify the effort, with only very small quantities of Saxon pottery being recovered. Test-pitting was therefore not carried out on the other fieldwalking areas.

Area 2 This area corresponded with the Sax2 pottery scatter recorded in the 1980s. Subsequent excavation revealed the smallest of the Iron Age enclosure complexes, EC4, along the northern edge of the fieldwalking area, while two isolated Saxon-period pits were identified towards the centre and the southern edge of the area, and 36 sherds of Saxon pottery were recovered during the excavation of this area.

Results The results of the fieldwalking and test-pitting are summarised below, with the finds quantified by area and period. In addition to pottery of the Iron Age, Roman, Saxon and medieval periods, all the areas fieldwalked also produced dense scatters of flint but few diagnostic artefacts; the flint has not been quantified. Consideration of the Saxon pottery from the fieldwalking and testpitting is included in the full report on the Saxon pottery, in Chapter 3 below.

Table 3 Area 3 fieldwalking: quantification by sherd count

Area 3 (Sax1) Iron Age Roman Saxon Medieval

Area 1

An area of 2.8 hectares was walked, producing a scatter of 147 sherds of Saxon pottery (Fig. 15 and Table 3), apparently corresponding well with the 1980s results. Within the scatter two clusters can be recognised, towards the centre and the south of the area (the presence of woodland immediately to the south of the area prevented the fieldwalking being extended further in this direction). Much smaller quantities of Iron Age and Roman pottery were also collected from the south of the area, together with 32 sherds of medieval pottery. The results of the test-pitting broadly mirrored that of the fieldwalking, although the absolute levels of recovery were much lower.

Table 2 Area 2 fieldwalking and test-pitting: quantification by sherd count

Area 2 (Sax2) Iron Age Roman Saxon Medieval

Fieldwalking 5 10 147 32

Fieldwalking 24 106 77

Test pits 32 24

This area corresponded with the Sax3 pottery scatter first recorded in 1983. The ploughsoil overlay what subsequent excavation showed to be a group of Iron Age roundhouses; no Saxon pottery was recovered from excavation in this area (Table 2). Immediately to the north of the fieldwalking area is a spinney which is to be retained in the development and was not subject to any form of archaeological investigation, although ridge-andfurrow earthworks are well preserved within it. Immediately to the north of the spinney was enclosure complex EC1 (Area 5), a major settlement focus of the Belgic and Roman periods which clearly extended southwards into the spinney. A scatter of Iron Age

Area 3 This area corresponds with a scatter of Saxon pottery, Sax1, first recorded in the 1980s. Subsequent excavation showed that it overlay the northern end of the trackway associated with Iron Age enclosure complex EC3 and contained a sunken floored building (SFB), the only Saxon structure identified at Grange Park. The excavation of the SFB produced the largest single assemblage of Saxon pottery from the site.

24

SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION

Fig. 14 Distribution plot of Saxon pottery recovered during intensive fieldwalking of Area 1

Fig. 15 Distribution plot of Saxon pottery recovered during intensive fieldwalking of Area 2

25

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK An area of 1.6 hectares was walked, producing a scatter of 106 sherds of Saxon pottery, apparently corresponding well with the scatter recorded in the 1980s (Fig. 16 and Table 4). In addition there were 24 sherds of Iron Age pottery and a clay loomweight fragment, and 77 medieval sherds. Roman pottery was absent.

archaeology, which produced 3,469 sherds of Iron Age and Belgic pottery. The distribution of the Iron Age pottery from the fieldwalking also reflects fairly faithfully the distribution of the underlying archaeological features, with the majority of the pottery clustering over the principal settlement enclosures in the northwest of the area, and a virtually blank area in the southwest where no features were uncovered during the subsequent area excavation.

Table 4 Area 6 fieldwalking: quantification by sherd count

Area 6 (EC2) Iron Age Belgic Roman Saxon Medieval

Fieldwalking 168 15 154 60 87

A contrasting pattern occurs with the Roman pottery. Although nearly as many sherds of Roman pottery (154) as of Iron Age pottery (168) were recovered during the fieldwalking, spread relatively evenly across the area, the assemblage from the few Roman-period features uncovered during the excavation was very small, only 139 sherds. Clearly the two fieldwalking assemblages, Iron Age and Roman, had been generated by differing processes.

It is noteworthy that the Iron Age pottery scatter lies almost entirely to the southeast of the trackway; this corresponds with the excavation results, where the enclosures and other Iron Age features were found to be restricted to this side of the trackway.

The modest assemblage of Saxon pottery, 60 sherds, is concentrated in the northwest of the fieldwalking area (Fig. 17), broadly correlating with the focus of Saxonperiod activity suggested by the few features uncovered during excavation. A general spread of medieval pottery was also recovered during the fieldwalking.

Area 4 This was the ‘control’ fieldwalking area, 1 hectare in size, located in an archaeologically ‘blank’ location on the ‘clay’ geology. It produced only a random scatter of ten medieval sherds.

Area 7 This was the second of the two ‘control’ areas, in this case on the ‘gravel’ geology. While the area was chosen because it was believed to be, on the basis of the geophysics, archaeologically ‘blank’, it lay just to the east of enclosure complex EC1 (Area 5), a focus of Belgic and Roman occupation. Although the area measured 0.8 hectares overall, it was only partially fieldwalked, with 27 regularly spaced 10 by 10m test squares across the area being intensively walked in the usual manner. Thus, only 34%, or approximately one third, of the total area was actually fieldwalked.

Area 6 This area was located over enclosure complex EC2. It was selected for intensive fieldwalking because during the trial trenching phase of the evaluation features containing Saxon pottery were identified here. Subsequent area excavation showed the complex to be primarily of Late Iron Age and Belgic date, although continuity of use into the Roman period is indicated by the redefinition of a trackway and the digging of some pits. Saxon activity is represented by a handful of pits of various shapes and sizes dug within the earlier enclosures; a total of 45 sherds of Saxon pottery was recovered during excavation.

The fieldwalking produced three sherds of Iron Age pottery, 15 sherds of Roman pottery and two sherds of medieval pottery. There was no apparent pattern to the distribution of the pottery, which was fairly evenly scattered across the area. To obtain a picture of the likely true density of pottery scattered across the area, it would therefore seem reasonable to multiply the quantities of

An area of 1.7 hectares was fieldwalked. Iron Age and Belgic pottery predominated in the fieldwalking assemblage (Table 5: 183 sherds), as would be anticipated from the nature of the underlying

Table 5 Comparison of quantities of Saxon pottery from fieldwalking and excavation

Area Area 2 Area 3/10 Area 6 Total Area 1

Sherd count Fieldwalking 147 113 60 320 34

Ave sherd weight Fieldwalking (g) 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 2

26

Sherd count Excavation 36 77 45 158 -

Ave sherd weight Excavation (g) 15.5 19.9 20.97 18.79 -

SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION

Fig. 16 Distribution plot of Saxon pottery recovered during intensive fieldwalking of Area 3

Fig. 17 Distribution plot of Saxon pottery recovered during intensive fieldwalking of Area 6

27

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK pottery by a factor of three. This would suggest a relatively dense scatter of Roman pottery across the area, a handful of Iron Age sherds and the typical ‘background noise’ of medieval pottery found all across the site.

once contained a much smaller number of sherds but which have been very heavily disturbed and truncated by the plough or even completely destroyed. The only reasonably reliable way to distinguish between these two scenarios, which are of course the extremes of a continuum, is to fully excavate the fieldwalked areas, as at Grange Park.

Discussion The fact that all the four main areas intensively fieldwalked were subsequently subjected to large-scale area excavation affords a rare opportunity to undertake a quantitative comparison of the material in the ploughsoil with the material recovered from the underlying archaeological features. Such a comparison also benefits from the fact that, with regard to the pottery, four main periods are represented: Iron Age, Roman, Early to Middle Saxon and medieval. For each of these broad periods both the character of the archaeological remains and the means by which the pottery is introduced into the ploughsoil may differ. It is assumed that there are two main means by which pottery becomes incorporated into the ploughsoil: the disturbance of underlying features containing pottery, and as an accidental component in midden or manure material spread on the fields as a fertiliser. In both cases the quantity of pottery in the ploughsoil, sherd size and degree of abrasion will also depend on the durability and hardness of the pottery involved, and to a degree vessel size and type. With regard to the character of pottery scatters in the plough soil, based on some simple, largely common sense, theoretical principles a number of distinct ‘signatures’ may be suggested:

• Finally, all other things being equal, pottery recently brought to the surface by the plough will have a relatively high average sherd weight or size and will be relatively unabraded, while material that has been reworked in the ploughsoil over many years, and has been subjected to weathering, will have a relatively low average sherd weight or size and will be highly abraded. Pottery of medieval or earlier date introduced into the ploughsoil in the context of manuring will generally have a low average sherd weight or size and will be highly abraded. Taking these simple theoretical considerations into account, the results of the intensive fieldwalking undertaken at Grange Park may be analysed in the light of the excavation results. The interpretation is not presented in chronological order but in the order that best brings out the diverse character of the assemblages. Medieval Taking the medieval pottery first, which dates mainly from the late 13th to 14th century and much of which can be sourced to Pottersbury, this was found in all the fieldwalking areas, including the two ‘archaeologicallyblank’ control areas on contrasting geologies. No significant clustering was noted, the average sherd weight was small and the sherds generally abraded, and no archaeological remains of this period were uncovered during the excavations. This is the classic signature of a manuring scatter and it can be assumed that the medieval pottery is distributed across virtually the whole of the landscape at Grange Park, which documentary, cartographic and aerial photographic research has shown was under ridge-and-furrow cultivation during the medieval period, with no historic settlement foci within the site. There is some variation in the density of the medieval pottery recovered, however, with a relatively high density recorded in Areas 1, 3 and 6 in the more northerly part of the site, and a relatively low density in Areas 4 and 2 towards the south of the site. If such variation is significant, it may relate variation in the nature and intensity of agricultural production, either in the medieval period or subsequently, in turn perhaps linked to variation in local topography, geology and soil type.

• In areas of relatively slight topographic variation such as Grange Park, where the movement of material through such processes as the accumulation of hillwash will not be great, the distribution of material in the ploughsoil brought up by the plough will fairly faithfully reflect the distribution of the underlying archaeological features which were the source of the material. Distributions of material across the landscape will be uneven and distinct clustering will occur. • Conversely, material deriving from the manuring process will be relatively evenly distributed across the landscape and will bear little or no relationship to underlying archaeological features. • Where material derives from the disturbance of underlying archaeological remains by the plough, the quantity of material in the ploughsoil will be reflected by two principal factors: (1) the absolute quantity of material once present in the archaeological features and (2) the degree to which the features have been disturbed or truncated by the plough. Thus the same quantity of pottery in the ploughsoil, say 100 sherds distributed over a hectare, could derive from two very contrasting scenarios. First, the sherds could derive from buried features containing many thousands of sherds but which have only been relatively slightly disturbed by the plough or, second, the sherds could derive from features which

Iron Age The intensive fieldwalking results for the Iron Age pottery present a completely contrasting ‘signature’. Here there is generally a very good correlation between the distribution and density of Iron Age pottery in the 28

SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION ploughsoil and the distribution and density of buried archaeological features of the period. This is particularly apparent in Areas 3 / 10 and 6. In control Area 4, distant from any of the Iron Age settlements, no Iron Age pottery was recovered, while in Area 7, immediately adjacent to the Iron Age / Roman enclosure complex EC1 (Area 5), only a handful of sherds were recovered from the fieldwalking. While EC1 itself (Area 5) was not subjected to intensive fieldwalking during the 1999 investigations, a sketch plot of the boundaries of the pottery scatter located during the 1980s (Fig. 3) suggests a very close correlation between the extent of the scatter and the extent of the underlying settlement subsequently revealed by excavation.

the expanded open area excavation, Area 10), which all produced Saxon-period features upon excavation, are tabulated below (Table 6). The Saxon pottery from the fieldwalking in Area 1, which produced no Saxon features upon excavation, is also included in the table for comparative purposes, although the quantities are not included in the totals. It does not matter that there is not an exact correlation between the areas fieldwalked and the areas excavated (adjustment for this would have very little effect) and that there is a degree of variation between the areas (which is to be expected); the contrast between the Iron Age and Saxon ratios is very clear cut. Taking into account the fact that the Saxon features identified were totally excavated and that the sample of Iron Age features excavated was very roughly 5% or less, the ratio of pottery in the ploughsoil to pottery ‘in the ground’ is something like 1:400 for the Iron Age and 2:1 for the Saxon period. In terms of the theoretical considerations outlined above, the quantities of Saxon pottery in the ploughsoil, while not so very different from the quantities of Iron Age pottery, represent the result of very different processes. In the Iron Age case we are witnessing relatively slight truncation or destruction of deposits containing a relatively massive amount of pottery, while in the Saxon case we are witnessing relatively massive truncation or destruction of deposits which originally contained, perhaps, a relatively slight quantity of pottery. We can thus see the Saxon pottery scatters in Areas 2, 3 / 10 and 6 as representing true settlement sites, perhaps no more than short-lived homesteads, where the nature and depth of the features was not conducive to their survival through centuries of medieval and later ploughing. Of course, vestigial traces of settlement features, including pits and, in Area 3 / 10, a sunken floored building did survive. Detailed consideration of microtopographic conditions, including the disposition of ridge-and-furrow, may shed further light on the factors leading to feature survival (see Chapter 6 below).

Also of interest with regard to the Iron Age pottery, is comparison of the quantities of material recovered during fieldwalking and the quantities of material subsequently recovered during the excavation of archaeological features. Analysis of this aspect is perhaps best carried out for Area 6, where the correlation between the area intensively fieldwalked and the area subsequently stripped and excavated is closest. Here 183 Iron Age sherds (including Belgic) were recovered during the fieldwalking. The subsequent excavation, by contrast, produced 3,469 Iron Age sherds and, of course, only a small fraction of the features were excavated so the actual number of sherds must be several orders of magnitude greater than this; total excavation might have produced in excess of 70,000 sherds. In terms of the theoretical considerations outlined above, we are here witnessing a situation where the quantity of material in the ploughsoil represents the relatively slight disturbance of a very large quantity of material in buried archaeological features. Were the amount of material in these features significantly less, say 500 sherds, intensive fieldwalking might have produced only one or two sherds. Saxon These results for the Iron Age pottery contrast strikingly with the results for the Early to Middle Saxon pottery. Here the ratios of the quantities of pottery from the fieldwalking and the quantities from subsequent excavation are very different. The raw results for Area 2, Area 3 / 10 and Area 6 (Area 3, which was a fieldwalking area, was subsequently almost entirely encompassed by

Consideration of sherd weights provides further insights. It is noted in the report on the Saxon pottery (Chapter 3, below) that the clustering apparent in the distribution of the Saxon pottery from Areas 2, 3 and 6 was particularly distinct when the distribution was plotted using sherd weight, and that such clusters of larger sherds presumably

Table 6 Size of excavated areas

Area 1 2 5 6 9 10 Totals

Area excavation (ha) 0.863 1.696 2.05 1.11 0.466 0.402 6.587

Strip and record (ha) 4.01 1.473 1.99 2.01 9.483

29

Total stripped (ha) 0.863 5.706 3.523 3.100 0.466 2.412 16.070

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK

Fig. 18 Areas of pre-topsoil strip metal detector survey

30

SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION reflect the presence, or former presence, of Saxon features beneath. The smaller sherds, which have been more reworked by the plough, would less faithfully reflect feature locations. Further analysis along these lines would involve detailed analysis of the correspondence between pottery clusters and feature distributions, which has not been undertaken at present. However, one observation which may be made at this stage concerns the contrast between the average sherd weight of the Saxon sherds from Area 1 (pottery scatter SAX3), where no Saxon period features were subsequently identified by excavation, and that from Areas 2, 3 / 10 and 6, where they were. The average sherd weight from Area 1 is half that of the other areas, where the average sherd weight is remarkably consistent (Table 5). The simplest explanation for this is that the destruction of Saxon deposits occurred earlier and more thoroughly in Area 1 than in the other areas, with the reworking of the Saxon sherds in the ploughsoil resulting in two characteristic signatures: an amorphous distribution of the pottery without significant clustering, and small sherd sizes. A consequence was that all Saxon features in this area were destroyed. If these patterns can be extrapolated to other Northamptonshire pottery scatters in similar topographic circumstances, it may be possible to use the patterns of clustering and sherd size to predict both the likely survival and location of Saxon features, and how recently destruction has been taking place.

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY Prior to topsoil stripping, a metal detector survey was undertaken of the areas to be subjected to area excavation (Fig. 18). The survey was undertaken by the Midland Archaeological Research Society (MARS) under the supervision of Mr Bob Kings. The instruments used were a Whites Spectrum XLT (X3) and Garrett GTI 2000. The instruments were set to ignore small nails only, and on maximum sensitivity for the ground conditions. The areas were surveyed using the MARS method, which involves surveying with reference to a grid of 50m by 50m squares, with finds plotted and bagged to within a metre. Surveying was undertaken along 2.5m transects. In total an area of ten hectares was surveyed, in fields which were partly rough ploughed and partly stubble. In general, all the areas were found to be ‘very quiet’. Nothing of significance was found at SAX3 (Area 1), EC2 (Area 6) and EC4 / SAX2 (Area 2). Silver Roman coins dating from the 3rd to 4th century were found at EC1 (Area 5) and EC3 (Area 10), together with a copper alloy object and copper alloy strip at EC3. A second metal detector survey was undertaken following completion of the area excavations. This was carried out by Archie Gillespie. The programme of post-excavation prospection provided a more substantial range of metalwork, much of which was of Late Iron Age or Roman date. Site co-ordinates of the finds were recorded and their distributions subsequently superimposed onto excavation plans. Consideration of these distributions provided important information relating to the dating and function of the various structures and complexes excavated, and discussion of these results can be found in Chapter 6 below.

Roman The Roman pottery potentially presents a different pattern again. Only one area, Area 6, which contained Roman period features was intensively fieldwalked prior to excavation. Here the pattern is much more similar to the Saxon pattern than to that for the Iron Age, with 154 sherds being recovered during the fieldwalking and 139 during excavation, a ratio of approximately 1:1. In this area the evidence for activity during the Roman period is relatively slight. In Area 1, where no Roman period remains were uncovered during excavation, a scatter of 53 sherds was recovered during fieldwalking. Again this is similar to the Saxon pattern and might be interpreted in a similar way. While fieldwalking in Area 7, on the eastern fringe of the Roman settlement in Area 5, produced only 15 sherds of Roman pottery, because only a sample of one third of this area was intensively walked, a figure of 45 sherds may be extrapolated. While it is possible to interpret the Roman period pottery scatters in a similar manner to the Saxon period scatters, ie that they derive from very heavily truncated or destroyed features underlying the scatters, the substantial character of the Roman period features in Area 5 makes this interpretation unlikely. The scatters in close proximity to the Roman settlement focus are perhaps better interpreted as the consequence of an ‘infield’ pattern of manuring, contrasting with the extensive manuring practised in the medieval period. 31

CHAPTER 2

The Excavations Laurence Jones EXCAVATION METHODOLOGY

levels with possible increased levels of intensive sample excavation being decided upon in the field. Where possible, 5% of linear ditches was excavated, concentrating on intersections, terminals and evenly spaced segments. Samples of 25% of ring or curvilinear ditches / gullies were excavated, focusing on terminals, a section opposite the entrance and sections at the midpoint of each side. Selection of sections for excavation was also influenced by the presence of intersections with other features. At least 50% of pits and postholes was sampled, normally by half sectioning, and such features were fully excavated if they were considered to be of special importance. All burials were fully excavated, a Home Office licence for removal of the human remains being obtained in advance. In the strip-and-record zones sample excavation was normally limited to salvage excavation of sufficient sections to characterise and date the features.

Size of areas excavated The seven hectares of area excavation required by the Brief was greatly expanded by stripping much larger ‘strip-and-record’ areas around most of the areas originally designated for area excavation to give a total combined area of excavation of 16.1 hectares (see above, Chapter 1). The areas of excavation and areas of stripand-record are shown in Fig. 19. In the eastern part of the site watching briefs were maintained where stripping of topsoil for roads and related works was carried out. In the western part of the site intermittent watching briefs were undertaken during the main phases of stripping. However, in practice, the contractors’ working practices made watching briefs difficult; hence the decision to use a stripand-record strategy.

Recording was by means of pro-forma record cards for contexts and features, supplemented by plans (scales 1:20 and 1:50) and sections (scales 1:10 and 1:20), and monochrome print and colour slide photography. Appropriate samples were taken for lipid analysis, luminescence and radiocarbon dating, although resources did not allow analysis or determinations to be undertaken within this project. Samples, normally of 20 litres, were taken for charred plant remains, and wet sieving was carried out on site. Bulk samples for animal bone were also taken. Samples for other types of environmental data (pollen and insects) were taken by the appropriate specialist.

Procedure for machine stripping of topsoil Each of the six areas selected for area excavation and strip-and-record was stripped of topsoil by machine to reveal the uppermost levels of archaeological features or the natural subsoil. This was undertaken using 13-tonne and 22-tonne 360-degree tracked excavators fitted with 2m toothless ditching buckets and operating under strict archaeological supervision. This produced a similar clean surface in both the area excavation and the strip-andrecord zones. Spoil was removed by two 22.5-tonne dump trucks or, where topsoil was soft, two 10-tonne Hydrema dump trucks fitted with floatation tyres for very low ground pressure. In some areas, notably in Areas 1 and 5, stripping was interrupted for safety reasons where electricity pylons and other obstructions were present.

EXCAVATION RESULTS Geomorphology and deposition

Preliminary survey of features

The natural subsoil consisted of yellow-brown sandy clay and yellow-brown silty sand and gravel. In the northern part of the site this was sealed by alluvium filling a narrow palaeochannel. Archaeological features, consisting mainly of ditches, gullies, pits and postholes, cut the subsoil. The excavation investigated four complexes of ditched enclosures and a cluster of penannular ring-ditches. In all the excavated areas plough furrows truncated these features. The shape, fills and spacing of these furrows suggested that they were medieval or post-medieval in date, relating to ridge-andfurrow open field cultivation. Post-medieval and modern land drains, and modern field boundary ditches were also present. The ploughsoil comprised dark brown silty sandy clay, 0.25 to 0.35m deep.

Following topsoil stripping a site plan of all visible features in both area excavation and strip-and-record zones was produced using a Nikon C-100 Total Station and a data logger using FM 700 survey software with data exported to ‘Penmap’ and CAD softwares on a laptop computer. This procedure allowed the rapid production of plans (including phase and interpretative plans) at a variety of scales, and enabled rapid ‘feedback’ from preliminary analyses (eg spot-dating of finds) into the fieldwork strategy. Sampling and recording strategies The Brief provided guidelines for the level of sample excavation in the area excavation zones at non-intensive

32

THE EXCAVATIONS

Fig. 19 Overall plan showing excavation areas and features revealed by excavation

33

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK

Fig. 20 Overall plan showing Phase 1 (Early / early Middle Iron Age) features

34

THE EXCAVATIONS Phasing and terminology

deep with a similar profile. A curvilinear gully (CG4) and ditch (CD2), cut ditch CD3. Gully CG4 was 0.38m wide and 0.25m deep with steep sides and a flat base. Ditch CD2 was 0.64m wide and 0.38m deep with a V-shaped profile. Ditch CD1, an internal curvilinear ditch within a penannular gully (RG2), cut CD2 to the south.

The distribution of all excavated features is in shown in Fig. 19. The features were divided into six phases on the basis of the pottery and the observed stratigraphic relationships. Sub-phases have been allotted where there is a clear stratigraphic sequence within phases. The subphases relate to individual areas and cannot be extrapolated across the site as a whole. It should also be noted that, for ease of discussion, ceramic phases are also used within the volume (see below, Chapter 3).

Phase 1.2 Sub-circular penannular ring gully RG2 (Fig. 23) was 14m in diameter and was badly truncated in places. The gully (Fig. 24, F49) was 0.26-0.38m wide and 0.080.30m deep. Two pairs of postpits (F59 / F65 and F60 / F66) were located just inside the probable entrance. The south terminal of RG2 cut an earlier pit (F44). Within RG2 was another pit (F109), which had been cut by a narrow internal curvilinear ditch (CD1). Ditch CD1 was 6.5m long, 0.72m deep and 0.19m deep.

Phase 1 Early / early Middle Iron Age (400-200 BC) Phase 2 Late Middle / Late Iron Age (200-1 BC) Phase 3 Transitional (Belgic) Late Iron Age / early Roman (AD 1-100) Phase 4 Roman (AD 50-450) Phase 5 Early to Middle Saxon (AD 450-850) Phase 6 All later features

Northeast of RG2 was a subcircular penannular ring-ditch (RD1, Fig. 25). The ring-ditch was 13m by 15m externally, with a slightly in-turned north entrance terminal. The ditch (Fig. 24, F12) was 0.43 to 0.70m wide and 0.23 to 0.34m deep, with steep sides and a rounded base. RD1 contained two pairs of postpits (F23 / F25 and F87 / F31) and a small posthole (F30). South of RD1 was another subcircular penannular ring-ditch (RD2, Fig. 26), that contained a narrow concentric gully (RG1). The outer ditch (F5, Fig. 24,) was 15m by 16m, 0.43 to 1.10m wide and 0.32 to 0.43m deep, with steep sides and a narrow rounded base. The internal gully RG1 (F6, Fig. 24) varied from 0.39 to 0.50m wide and 0.13 to 0.38m deep, with steep sides and a narrow, rounded base. Within RG1 were three postholes (F10, F14 and F13) forming a linear alignment.

At the post-excavation stage, most features and structures were assigned to the following categories: CD CG EN FP LD LG PC RD RG

curvilinear ditch (> 0.5m in width) curvilinear gully (< 0.5m in width) enclosure four-poster linear ditch (> 0.5m in width) linear gully (< 0.5m in width) pit cluster ring-ditch (> 0.5m in width) ring gully (< 0.5m in width)

These categories are used throughout the text and illustrations using the abbreviations given above. Feature numbers, prefixed with the letter ‘F’, and context numbers are given where appropriate (both within the text and on illustrations). Features excavated during evaluation are prefixed with the letter ‘E’. Whilst the majority of structures and features mentioned in the text also appear on relevant illustrations, occasionally this has not been deemed necessary.

The south part of a subrectangular ditched enclosure (EN1, Fig. 27) was located at the northern edge of the area and extended north beyond Area 1. There was evidence of an earlier enclosure gully on the east side, at least 0.20m deep, largely removed by a later recut. The recut enclosure was 21m wide. The enclosure ditch (F40, Fig. 28) varied from 0.50 to 1.52m in width and from 0.40 to 0.75m in depth, being slighter along the western arm of the enclosure, and had steep sides and a narrow, rounded base. Three episodes of silting appeared to be represented in the fills of the ditch. A group of small postholes was located within EN1, two of which were cut by later postholes F58 and F62.

PHASE 1 EARLY / EARLY MIDDLE IRON AGE (400 TO 200 BC) (FIG. 20) Area 1 (Fig. 21, also Figs. 23 to 29) The main Phase 1 structures in Area 1 consisted of four ring-ditches or ring gullies, all with east facing entrances, two enclosures and four four-post structures.

To the southeast of EN1 was a subcircular enclosure (EN2, Fig. 26), which cut an earlier northwest-southeast aligned linear gully (LD22, Fig. 26). The enclosure was 18m by 20m, with a northeast facing entrance. The ditch (Fig. 28, F95) was 1.09 to 1.71m wide and 0.58 to 0.83m deep, with a V-shaped profile and evidence of up to three stages of silting within its fills. A single pit (F99) was the only internal feature. A later pit (F20) cut the south terminal of the enclosure ditch.

Phase 1.1 A series of curvilinear gullies and ditches (Fig. 23) appear to pre-date one of the penannular gullies. The earliest of these ditches (CD16) was 1.20m wide and 0.66m deep, with a V-shaped profile. This was cut by another curvilinear ditch (CD3), 0.70m wide and 0.42m

37

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK

Fig. 23 Area 1 RG2, CD1 to CD3, CG4 and CD16

38

THE EXCAVATIONS

Fig. 24 Ring gullies RG1-3, ring-ditches RD1 to RD4 and four-post structure FP3 sections

39

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK

Fig. 25 Area 1 RD1, PC1 and FP1 and FP2

40

THE EXCAVATIONS

Fig. 26 Area 1 enclosure EN2 and RG1, RD2, FP3 and FP4

41

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK

Fig. 27 Area 1 enclosure EN1 and PC2

42

THE EXCAVATIONS

Fig. 28 Enclosure ditch sections, EN1 to EN7

43

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK

Fig. 29 Pit sections

44

THE EXCAVATIONS

Plate 1 Iron Age four-post structure FP4, Area 1, from east

To the east of RD1 and RD2 were four groups of postholes or postpits (FP1 to FP4, Fig. 24; FP3, Figs. 25 and 26) which were interpreted as four-post structures (Plate 1). A cluster of three pits (PC1, Fig. 25) could be part of a similar type of structure. A linear alignment of three small pits or postholes (PC2, Fig. 27 and F85, Fig. 29) south of EN1 may represent a fence line. Two large pits (F39 and F86, Figs. 23 and 29) were situated to the east of RG2.

To the south of EN25 was a subcircular ditched enclosure (EN19, Fig. 30) with an east facing entrance. The northwest side of the enclosure was badly truncated. The enclosure ditch (F612, Fig. 31) was 1.05 to 1.10m wide and 0.29 to 0.60m deep, with steep sides and a narrow, rounded base. Within the enclosure were three small pits or postholes, a large subcircular pit and traces of two short shallow ditches, one of which was cut by the enclosure ditch. South of EN25 was a northwestsoutheast aligned linear ditch (LD37), 29m long by 0.96m wide and 0.20m deep, with steep sides and a rounded base.

Area 2 (Fig. 22 and Figs. 29 to 31) The main structures here comprised part of a large ditched enclosure with a smaller rectangular enclosure in its southeast corner, both containing pits. Traces of another enclosure were recorded to the south.

Beyond the enclosure complex were two outlying pits. One of these pits (F658) was unusually large and was located 55m west of EN19. It was ovoid in shape and had steep sides and a flat base, 6.0m long by 3.30m wide and at least 0.54m deep. A later, deeper pit, 2.24m wide and 1.27m deep, cut it. The other outlying pit (F581) was situated southwest of EN19.

Phase 1.1 Three sides of a ditched enclosure (EN25, Fig. 30), 65m wide, were recorded; any possible north side lay outside the area investigated. The ditch (F619, Fig. 31) had a Vshaped profile and varied from 1.09 to 2.92m wide and 0.38 to 0.90m deep. It was deeper on the east side, where it contained four distinct silty clay fills. Two ditches forming short spurs joined ditch EN25. The most northerly of these (CD32) was 1.82m wide and 0.74m deep, with steep sides and a flat base, and subdivided the enclosure. EN25 contained four large subcircular pits, an oval pit, three postholes (one of which cut the oval pit F590) and two short shallow gullies.

Phase 1.2 A later subrectangular ditched enclosure (EN18, Fig. 30) was superimposed on the southeastern corner of EN25, its southern and eastern sides formed by recutting ditches of the earlier enclosure. The enclosure was 32m by 39m with a north facing entrance. The enclosure ditch (F629, Fig. 31) was 1.86 to 2.01m wide and 0.75 to 1.03m deep. It had a V-shaped profile and contained two or three fills. The enclosure contained 19 subcircular pits ranging in size from 0.80 to 2.30m in diameter with the deepest pit (F610, Fig. 29) being 0.70m deep. One later pit (F652, 45

Fig. 30 Area 2 enclosure EN18 and 19, EN25 and CD32

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK

46

THE EXCAVATIONS

Fig. 31 Enclosure ditch sections, EN8 to EN15

47

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK Fig. 29) cut two earlier pits (F635 and F653, Fig. 29) and a single later pit (F589) cut the west entrance terminal of the enclosure ditch.

Linear ditch LD15 appears to have been recut on at least two occasions, the first recut terminated near a gap in parallel ditch LD14 and appears to have removed all trace of the original ditch to the southwest of EN22. The recut was 2.35 to 2.75m wide and 0.60 to 1.00m deep, with steep sides and a rounded base. At this time enclosure EN20 (Fig. 35) was also recut, removing most of the primary enclosure ditch. The recut enclosure ditch (F704, Fig. 31) was 1.96 to 5.30m wide and 0.62 to 1.30m deep with steep sides and a rounded base. Evidence of a second recut of LD15 was recorded northeast of EN22. It was slightly to the north of the original cut in places, perhaps terminating close to the first recut and cutting an earlier pit (F881, Fig. 34). The recut ditch was 1.22 to 1.70 wide and 0.46 to 0.90m deep with a V-shaped profile.

Areas 9 and 10 (Fig. 32; also Figs. 24, 29, 31, 34 and 35) Here two parallel ditches interpreted as a droveway were succeeded by four enclosures, one of which had a large cluster of pits just outside it. Southeast of the droveway was another enclosure and part of a penannular ringditch. Phase 1.1 Two parallel linear ditches, 5.0m apart, LD14 and LD15, were aligned northeast-southwest. These ditches cut two earlier pits (F877, Fig. 34 and F795). Both ditches terminated to the southwest and extended beyond the edge of excavations to the northeast. Ditch LD15 varied from 2.30 to 5.20m in width and 0.40 to 1.60m in depth. A short curvilinear ditch (CD33), aligned north-south, was cut by LD15 to the north. Ditch LD14 was 1.24 to 1.70m wide and 0.26 to 0.62m deep. Both ditches had steeply sloping sides and rounded bases. Ditch LD14 was interrupted by a 9m gap to the northeast.

Linear ditches LD14 and LD15 were cut by another ditched enclosure (EN22, Fig. 34) which had been redefined on at least two occasions. Evidence of a possible earlier narrower enclosure ditch only survived between the ditch terminals of the later enclosures. The ditch (F766, Fig. 31) was 0.78m wide and 0.18m deep with steep sides and a flat base. It could also be associated with other ditches (LD16, CD10 and CD11) to the southeast, one of which (LD16) was also cut by the later enclosure ditches (Fig. 34).

Southeast of LD14 and LD15 was a subrectangular ditched enclosure (EN24, Fig. 32), measuring 30m by 60m. The ditch (F871, Fig. 31) was 2.00 to 2.28m wide and 0.79 to 0.99m deep with a V-shaped profile and three clay-silt fills. Traces of a curvilinear ditch within the enclosure may be of similar date.

Linear ditch LD16 (Fig. 34) was aligned northwestsoutheast, 12m long, 0.95m wide and 0.28m deep and at least 12m long, with a V-shaped profile. It was cut by two later pits and a short curvilinear ditch, which was also cut by a later pit. Another ditch (CD10) ran parallel with LD16. Ditch CD10 was 19m long, 2.08m wide and 0.28m deep, with steep sides and a flat base, and its northwest terminal was cut by a later pit. A curving L-shaped ditch (CD11) extended north from the southeast terminal of CD10 (Fig. 32). It was 0.95m wide and 0.30m deep, with a V-shaped profile. CD11 appeared to respect the position of a penannular ring-ditch (RD5) to the east.

Phase 1.2 To the southwest, where ditches LD14 and LD15 terminated, a ditched polygonal enclosure (EN20, Fig. 35), with an entrance to the south, was constructed. This enclosure occupied the southwest corner of a larger subrectangular enclosure (EN21). Enclosure EN20 was 32m by 29m and its primary enclosure ditch cut the parallel ditches LD14 and LD15. This primary enclosure ditch (F700, Fig. 31) was truncated by a later recut. Consequently, its profile and dimensions are uncertain, although it was at least 1.80m wide and 1.70m deep. Inside the enclosure were three subcircular pits, one of which cut an earlier oval pit, ranging in size from 1.10 to 1.95m wide and 0.15 to 0.20m deep. Two small pits or postholes were also present within the enclosure.

Penannular ring-ditch RD5 (Plate 2) appeared to have been badly truncated to the southeast, but would have been approximately 11m in diameter, probably with an entrance to the northeast. The ditch varied from 0.27 to 0.51m wide and 0.12 to 0.18m deep, with a V-shaped or bowl-shaped profile (Fig. 24, F802). There was evidence of a recut on the north and west sides. Within RD5 was a single small pit. Two short gullies and three pits or postholes were situated close to RD5. A single pit cut the ring gully. To the northeast of RD5 was an L-shaped ditch (CG8), which appeared to respect RD5, in a similar arrangement to that shown by CD11 (Fig. 32).

The larger subrectangular enclosure (EN21) was 45m by 54m, reused ditch LD15 as its west side and cut ditch LD14 (Fig. 31, F715). It was up to 3.77m wide and 1.60m deep with a V-shaped profile. Its fills showed evidence for six periods of silting. A curvilinear ditch within EN21 appears to have subdivided the enclosure, which contained two oval pits and two smaller pits or postholes (Fig. 32). Just outside EN21, to the southeast, was a large, shallow subcircular pit.

Further north there were several widely scattered pits with some apparent concentrations. One obvious cluster of large pits (PC4) is located just southeast of LD14. The pits were all subcircular and shallow with flat bases and steep sides, 0.95 to 1.60m in diameter and 0.05 to 0.20m deep. Two similar pits form outliers to PC4, to the north 48

THE EXCAVATIONS

Fig. 34 Area 10 EN22 and 23, LD14 and15 and PC3

51

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK

Fig. 35 Area 9 enclosure EN20, LD14 and LD15

52

THE EXCAVATIONS

Plate 2 Iron Age ring-ditch RD5, Area 10, from north

Plate 3 Iron Age enclosure EN22, Area 10, with pit cluster PC3 in foreground, from northeast

53

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK and west. The westernmost of these pits cuts LD14. Further similar pits are situated between LD14 and LD15. The fill of one pit (F895, Fig. 29), to the east of PC4 and adjacent to a smaller pit (F903), contained fired clay pieces interpreted as weights or possible oven or kiln furniture. East of PC4 was a possible four-post structure (FP7) and two linear gullies (Fig. 32).

PHASE 2 LATE MIDDLE / LATE IRON AGE (200 TO 1 BC) (FIG. 36) Area 6 (Fig. 33; also Figs. 29, 31 and 37 to 40) During this phase, the principal focus of activity was in Area 6. The main structures belonging to this phase were two subrectangular enclosures and a D-shaped enclosure. One enclosure (EN13) contained two penannular ring gullies / ditches and the other (EN17) had an entrance and internal gullies. A D-shaped enclosure (EN14) containing four-post structures and internal gullies cut enclosure EN13.

The enclosure ditch EN22 (Fig. 34; Plate 3), which may have been the second cutting of this enclosure, cut ditches LD14 and 15 and formed a roughly D-shaped enclosure, which was 24m by 20m and cut two earlier subcircular pits (F794 and F888). The enclosure ditch (F781 and F796, Fig. 31) varied from 1.90 to 2.20m wide and 0.65 to 1.0m deep with mainly steep sides and a rounded base. This ditch was recut by a later, possibly third, enclosure ditch (F750 and F911, Fig. 31), 1.11 to 1.40m wide and 0.38 to 0.55m deep, also with steep sides and a rounded base. Within the enclosure ditch were three subcircular pits, one oval pit and three small postholes. To the south of EN22 was a group of 49 mainly subcircular pits (PC3, Figs. 34 and F754, F760, F787, F831 and F838, Fig. 29), varying from 0.90 to 2.20m wide and 0.10m to 0.50m deep, mainly with vertical sides and flat bases. Some of the pits were arranged in parallel rows, respecting the alignment of CD10.

Phase 2.1 Subrectangular enclosure EN13 (Fig. 37) was 73m by 40m and appears to have been redefined on two occasions. The primary ditch cut (F414, Fig. 38) was steep sided with a flat base and was 0.82 to 1.71m wide and 0.22 to 0.60m deep. This ditch was absent on the south side of the enclosure and was considerably deeper and wider on the north side. It was cut, on the east and west sides, by another ditch (F388, Fig. 38), at least 0.50m deep. The final recut (F387, Fig. 38) was present on all four sides and was 1.0 to 1.68m wide and 0.62 to 0.88m deep, with a V-shaped profile and contained two fills.

A curvilinear ditch (CD12) cut LD14 and 15 to the northeast (Fig. 32). It was 1.50m wide and 0.90m deep with a V-shaped profile. This may be associated with later reuse of LD14 and LD15.

At the north end of EN13 was a penannular ring gully (RG3, Fig. 37), 10.5m in diameter with an east facing entrance. The gully (Fig. 24, F359) varied from 0.28 to 0.65m wide and 0.10 to 0.13m deep, with steep sides and a rounded base. It contained a shallow subcircular pit (F362). Another unphased pit within RG3 could be of similar date. At the south end of the enclosure was a penannular ring-ditch (RD4, Fig. 37), 16.5m in diameter, also with an east facing entrance. The ditch (Fig. 24, F386) was 0.38 to 0.56m wide and 0.06 to 0.40m deep, with steep sides and a rounded base. A small, unphased pit (E203) near the entrance may be of a similar date. Also within EN13 were three curvilinear ditches or gullies (CD26, CD27, CG6) and eight pits or postholes (F351, F366, F376, F428, F436, F500, F512 and F520), 0.40 to 1.70m wide and 0.10 to 0.35m deep. An unphased curvilinear gully and several of the unphased pits within EN13 could belong to this phase.

Phase 1.3 Southwest of enclosure EN22 was a subrectangular ditched enclosure (EN23, Fig. 32), 20m by 35m, with a southeast facing entrance. The enclosure ditch (F912, Fig. 31) cut EN22 and two earlier pits (F845 and F899, Fig. 34). It was 1.10 to 1.22m wide and 0.42 to 0.44m deep, with a V-shaped profile. A large, shallow pit just outside the entrance may be associated with this enclosure. A later subcircular pit cut the east side of EN23 (F1306, Fig. 34). Area 6 (Fig. 33) Two ditches, a gully and several pits were the only Phase 1 features recorded here. A linear ditch (LD10, Fig. 37), perhaps the remains of a now truncated enclosure, was aligned east-west, 24m long and 0.90 to 1.10m wide and 0.40 to 0.50m deep, with a V-shaped profile. South of LD10 was a north-south aligned curvilinear gully (CG2, Fig. 37), 10m long, 0.38 to 0.40m wide and 0.18 to 0.22m deep, which cut another possible Phase 1 ditch. To the southeast, the remains of a ditch (F528, Fig. 39) were truncated by later features. Six pits (F383, F398, F432, F450, F483 and F550) were recorded in Area 6; one of which (F383, Fig. 37) cut another (F398). The pits were generally subcircular and varied from 0.70 to 1.70m wide and 0.18 to 0.40m deep.

East of EN13 was subrectangular enclosure EN17 (Fig. 39), 44m by 29m, with an entrance at the southwest corner. The primary enclosure ditch (Fig. 31, F526) was 1.52 to 1.99m wide and 0.40 to 0.92m deep with gently sloping sides and a rounded base. Evidence of a later ditch (Fig. 31, F525), possibly related to recutting of the enclosure, was recorded along the eastern side of EN17. Within the enclosure were three shallow ditches (LD35, 36 and CD30), which may relate to internal divisions. Four pits (F475, F482, F508 and F511), 0.40 to 1.50m in diameter and 0.15 to 0.50m deep, belonging to Phase 2 were excavated within the enclosure. Other unphased pits 54

THE EXCAVATIONS

Fig. 36 Overall plan showing Phase 2 (Late Middle / Late Iron Age) features

55

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK

Fig. 37 Area 6 enclosure EN13, RG3 and RD4

56

THE EXCAVATIONS

Fig. 38 Enclosure ditch sections, EN8 to EN15

57

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK

Fig. 39 Area 6 enclosures EN16 and EN17

58

THE EXCAVATIONS

Fig. 40 Area 6 enclosure EN14

and a short ditch within EN17 may also belong to this phase. A small subcircular pit (F530, Fig. 29), 2.25m by 0.94m by 0.18m deep, which contained fired clay, possibly the remains of a kiln, was also situated within EN17.

Within the enclosure were two linear features: a ditch and a gully (CD28 and LG1), possibly related to internal divisions within the enclosure. Eight large subcircular pits (F440; Fig. 29, F441, F444, F445, F492, F493, F494, and F498), 1.00 to 1.46m in diameter and 0.16 to 0.39m deep, were also situated within EN14. The majority of these pits appear to cluster in the north part of the enclosure. One of the pits (F492) to the south, predated the second enclosure ditch recut. A four-post structure (FP5) was also recorded within EN14.

Phase 2.2 Enclosure EN13 was cut by a D-shaped ditched enclosure (EN14, Fig. 40) which had been recut at least twice. The earliest probable enclosure ditch (F437, Fig. 38) was only visible on the east side of EN14, where it was preserved in the entrance formed by later enclosure ditches. It was 0.90m wide and 0.30m deep with steep sides and a flat base and A much larger later enclosure ditch, 2.90 to 3.80m wide and 1.00 to 1.40m deep, with an entrance on the east side, had removed most of the primary ditch. It had steep sides and a rounded base on the east side of the enclosure and a V-shaped profile on the other sides. There was evidence of up to six episodes of silting (Fig. 38, F419 and F439). This ditch was later recut by a smaller ditch (F420, Fig. 38), 1.51 to 2.00m wide and 0.40 to 0.86m deep, with steep sides and rounded base. There was evidence of a third recut (E209, Fig. 40), 1.29m wide and 0.64m deep, on the north side of the enclosure.

A shallow linear ditch (LD12, Fig. 39), 0.36 to 1.24m wide and 0.10 to 0.42m deep, with steep sides and a flat base, cut enclosure EN17. It extended to the north beyond the limit of excavation, on a similar alignment to the eastern side of enclosures EN13 and 14, creating an access route or droveway. Two possible postpits (F509, F519, Fig. 39), cut into LD12, were recorded. Later linear features truncated ditch LD12. Traces of a ditch running parallel with LD12 were recorded 4m to the east, but this ditch was badly truncated by a later linear ditch. Traces of undated linear ditches, on a similar alignment to LD12, were recorded to the south of EN14, and these may also date to this phase.

59

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK Area 1 (Fig. 21)

aligned northeast-southwest (CD11, LD31, and LD30) 0.63 to 1.45m wide and 0.16 to 0.24m deep, together with possible traces of the primary cut of a similarly orientated fourth ditch (CD8). One of these ditches, LD30, was cut by a later enclosure ditch. Also in this area, were three linear or curvilinear ditches / gullies roughly aligned eastwest (CD10, CD15 and CG4) all less than 0.55m wide and 0.10m deep (Fig. 41).

In the south part of Area 1 there were four linear and curvilinear ditches (LD25, LD23, CD13 and LD1). North-south aligned ditch LD25 was 2.06m wide and 0.70m deep with steep sides and a flat base. To the east was a short east-west orientated curvilinear ditch (CD13), 9.0m long, at least 0.55m wide and 0.20m deep, with steep sides and a flat base. This was cut by a larger ditch (LD23) on a similar alignment, 0.84m wide and 0.26m deep, with steep sides and a rounded base. Both these ditches were cut by north-south aligned ditch LD1. LD1 was 0.62m wide and 0.22m deep with steep sides and a rounded base. A later unphased ditch (LD24), which cut ditch LD1, may also be of similar date.

Close to the west side of Area 5 were two short linear features: a gully (LG6) and a ditch (LD7). Ditch LD7 was cut by a curvilinear ditch (CD12), possibly the truncated remains of an enclosure ditch. CD12 was 1.04m wide and 0.46m deep, with steep sides and a V-shaped profile. East of CD12 were two short ditches aligned northeastsouthwest (LD18 and LD8), two short ditches (CD21 and CD20) aligned east-west and another feature (F319), possibly the remnants of a fourth ditch. The ditches varied from 0.65 to 1.40m wide and 0.10 to 0.50m deep. One of the northeast-southwest aligned ditches (LD18) cut two of the east-west aligned ditches (CD20 and CD21). Another ditch (LD8) had been recut.

Area 5 (Figs. 41 and 43) A short linear ditch (F126, Fig. 43) located in the south part of this area was the only excavated feature belonging to this phase. It was aligned east-west, 5.40m by 0.64m and 0.24m deep, with a rounded profile. PHASE 3 TRANSITIONAL (BELGIC) LATE IRON AGE / EARLY ROMAN (AD 1 TO 100) (FIG. 42)

Further north a northeast-southwest aligned linear ditch (CD22), at least 1.50m wide and 0.42m deep, was cut by a three-sided ditched enclosure (EN9), 42m by 48m. The enclosure ditch (F304, Fig. 38) was 4.00 to 5.22m wide and 1.10 to 1.20m deep, with steep sides and a rounded base and containing up to five fills. It is possible that a former stream channel (paleochannel), from which Transitional Late Iron Age / early Roman pottery was recovered, formed the fourth side of the enclosure. The stream channel was aligned northwest-southeast, 16m wide and 2m deep, and contained silty clays and sand. The enclosure was recut with a four-sided ditch after the stream channel had silted up. The recut enclosure ditch (F305, Fig. 38) was 1.50 to 2.70m wide and 0.50 to 1.00m deep, with steep sides and a flat base, contained up to three fills. The recut of EN9 also cut an earlier ditch (CD23), 1.60m wide and 0.20m deep, only recorded within the enclosure interior.

Area 5 (Fig. 41; also Figs. 24, 28, 38 and 43 to 44) The principal structures in this phase were a complex of at least five subsquare and rectangular enclosures on a common axis, with associated linear ditches. Phase 3.1 At the south end of Area 5 was a square ditched enclosure (EN3, Fig. 43), 31m wide, with an entrance to the north. The primary ditch (F134, Fig. 28) was at least 1.60m wide and 0.88m deep. It only survived partially on the south and west sides of the enclosure, truncated by a later recut enclosure ditch (F129, Fig. 28). The recut ditch, 2.14 to 2.72m wide and 0.70 to 1.14m deep, had steep sides and a rounded base, with up to five silty clay fills. The enclosure contained two linear ditches (LD3 and LD28), one of which (LD3) pre-dated the secondary enclosure ditch. This was cut by a curvilinear ditch (CD4), perhaps associated with another short curvilinear ditch to the west, both of which were truncated by a later feature.

East of EN6 was a subrectangular ditched enclosure (EN7, Fig. 44; Plate 4). The earliest enclosure ditch (F176 and F204, Fig. 28) here was only visible to the south and within the entrance formed by the terminals of a later enclosure ditch. Elsewhere this primary enclosure ditch was probably removed by a later enclosure ditch. The ditch was 0.86 to 1.10m wide and 0.30 to 0.35m deep, with steep sides and a rounded base. A second later enclosure ditch followed the probable line of this earliest enclosure ditch. This second enclosure ditch (F145, F158 and F166; Fig. 28 and Plate 5) was 3.20 to 3.30m wide and 1.00 to 1.42m deep with a V-shaped profile and contained up to five distinct fills. Within EN7 was a semi-circular ditch, probably the remains of a circular ring-ditch (RD3, Fig. 24, F161), 12.0m in diameter, 0.98 to 1.14m wide and 0.15 to 0.38m deep, with a rounded profile. The north part of RD3 had been truncated by later furrows. RD3 was joined by a curvilinear gully (CG1)

North of EN3 was a four-sided ditched enclosure (EN6), 35m by 43m, with a possible entrance at the southeast corner (Fig. 41). The enclosure ditch was 0.48 to 1.20m wide and 0.10 to 0.40m deep, with steep sides and a flat base (F144, Fig. 28). It had been truncated by later features, most severely on the west side. A curvilinear ditch (CD14) aligned northeast-southwest, to the west of the EN6, may be associated with this enclosure. Northeast of EN6 was a linear ditch (LD17) aligned northwest-southeast and three linear or curvilinear ditches 60

Fig. 43 Area 5 enclosure EN3

THE EXCAVATIONS

63

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK

Fig. 44 Area 5 enclosure EN5 and 7

64

THE EXCAVATIONS

Plate 4 Late Iron Age (Belgic) enclosure EN7, Area 5, from west

Plate 5 Belgic pottery in situ in ditch of enclosure EN7, Area 5

65

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK which joined an east-west aligned gully (LG3) to the south. Another linear gully (LG4), within the enclosure cut the primary enclosure ditch. A single small pit or posthole (F234) was located nearby.

EN15 may have been further subdivided by a narrow ditch (LD19) which had been partly truncated. At the northwest corner of EN15 were remains of a possible sub-enclosure (EN16, Fig. 39), measuring approximately 30m by 30m. It was formed by parts of the north and west ditches of EN15 and a ditch forming its south and east sides. A north-south aligned arm of the enclosure ditch subdivided the enclosure. The ditch (F474, Fig. 31) varied from 0.52 to 1.17m in width and 0.22 to 0.40m in depth. A linear gully (LG7, Fig. 39), to the north of EN15, may represent another episode of enclosure construction. Another unphased ditch (LD36), at right angles to one of the EN16 enclosure ditches, possibly subdivided the enclosure.

Thirteen subcircular pits were excavated outside enclosure ditches. All were fairly shallow and varied from 0.25 to 2.36m in diameter and 0.10 to 0.56m deep. On the east side of the area was an isolated cremation pit (F320, Fig. 41) 0.40m in diameter and 0.20m deep, containing fragments of burnt bone and charcoal. Phase 3.2 A subrectangular ditched enclosure (EN5, Fig. 44) was dug to the south of EN7, probably while that enclosure was still in use, forming an annexe with an entrance on the west side. The enclosure ditch was 25m by 28m, 0.80 to 1.86m wide and 0.26 to 1.00m deep with a mainly Ushaped profile (F209 and F210, Fig. 28). Within EN5 was a short north-south aligned linear ditch (LD29), 12m by 0.80m by 0.56m deep, a shallow, circular pit (F237) and a similar unphased pit also likely to date to this period. The enclosure EN5 was cut by a curvilinear ditch (CD5, Fig. 44), 1.24 to 1.30m wide and 0.58 to 0.70m deep, with a V-shaped profile.

The west side of the EN15 enclosure ditch formed the east side of an access route or droveway. Part of the west side of the droveway was formed by a curvilinear ditch (CD31) running parallel with EN15 and then broadening outwards to the south to form a ‘funnel’ entrance (Fig. 33). Three oval pits cut EN15 or EN16 (F421, F443, and F538, Fig. 39), two of which (F421 and F442) contained dumps of kiln furniture. Other pits were located to the west. Eight pits were situated within the Phase 2 enclosure EN13 (Fig. 37). They were clustered in two groups (PC5 and 6) of three, and one pair of small shallow pits (F375 and F392). Pits in cluster PC5 (F430, Fig. 29) were subcircular, 0.82 to 1.56m in diameter and 0.05 to 0.22m deep. Pits in cluster PC6 were subcircular and 0.60 to 1.20m wide by 0.90 to 1.90m long by 0.09 to 0.15m deep. Located within Phase 2 enclosure EN14 were four postholes interpreted as the remains of a fourpost structure (FP6, Fig. 40). The terminal of a northeastsouthwest aligned linear ditch (F157, not illustrated) was recorded to the northwest of Area 6 during the watching brief.

At the south end of the excavation area were two parallel linear ditches (LD26 and LD27, Fig. 43), 7 to 9m apart, 0.82m and 0.92m wide and 0.33m and 0.40m deep respectively. Ditch LD27 cut enclosure EN3 and an earlier ditch (LD28). Ditch LD26 was joined by another ditch aligned northeast-southwest. Area 6 (Fig. 33; also Figs. 29, 31 and 37 to 40) The principal feature here is a large enclosure, three sides of which were within the area of excavation with a possible droveway on the west side. There was evidence of further subdivision within the large enclosure and a small possible enclosure in the northwest corner.

Area 1 and Area 10 (Figs 21 and 32; also Figs. 26 and 34)

Phase 3.1

A single small pit (F83, Fig. 26) was the only Phase 3 feature in Area 1. Traces of a short north-south aligned ditch (F156, Fig. 21) were found outside Area 1, to the west, during the watching brief. In Area 10 a large shallow subcircular pit (F819, Fig. 34), south of Phase 1 enclosure EN22, was the only Phase 3 feature recorded.

Enclosure EN15 was 105m wide from north to south with a possible entrance on the west side. The enclosure ditch (F915, Fig. 38) was much wider on the north side and varied from 0.64 to 2.48m in width and 0.10 to 0.41m depth, with steep sides and a rounded base. There was a terminal of a north-south aligned linear ditch (F547, Fig. 39) close to the north side of EN15, but this had been truncated by a modern field boundary. The ditch terminal contained a dump of kiln furniture. Three shallow subcircular and oval pits (F450, F468 and F588, Fig. 39) and two short truncated linear ditches were excavated within the enclosure. Pit F588 (Fig. 29), 1.45m by 0.90m and 0.20m deep, may be the remains of a kiln as it contained a large quantity of kiln furniture. It also cut an earlier Phase 2 feature, also possibly the remains of a kiln.

PHASE 4 ROMAN (AD 50 TO 450) (FIG. 45) Area 5 (Fig. 41; also Figs. 29, 38, 43 to 44 and 46) The main features here include a large rectangular enclosure north of a droveway or access route, with two smaller enclosures within it. Remains of other linear ditches within the larger enclosure may suggest the presence of further smaller enclosures. Another rectangular enclosure, added later to the east, contained

66

THE EXCAVATIONS

Fig. 45 Overall plan showing Phase 4 (Roman) features

67

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK

Plate 6 Roman well in enclosure EN7, Area 5

remains of a circular enclosure. The later rectangular enclosure was later cut by another possible droveway.

CD9 and a curvilinear gully CG5 (Fig. 41). Ditch CD9, which cut gully CG5, was 0.67 to 0.74m wide and 0.16 to 0.29m deep, with steep sides and a rounded base. A linear ditch aligned east-west (LD6, Figs. 41 and 44) cut CD8 and enclosure EN7. Ditch LD6 (Fig. 28, F168), was 1.0 to 1.20m wide and 0.37 to 0.55m deep, with steep sides and a rounded base.

Phase 4.1 The east side of Phase 3 enclosure EN7 (Fig. 44) was recut by a narrow ditch (F175, Fig. 28) which was then cut by a wider shallower ditch 1.56 to 2.60m wide and 0.24 to 0.42m deep, with steep sides and a flat base (F179 and F206, Fig. 28). This ditch redefined the north and east sides of the enclosure. Within this enclosure a well (F180, Plate 6) and a small pit were dug. The well was circular, had an internal diameter of 0.82m and was 6.40m deep. It was made of roughly coursed limestone slabs and there were holes in the stonework near the top, which may have supported a timber framework. The well could have been constructed in Phase 3. Dating evidence was recovered from the upper fills of the well only, and this dates its abandonment, probably by the late 2nd to early 3rd century AD. To the west of the enclosure was a laid stone surface (Fig. 41, F219), 6m by 5m and 0.15m thick. It was made of limestone fragments, and had three small, shallow pits or postholes cut into it. A smaller, less dense concentration of limestone on the east side of F219 may have been associated with it.

Ditch LD6 was cut by LD5, an L-shaped linear ditch (Fig. 44), 0.40 to 0.93m wide and 0.10 to 0.17m deep, with steep sides and a rounded base. On a parallel alignment with LD5 was a linear ditch (LD20, Fig. 41), 0.62 to 0.82m wide and 0.10 to 0.22m deep, with steep sides and a rounded base. Enclosures EN5 and EN7 were cut by two parallel eastwest aligned curvilinear ditches, CD6 and CD7 (Fig. 44). Ditch CD6 was up to 1m wide and 0.25m deep. Ditch CD7 (F214, Fig. 28) was 1.26 to 1.90m wide and 0.33 to 0.40m deep, with steep sides and a rounded base. CD6 may correspond with an east-west aligned ditch (LD9, Figs. 41 and 46) to the east. Ditch LD9 was 0.78m wide and 0.50m deep, and cut an earlier L-shaped ditch (CD25, Figs. 41 and 46) and was cut by a later enclosure. A short curvilinear gully (CG3, Fig. 44), 0.49m wide and 0.15 to 0.25m deep, cut the south side of EN5 and CD5. A curvilinear ditch (CD19, Fig. 41), 1.58 wide and 0.60m deep, aligned north-south with steep sides and a rounded base, was recorded southeast of CG3.

The recut of enclosure EN7 was cut by a curvilinear ditch (CD8, Fig. 44), 1.08 to 1.29m wide and 0.19 to 0.30m deep, with steep sides and a rounded base. Ditch CD8 appears to have partially enclosed an area to the north of EN7. Within this area were traces of a curvilinear ditch

68

THE EXCAVATIONS

Fig. 46 Area 5 enclosure EN11 and 12

69

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK To the northeast of these features was a subcircular enclosure, EN10 (Fig. 41), 38m by 38m. Its ditch (Fig. 38, F308) was between 2.44m to at least 2.70m wide and 0.42-0.75 deep, with steep sides and a flat base. There was evidence of another, perhaps later, Phase 4 feature running parallel with the enclosure ditch on the south side of EN10. However, a later small ditch obscured its relationship with the enclosure ditch.

EN12 was defined on its southwest side by a segment of near vertical sided trench (F382, Fig. 38), 0.72m wide and 0.50m deep, filled with limestone (Plate 7). Five shallow curvilinear features, also filled with limestone and of a similar width, but only 0.05 to 0.15m deep, appeared to form the remainder of the enclosure. A possible entrance to the enclosure was located on its north side. On either side of this possible entrance, outside the enclosure, were two large pits (F346 and F347, Fig. 46). Pit F346 (Fig. 29) to the east cut an earlier pit and was circular, 2.70m in diameter and 1.32m deep, and filled with limestone rubble. The pit F347 (Fig. 29) to the west was subcircular, 2.32m long, 2.00m wide and 0.32m deep, and contained a charcoal-rich fill. A short linear feature (F490), and a pit (F522) on the east side of EN12 were also filled with limestone rubble. South of EN12 extending beyond the edge of excavations was a limestone surface (F552, Fig. 46), 2m wide and 0.15m thick.

In the south part of the area were two parallel ditches, aligned northwest-southeast (LD2 and LD4), extending beyond the edge of excavation (Fig. 41). Ditch LD2 was 1.72m wide and 0.54m deep and cut the earlier enclosure EN3 (Fig. 43). Ditch LD4 was 1.28 to 1.99m wide and 0.59 to 0.70m deep. Both ditches had steep sides and flat bases and were approximately 20m apart. Ditch LD4 formed the south side of a large subrectangular enclosure (EN4), which cut ditch LD6 and enclosure EN10 (Fig. 38, F295). Subrectangular enclosure EN4 was approximately 115m by 170m, and its defining ditch (F281 and F163, Fig. 28; F295, Fig. 38) ranged between 1.00 to 1.68m in width and 0.22 to 0.56m in depth, with steep sides and a rounded base. On the east side of EN4 was an L-shaped ditch (CD24, Fig. 41), at least 0.60m wide and 0.20m deep, with steep sides and a rounded base. Disturbance by a later furrow truncated any evidence for a relationship between CD24 and EN4. Evidence of a later recut of CD24, 0.80m wide and 0.26m deep, was also recorded. Enclosure EN4 contained a four-sided enclosure in its northwest corner (EN8, Fig. 41). Enclosure EN8 was approximately 40m by 45m, defined by a ditch (F309, Fig. 38) 1.24 to 1.96m wide and 0.44 to 0.54m deep. The enclosure had been recut, with a ditch (F290, Fig. 38), 1.56 to 2.62m wide and 0.20 to 0.50m deep, on its north and east sides.

Enclosure EN11 was cut by two parallel northeastsouthwest aligned linear ditches (LD33 and LD34, Fig. 41), with steep sides and rounded bases. Ditch LD34 was at least 1.00m wide and 0.24m deep and had been recut by a slightly smaller ditch. Ditch LD33 was 1.60m wide and 0.50m deep. Another undated ditch (LD32) on a similar alignment to LD33 and LD34 cut L-shaped ditch CD24 and may belong to this phase. Phase 4.3 (Fig. 41) A group of five human burials may represent the final phase of use of the former settlement. Inserted into the fill of the recut ditch of enclosure EN8, in the northern ditch of the enclosure, were two human skeletons (HB1 and HB2, Plate 8) lying one on top of the other. The lower burial was poorly preserved, but appeared to be lying on its side. The upper burial, in a supine posture, was decapitated, with the skull placed between the feet.

Within enclosure EN8, on its east side, were traces of several, possibly earlier, linear ditches. One of these was cut by a later L-shaped linear ditch (LD21), which was later than the EN8 ditch recut. Traces of other later shallow curvilinear ditches, one of which cut the enclosure ditch, were recorded within the enclosure on its south side.

In addition to the skeletons found in the recut northern ditch of enclosure EN8, there were three other human burials recorded, all aligned northeast-southwest, with the head to the southwest. To the north of enclosure EN4 were two burials in very shallow grave cuts (HB3 and HB4). Only very fragmentary remains of these two skeletons survived, but both appeared to be supine. Just inside the western ditch of the enclosure EN4 was a rectangular grave cut (F334), 0.70m deep, which contained a supine human skeleton (HB5).

Ten pits were recorded in Area 5, which could be dated to this phase. The pits varied from 0.25 to 1.9m in diameter and from 0.05 to 0.38m in depth. One of these pits (F135) cut Phase 3 linear ditch LD3 within Phase 3 enclosure EN3.

Area 6 (Figs. 33 and 39) Phase 4.2 Features dated to this period include a linear ditch (LD13, Fig. 39), 0.58 to 0.64m wide and 0.22 to 0.26m deep, with a V-shaped profile, which cut earlier enclosure EN17. LD13 was probably in use at the same time as the Phase 3 enclosure EN15, and together these features may have formed an access route or droveway.

A large subrectangular enclosure, EN11 (Fig. 41), measuring 50m by approximately 66m, cut the east side of EN4 (Fig. 46). The ditch (F377, Fig. 38) was 1.30 to 3.00m wide and 0.60 to 0.72m deep. In the southwest corner of EN11 were traces of a circular structure or enclosure, EN12 (Figs. 41 and 46), 19m in diameter. 70

THE EXCAVATIONS

Plate 7 Rubble-filled foundation ditch of semi-circular structure EN12, Area 5

Plate 8 Late Roman double grave (HB1 and HB2) in ditch of enclosure EN8, from south

A cluster of pits (PC7, Fig. 39) was recorded in the northwest corner of Phase 3 enclosure EN15. They formed two alignments of three circular pits. The pits varied in size from 0.32 to 0.53m wide and 0.08 to 0.19m deep. Five other pits were excavated within EN15 (Fig. 39). The largest two pits (F459, Fig. 29 and F510) were subcircular, 2.20m and 2.80m long, 1.44m and 1.65m wide, and 0.70m and 0.30m deep. These pits cut Phase 3 enclosure EN16 and one of them (F510) was cut by a later, Phase 4 pit. The other pits, all within EN15, were subcircular, 0.85 to 1.18m in diameter and 0.20 to 0.82m deep.

Near the south edge of excavations was a circular pit (F640), 0.70m in diameter and 0.20m deep, with steep sides and a rounded base. Area 6 (Fig. 33) Within Phase 2 enclosure EN14, near to the entrance, was an oval pit (F446, Fig. 40). It had steep sides and a rounded base, 2.34m by 1.44m by 0.30m deep. Close by to the west was a subcircular pit (F406), 1.08m by 0.88 by 0.38m deep. Further to the west was a shallow circular pit (F486), 0.40m in diameter and 0.09m deep. It had a bowl-shaped profile and cut a Phase 1 pit.

PHASE 5 EARLY / MIDDLE SAXON (AD 450 TO 850) (FIG. 47; ALSO FIGS. 22, 32, 33, 37, 40 AND 48)

Further to the north within enclosure EN13 was an elongated pit (F407, Fig. 37). It cut Phase 2 ring-ditch RD4 and was at least 1.82m long, 0.77m wide and 0.36m deep. To the east of F407 was a subcircular pit (F409), which cut a Phase 2 pit. It was 1.10m by 0.80m by 0.06m deep, with an irregular profile. A small circular pit (F517) was situated to the northeast of F409, 0.48m in diameter and 0.08m deep.

Area 2 (Fig. 22) In the central part of this area was an oval pit (F566), 1.54m by 1.20m by 0.18m deep. It was badly truncated and had an irregular profile. Southeast of this was a small circular pit (F633), 0.47m in diameter and 0.13m deep, with steep sides and a rounded base.

71

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK

Fig. 47 Overall plan showing Phase 5 (Early / Middle Saxon) features

72

THE EXCAVATIONS

Fig. 48 Sunken floored building, plan and section profiles

Plate 9 Early / Middle Saxon sunken floored building, Area 10

73

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK Area 10 (Fig. 32)

Area 5 (Fig. 41)

East of the Phase 1 parallel ditches LD14 and 15, was a large subrectangular shallow pit interpreted as a sunken floored building (SFB, Fig. 48 and Plate 9). It was 3.50m by 2.94m and 0.26m deep, with steeply sloping sides and a flat base. A circular posthole was situated at each end. The posthole (F868) at the east end was 0.28m in diameter and 0.48m deep. The other posthole (F901) was 0.30m in diameter and 0.40m deep.

The unphased features excavated here were mainly small pits or postholes and a linear ditch (LD32), which may belong to Phase 4. Area 6 (Fig. 33) The unphased features excavated here were mainly small pits or postholes. Some of these features, especially those within enclosures, may belong to Phase 2. An alignment of postholes orientated north-south including excavated postholes (F457, F455 and F460, Fig. 40) may represent a fenceline. Several linear gullies running parallel with ditches LD12, 13 and the west side of enclosure EN15 could belong to Phases 2 to 4 and may be droveway ditches.

PHASE 6 ALL LATER FEATURES Area 1 (not illustrated) In Area 1 there was a series of inter-connecting stonelined drainage channels, aligned east-west, which cut the Iron Age features. These features probably dated to the post-medieval period. A northeast-southwest aligned linear ditch, which cut enclosure EN2 on the east side of the site, was of post-medieval date.

Area 10 (Fig. 32) The unphased features here were mainly small pits or postholes. Some of these features, especially those within enclosures, may belong to Phase 1.

Area 2 (not illustrated) Several undated linear features here were interpreted as post-medieval drainage channels. Area 5 (not illustrated) In this area a northeast-southwest aligned, linear ditch containing modern pottery was interpreted as a former field boundary. Three undated east-west aligned ditches, two of which cut Phase 4 features, were interpreted as post-medieval drainage ditches. UNPHASED FEATURES Area 1 (Fig. 21) At the south part of Area 1 a linear ditch (LD24) cut similarly aligned Phase 2 ditch LD1. Part of another unphased ditch was recorded to the north. To the southeast of this was an L-shaped linear ditch (CD18), at least 0.94m wide and 0.36m deep, cut by modern land drains. Traces of this ditch were also recorded in a subsequent watching brief, to the south of the area. The other unphased features recorded here were mainly small pits and postholes. Area 2 (Fig. 22) Many small, unphased features were excavated here. They were mainly small pits concentrated in the west and southeast parts of Area 2. Some of these features may be of Iron Age or possibly Early to Middle Saxon date. A cluster of nine shallow, slightly curving, elongated pits (PC8) was recorded at the west side of the site. These pits were 1.0 to 5.0m long, 0.15 to 0.40m wide and 0.08 to 0.30m deep. Some of these pits contained concentrations of charcoal within their fills. 74

CHAPTER 3

The Pottery Annette Hancocks, Stephanie Rátkai and Ann Woodward with contributions from Brenda Dickinson, Kay Hartley, Val Rigby, David Williams and Steve Willis IRON AGE POTTERY by Ann Woodward and Annette Hancocks

of the ceramic fabrics was not undertaken. However, it rapidly became apparent that there were a small number of distinct fabric groupings, characterised by the dominance of single types of inclusions, namely grog, shell and quartz sand. No unusual types of inclusion were recognised and in particular there were no instances of sherds containing granitic or other igneous inclusions. The fabrics were classified by Annette Hancocks using a x20 binocular microscope and x8 hand lens. Three major fabric groups were defined as follows: mainly grog (G), mainly shell (S) and mainly quartz sand (Q). Various combination fabrics were recognized during analysis (eg Q / S, G / S) and are recorded in the archive. However for analytical purposes these have been subsumed within the three major groups according to the most common type of inclusion present. The occurrence of the major fabric groups by phase is shown in Table 8. This demonstrates that while shelly fabrics occur at a similar level throughout the two phases, grogged pottery decreases in quantity, and sandy wares increase significantly during Phase 2.

Methodology A total of 5,463 sherds of prehistoric pottery, weighing 39.57kg, was recovered during excavation. The overall average sherd weight was 7.2g. Most of the assemblage was of Middle and Late Iron Age date, with only one fragment of probably Bronze Age pottery having been identified. The pottery was in good condition, but mainly fragmented. The occurrence of pottery by site phase, area and period is summarised in Table 7. More pottery belonged to the Early Iron Age / early Middle Iron Age (Phase 1) than to the later Middle Iron Age / Late Iron Age period (Phase 2). No vessels definitely belonging to the main currency of the Early Iron Age were recognised. The dates given for these phases are based on typological comparisons with other dated sequences from elsewhere in Northamptonshire. The pottery was viewed by both authors and recorded and sketched by Annette Hancocks. The data was transferred to a Microsoft Access database and then tabulated and manipulated by both authors according to a set of queries initially devised by Ann Woodward. The material was recorded using the standard Birmingham Archaeology system, which is based on the guidelines provided by the Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group (PCRG 1997). The following fields of data were recorded for each context: quantity (sherds), weight, fabric group, rim, decoration and form types, rim diameter, percentage of rim present and colour. For the illustrated diagnostic sherds further fields were recorded as follows: surface finish and sooting or residues, and for illustrated sherds from key groups base form, base diameter and percentage of base present were also recorded.

Form Form codes for vessel profiles and rim types were employed as follows: GLOB C NJ / B N OV U

globular jar carinated / shouldered necked jar or bowl Necked ovoid jar upright rim

bead rim BEAD everted rim EVR flat rims FD (direct), FEE (expanded externally), FEI (expanded internally), FPE (pinched externally), FPEI (pinched externally and internally), FPI (pinched internally), FRE (rounded outer edge) grooved rim GRL rounded RD (direct), RDA (direct with internal angle), rims REE (expanded externally), REI (expanded internally), RPE (pinched externally), RPEI (pinched externally and internally), RPI (pinched internally) channelled SIC rim tapered rim TDRI (rounded internally)

The form codes used were those specified by Knight (1998) in his system devised for the East Midlands, and are listed below. In addition surface colour was denoted by three codes as follows: black / dark grey (B/DG), buff / brown (BB) and red / orange (RO). Fabric The assemblage of Iron Age pottery was larger than expected and, consequently, a full and detailed analysis

75

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK Table 7 Iron Age pottery: occurrence by site phase and period Area

Unphased

No Area 1 2 5 6 9 10 Total

Qty 415 31 1 1 1 4 35 488

Phase 1 EIA / early MIA c.400-c.200BC Qty Wt (g) 689 3027 642 4749 239 3992 211 1444 1189 9883 2970 23095

Wt (g) 2929 75 2 1 1 29 260 3063

Phase 2 Late MIA/LIA c.200-1BC Qty Wt (g) 229 780 47 418 938 8998 18 123 1232 10319

Phase 1-2 Pre-Belgic Not diagnostic Qty Wt (g) 692 2671 13 56 68 366 773 3093

Table 8 Iron Age pottery: occurrence of pottery fabric groups by phase (sherd count) Fabric group Mainly quartz

Phase 1 quantity 149

Mainly shell

Phase 1% 5

Phase 2 quantity 476

704

24

Mainly grog

2117

Total

2970

Phase 2 % 39

Phase 1-2 quantity 26

Phase 1-2% 3

211

17

59

8

71

545

44

688

89

100

1232

100

773

100

Table 9 Iron Age pottery: occurrence of profile forms by phase (sherd count)

Profile GLOB LID NJ/B OV Indet Profile Total

Phase 1 quantity 65 2 1 67 7 142

Phase 1 % 45.77 1.41 0.70 47.18 4.93 100

Phase 2 quantity 11 2 1 41 5 60

Phase 2 % 18.33 3.33 1.66 68.33 8.33 100

Table 10 Iron Age pottery: occurrence of rim forms by phase (sherd count)

Rim form Bead Everted Flattened Grooved Rounded Channelled Tapered Indeterminate Total

Phase 1 quantity 7 21 44 1 64 1 4 142

Phase 1 % 5% 15% 31% 1% 45% 230mm rim diameter) occurred in this fabric. In contrast, the pots made from shelly fabrics included a significant number of vessels of very large size and there was an additional peak at the 220mm level. Grog was the most common form of inclusions and vessels of this fabric type displayed an extremely strong peak at the 100mm rim diameter level, suggesting that there may have been some degree of standardisation amongst the grogged wares. These results indicate that the shelly wares may have included large storage vessels while the smaller-sized repertoire of pots in quartz fabric may have included wares intended for eating and drinking purposes. Furthermore the size range deduced for the grogged wares may suggest that to some extent their capacities were standardised, perhaps for practical function as

cooking pots, or vessels used in everyday preparation of food. Histograms prepared to compare the rim diameter ranges for vessels of different form show that globular and ovoid jars both display substantial size peaks at the 100mm range but have wide overall ranges (Fig. 50). Necked bowls and jars (histograms in archive) occurred only in the smaller size ranges: necked bowls up to the 140mm rim diameter level and necked jars up to 170mm. Key phase groups The pottery illustrated derives from a variety of key context groups belonging to both major phases and from each different area of the site excavated. Within each area it was possible to subdivide the main phases on the basis of stratigraphic relationships. Thus, where the sherd totals are large enough, the variation in certain characteristics of the pottery can be compared within the major phases in some of the areas. However, in the absence of any absolute dating, the sub-phases cannot be equated between the different areas. The codes employed in the pottery descriptions are explained above.

79

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK Area 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

F12, N terminal of RD1, Phase 1.2. GLOB/C/FRE, grog. F12, N terminal of RD1, Phase 1.2. GLOB/C/RD, grog. F17, S terminal of RD1, Phase 1.2. GLOB/C/EVR, grog. F1, N terminal of RD2, Phase 1.2. GLOB/N/EVR, grog. F1, N terminal of RD2, Phase 1.2. OV/N/RD, grog. F1, N terminal of RD2, Phase 1.2. OV/N/FD, grog. F1, N terminal of RD2, Phase 1.2. OV/N/FD, grog. F5, S terminal of RD2, Phase 1.2. OV/N/FD, grog. F5, S terminal of RD2, Phase 1.2. OV/N/RD, shell. F5, S terminal of RD2, Phase 1.2. NJ/B/U/EVR, grog. F18, N terminal of RG1, Phase 1.2. GLOB/C/FEE, grog. F6, S terminal of RG1, Phase 1.2. OV/N/FPI, grog. F45, S terminal of RG2, Phase 1.2. GLOB/C/RPI, grog. F96, CD2, Phase 1.1. GLOB/C/REE, grog. F96, CD2, Phase 1.1. Base angle, grog. F111, CD3, Phase 1.1. GLOB/C/REE, grog.

Diagnostically early (ie early Middle Iron Age) forms with tall necks occur in both sub-phases in Area 1, eg nos. 14 and 16 in sub-phase 1.1; nos. 1, 6 and 13 in sub-phase 1.2. The overall occurrence of major profile and rim codes for pottery deriving from all contexts belonging to the two sub-phases is shown in Table 16. Globular and ovoid jars were present in both sub-phases although ovoid forms may have been more common in sub-phase 1.2. This later sub-phase was also characterised by the dominance of flattened rims over those of simple form. The increasing occurrence of ovoid forms in sub-phase 1.2 may reflect that the structures of this sub-phase dated from a period close in time to the beginning of Phase 2. Table 16 Iron Age pottery: occurrence of selected attributes in sub-phased contexts and structures in Area 1 (sherd count)

Area 1 sub-phase 1.1 1.2

Structures or contexts CD2, CD3 RD1, RD2, RG1, RG2

Major profile codes GLOB OV

NJ/B

Major rim codes REE RD

FRE/ FD

EVR

4 7

1

3 -

9

3

1 10

80

1 3

THE POTTERY

A Fig. 51 Iron Age pottery: numbers 1 to 16

81

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK

Area 2 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

F629, EN18, Phase 1.2. OV/N/FD, grog. F629, EN18, Phase 1.2. OV/N/EVR, shell. F629, EN18, Phase 1.2. GLOB/N/RD, shell. F591, EN18, Phase 1.2. OV/N/RD, shell, plus scored wall sherd, different vessel. E1911, EN18, Phase 1.2. OV/N/RDA, grog. F591, EN18, Phase 1.2. Handle plug, grog. F573, EN18, Phase 1.2. OV/N/RPEI, grog. F629, EN18, Phase 1.2. OV/C/EVR, grog. F629, EN18, Phase 1.2. OV/N/FE, grog, plus scored wall sherd, different vessel. F573, EN18, Phase 1.2. GLOB/N/RD, grog. F629, EN18, Phase 1.2. GLOB/N/RD, shell. F612, EN19, Phase 1.1. OV/N/FPI, grog. F612, EN19, Phase 1.1. GLOB/C/EVR, grog. F612, EN19, Phase 1.1. OV/N/FRE, grog. F612, EN19, Phase 1.1. GLOB/U/RD, grog. F612, EN19, Phase 1.1. OV/N/FD, grog. F612, EN19, Phase 1.1. OV/N/RD, grog.

The variation in profile and rim forms between the diagnostic pottery from all contexts belonging to the two sub-phases is shown in Table 17. No clear differences can be deduced. This may imply that the two successive sets of enclosures were constructed within a relatively short period of time. The only obviously early form is no. 29 in sub-phase 1.1. Table 17 Iron Age pottery: occurrence of selected attributes in sub-phased contexts and structures in Area 2 (sherd count)

Area 2 sub-phase 1.1 1.2

Structures or contexts EN19, EN25 EN18

Major profile codes GLOB OV

NJ/B

Major rim codes REE RD

FRE/ FD

EVR

2 3

-

-

2 2

1 3

4 7

82

2 4

THE POTTERY

Fig. 52 Iron Age pottery: numbers 17 to 33

83

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK

Areas 9 and 10 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55.

F761, droveway LD14, Phase 1.1. GLOB/C/FRE, grog. F751, droveway LD15, Phase 1.1. GLOB/C/REE, grog. F907, droveway LD15, Phase 1.1. GLOB/C/RD, quartz. F907, droveway LD15, Phase 1.1. GLOB/U/FD, shell. F907, droveway LD15, Phase 1.1. OV/N/RD, grog. F907, droveway LD15, Phase 1.1. OV/N/FD, grog. F768, droveway LD15, Phase 1.1. Strap handle, grog. F709, E terminal of EN20, Phase 1.2. OV/N/RD, grog. F709, E terminal of EN20, Phase 1.2. GLOB/N/EVR, grog. F709, E terminal of EN20, Phase 1.2. Handle, grog. F710, W terminal of EN20, Phase 1.2. GLOB/U/FD, grog. F645, NE corner of EN20, Phase 1.2. GLOB/C/RD, grog. F645, NE corner of EN20, Phase 1.2. OV/N/FRE, grog. F645, NE corner of EN20, Phase 1.2. OV/N/BEAD, grog. F645, NE corner of EN20, Phase 1.2. GLOB/C/BEAD, grog. F645, NE corner of EN20, Phase 1.2. GLOB/C/EVR, grog. F848, S terminal of EN23, Phase 1.3. Base angle, grog. F848, S terminal of EN23, Phase 1.3. OV/N/RD, grog. F848, S terminal of EN23, Phase 1.3. SHC, shell. F875, N terminal of EN23, Phase 1.3. SHL, grog. F875, N terminal of EN23, Phase 1.3. Handle, grog. F875, N terminal of EN23, Phase 1.3. OV/N/RD, grog.

84

THE POTTERY

Fig. 53 Iron Age pottery: numbers 34 to 55

85

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK

56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64.

F791, pit in RD5, Phase 1.2. OV/N/FD, grog. F791, pit in RD5, Phase 1.2. OV/N/BEAD, quartz. F791, pit in RD5, Phase 1.2. GLOB/U/RD, grog. F791, pit in RD5, Phase 1.2. OV/N/REE, grog. F791, pit in RD5, Phase 1.2. OV/U/EVR, shell. F895, pit, Phase 1.2. GLOB/C/FPEI, shell. F895, pit, Phase 1.2. GLOB/C/RPEI, grog. F895, pit, Phase 1.2. GLOB/C/FPEI, grog. F895, pit, Phase 1.2. GLOB/C/RD, grog.

The variation in profile and rim forms between the diagnostic pottery from all contexts belonging to the three subphases is shown in Table 18. Globular jars seem to become less common by area in sub-phase 1.3 and this trend is certainly apparent across the site by the beginning of site Phase 2. Also the occurrence of flattened rims decreases through time in Area 9 / 10. Diagnostically early forms occur in sub-phases 1.1 (nos. 34, 35 and 37) and 1.2 (nos. 44, 60 and 63). The incidence of very large vessels such as nos. 34, 60 and 63 is also notable within these same early subphases. Table 18 Iron Age pottery: occurrence of selected attributes in sub-phased contexts and structures in Area 9/10 (sherd count)

Area 9/10 sub-phase 1.1 1.2 1.3

Structures or contexts LD14, LD15, F761, F768, F751, F907 RD5, F791, F895, EN20: rims EN23: rims, F848, F875

Major profile codes GLOB OV

NJ/B

Major rim codes REE RD

FRE/ FD

EVR

8

4

-

2

4

6

-

10

7

-

1

5

3

2

4

2

-

-

6

-

-

Area 6 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72.

F415, S terminal of EN14, Phase 2.2. OV/N/SIC, quartz. F419, NE corner of EN14, Phase 2.2. OV/N/FD, grog. F419, NE corner of EN14, Phase 2.2. NJ/C/EVR, grog. F419, NE corner of EN14, Phase 2.2. OV/N/RD, grog. F447, W side of EN14, Phase 2.2. GLOB/U/RD, grog. F447, W side of EN14, Phase 2.2. OV/N/EVR, grog. F525, E side of EN17, Phase 2.1. OV/N/REE, grog. F525, E side of EN17, Phase 2.1. GLOB/C/FEE, grog.

86

THE POTTERY

Fig. 54 Iron Age pottery: numbers 56 to 72

87

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88.

F525, E side of EN17, Phase 2.1. OV/U/EVR, grog. F525, E side of EN17, Phase 2.1. GLOB/U/RD, grog. F525, E side of EN17, Phase 2.1. OV/N/REE, grog. F525, E side of EN17, Phase 2.1. GLOB/C/EVR, grog. F525, E side of EN17, Phase 2.1. GLOB/-/EVR, grog. F529, E side of EN17, Phase 2.1. GLOB/C/EVR, grog. F529, E side of EN17, Phase 2.1. OV/N/REE, grog. F529, E side of EN17, Phase 2.1. OV/U/RD, grog. F425, SW corner of EN17, Phase 2.1. OV/N/RPE, grog. F450, EN17, Phase 2.1. OV/N/EVR, quartz. F404, CG2, Phase 1. Comb-decorated wall, shell. F404, CG2, Phase 1. GOLB/C/RPEI, shell. F530, kiln inside EN17, Phase 2.1. OV/N/SIC, quartz. F530, kiln inside EN17, Phase 2.1. OV/N/SIC, quartz. F530, kiln inside EN17, Phase 2.1. NJ/B/C/EVR, quartz. F530, kiln inside EN17, Phase 2.1. OV/N/SIC, quartz.

Most of the pottery from Area 6 belonged to a rather later tradition than that found in Areas 1, 2 and 9 / 10, and is designated to Phase 2. The variation in profile and rim form between the diagnostic pottery from all contexts belonging to the three phases (Phase 1 and sub-phases 2.1 and 2.2) is shown in Table 19. Features which were stratigraphically early within Area 6 included CG2 which produced significant quantities of scored ware and an early (ie early Middle Iron Age) type of rim (numbers 83 and 84). Profiles from this sub-phase were all globular in form (see Table 13). Within the Phase 2 deposits, those of both sub-phases (2.1 and 2.2) produced mainly ovoid jars. The later sub-phase contained a lower proportion of expanded rims, and relatively more rims of everted form (see Table 19). Feature F530 of Phase 2.1 also produced five rim sherds from jars with channelled rims. These are a late type and would indicate that both sub-phases of site Phase 2 in Area 6 may have occurred towards the end of the Late Iron Age period. Various vessels from both sub-phases 2.1 and 2.2 are of forms typical of the 1st century BC in the Northampton area (D Jackson pers. comm.); however some examples more typical of the early Middle Iron Age (eg no. 69), are also present in the Phase 2 assemblages. It seems unlikely that there was any appreciable gap between the later phases of occupation in Areas 1 (sub-phase 1.2 and Phase 2) and Area 9 / 10 (sub-phase 1.2) and the beginning of significant activity in Area 6. No Iron Age pottery from Area 5 has been illustrated. However, Late Iron Age material from a few features indicated that there was some sparse occupation in this area prior to the major system of Belgic enclosures in site Phase 3. Table 19 Iron Age pottery: occurrence of selected attributes in sub-phased contexts and structures in Area 6 (sherd count)

Area 6 subphase 1 2.1

2.2

Structures or contexts F526, CG2 EN17: F425, F525, F529, F530 EN14: F415, F419, F447, F463

Major profile codes GLOB OV

NJ/B

Major rim codes REE RD

FRE/ FD

EVR

5 9

25

2

1 8

1 14

5

1 8

3

8

1

-

3

3

4

NB: F530 + SIC X 5 (channelled rims)

88

THE POTTERY

Fig. 55 Iron Age pottery: numbers 73 to 88

89

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK Table 20 Iron Age pottery: characteristics of some possible deliberate deposits

Area

Phase

Feature

Feature type

Structure

Quantity (sherds)

Wt. (g)

AVSW (g)

Min. no. Vessels

1

1.2

F12

RD1

41

295

7

4

1

1.2

F17

RD1

93

111

1

1

3

1

1.2

F1

RD2

204

884

4

7

4-7

1

1.2

F5

RD2

110

370

3

3

8-10

9/10 9/10 9/10

1.2 1.2 1.2

F791 F895 F848

In RD5 EN23

37 348 95

435 2768 985

12 8 10

5 4 3

56-60 61-64 50-52

9/10

1.2

F875

EN23

16

227

14

3

53-55

6

2.2

F415

N terminal S terminal N terminal S terminal Pit Pit S terminal N terminal S terminal

Catalogue nos. (Figs 51 – 54) 1-2

EN14

49

384

8

4

65

Possible deliberate deposits

Discussion

Recent research into the nature of deposits of pottery and other artefact types on Iron Age settlement sites has suggested that the placing of such material in pits and other context types often has been a deliberate act, undertaken for symbolic or ritual reasons (eg Hill 1995). At Grange Park it was noticed that certain groups of diagnostic pottery derived from two particular types of context: the terminals of structures and enclosures, and the fillings of pits. The features of the assemblages of pottery from these contexts are summarised in Table 20.

The pre-Belgic Iron Age pottery falls into two stylistic groups. Slightly more than one third of the diagnostic material belonged to a tradition of later Middle Iron Age and Late Iron Age pottery dating, on other sites in the region, from the 2nd and 1st centuries BC, while a larger quantity of pottery was rather earlier in style. This probably belonged to the early Middle Iron Age period (3rd century BC) and possibly the latest stages of the Early Iron Age in the 4th century BC. No shouldered bowls or jars, or vessels with geometric incised decoration, typical of the full Early Iron Age were found, although and assemblage of such material has been found at the site of Brafield, located 7.5km northeast from Grange Park. This group contains fine carinated bowls, tall necked jars with fingertip impressions at the shoulder, rare incised decoration and a single pedestal base. This assemblage probably dated from the middle of the first millennium BC (Jackson forthcoming).

In Area 1 significant deposits of pottery were recovered from both terminals of each of the ring-ditches RD1 and RD2. The average sherd weights were low (see Table 20), but in each terminal a number of diagnostic (and illustrated) vessels were represented. These groups of pottery stood out from the smaller ceramic assemblages derived from other segments of these ring-ditches, and it seems likely that the pottery may have been placed deliberately within the terminals, possibly at the time of abandonment of the structures. However it is possible that the pottery in the terminals may reflect the greater use of pottery near to the entrances of the structures during their period of use. Two pit assemblages in Area 9 / 10 produced appreciable assemblages of larger sherds (see Table 20, F791 and F895) and it seems very likely that these vessel fragments had been placed deliberately in the pit fillings. Both pits contained vessels with very large rim diameters. The most convincing deliberate deposits from terminals came from the north and south terminals of enclosure EN23, also in Area 9 / 10. The average sherd weights and overall weight of pottery, for these two groups were very high. Finally a similar terminal deposit was found within the southern terminal of enclosure EN14 in Area 6, in this case belonging to Phase 2.

The earliest diagnostic features recognised at Grange Park include the flanged rim (Fig. 54, no. 60) which can be paralleled at Hunsbury (Fell 1937, fig. 7, C6 and L6; fig. 8, L5) and at Twywell (Harding 1975, fig. 23, 27), and the large jar with tall neck (eg Fig. 54, nos. 61 to 63) which can also be matched at Twywell, especially in the group from pit 160 (ibid., fig. 21, nos. 18-21). The later assemblage represented at Grange Park can be matched at various local sites including Hunsbury (Fell 1937), Hardingstone (Woods 1969), Upton (Harding 1969, fig. 8), Wootton Hill Farm (Jackson 1989, fig. 12), Blackthorn and Moulton Park (both Williams 1974). However the Grange Park assemblage differs from these in two major respects. Firstly most of the comparative sites produced sherds from La Tène decorated bowls, and this vessel type was particularly common at the Hunsbury

90

THE POTTERY hillfort. Only the small assemblages from Upton and Wootton Hill Farm did not produce any such sherds, so the total absence of such decorated pottery from Grange Park is very notable. Secondly the occurrence of scored ware at Grange Park, in comparison with the figures for the same comparative local sites, is very low indeed. It is also interesting to note the absence of fabrics containing granitic inclusions. The rock used for these inclusions derives from sources in Leicestershire. The easterly distribution of such fabrics in the eastern sector of the county is not yet fully known, but such pottery was certainly present at sites in western Northamptonshire such as Crick (Woodward and Hancocks in prep).

TRANSITIONAL (BELGIC) POTTERY by Annette Hancocks, with a contribution from Val Rigby Summary A total of 3,998 sherds, weighing 50.28kg and with an average sherd weight of 12.58g, were recognised as transitional pottery. Of this material 2,473 sherds (c 62%), derived from the Phase 3 assemblage. Several key ceramics sequences were identified and these are reported on in greater detail within this report. The criteria used for selection of these key groups were based on the presence of a secure stratigraphic sequence, which did not have any intrusive or residual material. These key groups were selected and subjected to detailed analysis and reporting. The ceramic dating was such that only a single distinct ceramic phase could be identified and dated within the transitional pottery assemblage to between the 100 BC to AD 100.

No fully quantified analyses of pre-Belgic pottery assemblages from the Upper Nene Valley are currently available, but it may prove instructive to compare some of the Grange Park results with those obtained for the similarly large assemblage from Crick. At both sites sandy wares increase significantly during the Late Iron Age (Grange Park, Phase 2 and Crick, sub-phase 4.2). At the same time, at both sites, ovoid profiles increase at the expense of globular jar forms. However at Crick decoration increases while at Grange Park it decreases through time. Scoring at Grange Park is very rare and occurs only in Phase 1 on shelly jars. In comparison, at Crick scoring occurs throughout the sequence and is located especially on grogged vessels (57%). Red coloured pots were most common in Phase 2 (Early Iron Age) at Crick, whilst at Grange Park red surfaces were found mainly on ovoid jars in Phase 2 (Late Iron Age). Very large vessels were most common in the later phases at Crick, but in Phase 1 at Grange Park. At both sites very large jars were made in shelly fabrics, sandy fabrics were reserved mainly for small vessels which may have been made for eating and drinking, and grogged jars were used for everyday purposes such as food preparation and cooking.

Introduction and methodology The key groups identified from the Phase 3 assemblage for further analysis represented 31% of the total transitional ceramic assemblage from this phase. This material weighed 11.39kg and had an average sherd weight (AVSW) of 6.68g. Full quantification of the ceramic assemblage by fabric type appears in Table 21. The material was recorded using the standard Birmingham Archaeology pottery recording system (Hancocks 1997) and analysed using Microsoft Access database software. The assemblage is quantified in full by sherd count, weight (g), and estimated vessel equivalent (EVE). Only rim equivalents (EVEs) are published for the key groups, but percentages for bases are recorded in the archive. The level of abrasion was recorded for individual sherds. The fabrics are listed in a section

Table 21 Belgic pottery: fabric, sources and quantities Fabric Name F021 F021v F022 F023 F024 F025 G02 G02.2 H05.2 H05.3 O06.23 O06.25 Quartz Total

Qty 2499 178 48 6 151 47 45 1 689 1 1 3 329 3998

% Qty 62.51 4.45 1.20 0.15 3.78 1.18 1.13 0.02 17.23 0.02 0.02 0.08 8.23 100

Wt (g) 34369 1393 830 52 2736 155 404 16 6019 59 3 8 4238 50282

% Wt (g) 68.35 2.77 1.65 0.10 5.44 0.31 0.80 0.03 11.97 0.12 0.01 0.02 8.43 100

91

AVSW (g)

12.58

Rim EVE 1698 188 55 39 12 33 510 25 269 2829

% Rim EVE 60.02 6.65 1.94 1.38 0.42 1.17 18.02 0.88 9.51 N=238

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK below. In this listing full descriptions are provided for non-standard types. Other characteristics noted included decoration, evidence for manufacture (wasters) and, if present, repairs (rivets and rivet holes). The form catalogue is by fabric group. Form codes are listed as follows: BB CB CC GLOB J JL LID NB NB/J NC NJ NJ/B OPEN OV OV/GL PL RS SJ SSB

Quartz Phase 3/4 F021

Butt beaker Carinated bowl Carinated cup Globular jar Jar type Storage jar Lid Necked bowl Necked bowl/jar Necked cup Necked jar Necked jar/bowl Open form Ovoid jar Ovoid/globular jar Platter Rounded shouldered jar Storage Jar S-sided bowl

G02.2 H05.2 Quartz

F021 H05.2 O06.22 Quartz

Chronology One of the key research aims was to establish the chronology of the site and to establish a date of abandonment of the settlement. Overall, the ceramics proved valuable in enhancing the stratigraphic and morphological study. Within the ceramic assemblage, several distinct phases have been recognised however, the transitional assemblage represents a single distinct ceramic episode. There is an element of continuity between ceramic Phases 3 and 4, and between stratigraphic Phase 3 (Transitional Late Iron Age / early Roman) and Phase 4, the Roman period.

NB/U/BEAD, SSB/N/BEAD CB/N/FEE GLOB/N/MIC, OV/N/EVR

Phase 2

F024 H05.2

BB/N/EVR, GLOB/U/RD, GLOB/N/REE, GLOB/N/SIC, NJ/B/-/BEAD, OV/N/BEAD, OV/N/RDx3, PL/-/EVR OV/N/SIC OV/N/FD, OV/N/RD

Taphonomy The majority of the transitional assemblage derived from features excavated within Area 6 (57.15%) with the remainder deriving principally from Area 5 (41.93%). The majority of the pottery derives from two principal feature types, ditches and pits. A total of 238 minimum vessels (MV) were observed within the whole assemblage. The average sherd weight by phase is listed in Table 22.

Phase 3 F021

F021v F022 F024 F025 H05.2

J/-/EVR, NB/N/RD, OV/N/FD, OV/N/RD OV/N/SICx2, OV/N/MIC NJ/U/SIC GLOB/N/EVR

This report comprises brief discussions by phase, focusing on the chronological dating evidence. The evidence for broader trends in dating, taphonomy, site function and supply is considered in the discussion section. This is followed by an overview of the contribution of the assemblage to wider regional studies.

Unphased

F021

BB/N/EVR, NJ/B/C/EVR, NJ/C/EVR, NJ/U/EVR, OV/C/FD PL type NJ/U/RDA NB/U/BEAD, RS/N/EVR

Phase 4

For ease of reference much of the pottery information is listed as follows (for explanation of fabric codes see below):

F021 F022 H05.2

NB/N/EVR, NB/N/SIC, OV/N/EVR, OV/N/FEI, OV/N/FRE, OV/N/RD, OV/N/SICx4, RS/C/FPEI, SJ type LID, NJ/C/EVR, OV/N/SIC

BB/N/EVRX2, CC/N/EVRX2, CC/E/BEAD, GLOB/C/SIC, GLOB/N/EVR, NB/C/EVRX2, NB/N/RD, NB/U/EVRX2, NB/U/BEADX3, NC/U/EVR, NJ TYPEX2, NJ/B/C/EVRX3, NJ/C/BEADX4, NJ/C/EVRX4, NJ/U/EVRX2, OV/N/EVRX2, OV/N/RDA, OV/N /SICx2, SJ/C/EVRx3, LIDx2, GLOB/N/EVR, GLOB/N/RD, OPEN/N/BEAD, OV/N/SIC CB/N/EVR, LID/-/MIC, SSB/N/EVR OV/U/RD OV/N/RD BB/N/EVRx2, GLOB/C/SIC, GLOB/N/EVR, / / / / / / / /

The average sherd weight for the transitional assemblage is 12.58g, reflecting the lack of abrasion and wear that has been noted amongst the assemblage. Large, unabraded and diagnostic sherds have been recovered. This would imply that the pottery was disposed of close to the primary deposition site and into features that were rapidly backfilled or that were not in use for a long period of time. 92

THE POTTERY Table 22 Belgic pottery: average sherd weight by phase

Phase Unphased 1 1-2 2 3 3-4 4 5 Total

Count 275 2 2 549 2473 352 286 59 3998

Wt (g) 3755 11 177 4026 34108 4553 3006 646 50282

patchy in colour. There does seem to be some correlation between vessel colour and profile. For instance, both ovoid and globular jar types are predominantly coloured black / dark grey on the external surfaces. This may be an indication of the vessel function and use. This compares to a number of necked jar types that are coloured red / orange.

AVSW 13.65g 5.5g 88.5g 7.33g 13.79g 12.93g 10.51g 10.95g 12.58g

Sooting Only six vessels within the Phase 3 transitional assemblage showed signs of external sooting. Three of these vessels came from F159, a ditch forming part of EN7. A total of 45 body sherds from F113, a ditch forming part of EN3 also showed signs of external sooting. A single form showing the extent of the external sooting is illustrated (Fig. 60, no. 84).

Fabric A total of 13 wheelmade / finished fabrics were identified. Fabric descriptions for the Belgic and Roman pottery are given after the Roman pottery discussion (see Hancocks, below). The occurrence of the fabrics by phase is detailed above.

Forms The occurrence of form by phase is listed above and the catalogue of forms within the transitional ceramic assemblage is detailed below. Those items marked with an asterisk represent material recovered from the key ceramic assemblages. The ‘Belgic’ pottery identified here falls into Thompson’s 1982 zone 8 for the northwest. Much of the pottery is characterised by grog, shell and mixed grog and shell tempering. There is a limited range of forms that have been identified. These parallels are listed in the relevant catalogue entry and include material that is dated to the mid-1st century AD. The channel rim jar is commonly found in north Buckinghamshire, north Bedfordshire and the southern part of Northamptonshire, so it is not surprising to find that it is present amongst the Grange Park assemblage in large quantities. The most common rim form types observed include everted rim, bead rim, single internal channel rim and rounded direct rim. The most common rim profiles are ovoid (57), necked jar (23), necked bowl (17) and globular jar (13). The most common form within the transitional assemblage is the ovoid neckless jar with single internal channel rim. There is some bias amongst the assemblage as the two most common fabrics, F021 and H05.2 point to the possibility that there is a direct relationship between fabric and form. The ovoid jars occur in both fabrics, but are more common in the shell-tempered ware, whilst the necked jar and bowl forms are most common in the grog-tempered fabric.

The most dominant fabric group in the ceramic assemblage is the grog-tempered ware F021 (62.51%, see Table 21). This fabric appears throughout all the ceramic phases and is most common within the Phase 3 transitional material, with forms such as carinated cup, necked and neckless bowls occurring in EN7 (Fig. 56, nos. 16 to 24). The second dominant fabric in the overall assemblage is the shell-tempered fabric H05.2, 17.23% (Table 21). Forms observed in this fabric include necked bowls, rounded shouldered ovoid and globular jars and the occasional butt beaker. Quartz-tempered fabrics (8.23%), and several grog-tempered variants make up the majority of the rest of the assemblage (F021v; 4.45% and F024; 3.78%, see Table 21). The quality and quantity of the material recovered can give an indication of the status and function of the settlement site. Surface finish A range and variety of ten surface finishes were recorded on all pottery fabrics in the Phase 3 assemblage. The most common being combing (COM); cordons (COR) and incised (INC). The most commonly represented fabric, F021, appears to have the greatest variety of decorative motifs. Three techniques, combing, stamped and incised / cordon occur on pottery in fabric F021 and nothing else. Only six fabrics within the transitional assemblage carry decoration, four of these are grog-tempered. There does appear to be a correlation between fabric type and decorative motif, but no pattern between form, decoration and fabric.

Vessel size and function The most common diameter range is 100mm. This range of diameter occurs on forms such as ovoid, necked and globular jars and necked bowls. The ovoid jar is the most common vessel in this range. Overall though, the range of vessels is most common between 100mm and 150mm. There is a direct relationship between vessel size and vessel function and / or use. This is especially the case with some of the large storage jars and S-sided jars.

Colour Of the 2,473 sherds that comprise the Phase 3 ceramic assemblage, c 42% are coloured black / dark grey (B/DG), c 43% are red / orange (RO), 14% are buff brown (BB) and the remaining 1% is black, grey or

93

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK Catalogue The following catalogue is ordered by phase and fabric, with each entry listing; context, description, form and measurements. Numbered entries relate to figures. Unphased F021 SSB/N/BEAD. S-Sided neckless bowl with bead rim and corrugated body. Unstratified from near pit northwest of F479, diam. 200mm (10%), not illustrated F022 1. CB/N/FEE. Carinated neckless bowl with flattened everted rim, corrugation at girth. 1265, diam. 80mm (10%) H05.2 2. OV/N/EVR. Ovoid, neckless jar with everted rim with external sooting and incised decoration on rim. 1265, diam. 160mm (6%)

Area 5 Unphased Enclosure Ditch EN6 (F144) F021 3. NB/U/BEAD. Necked bowl with upright neck and bead rim with cordon at base of neck. 1244, ditch, F144, diam. 140mm (16%) 4. Decorated, body sherd with stab impressions on body. 1244, ditch, F144 H05.2 5. GLOB/N/MIC. Globular neckless jar with multiple internal channel rim. 1244, ditch, F144, diam. 180mm (31%)

Linear Ditch LD3 (F0296) F021 Body sherd with incised groove at neck, not illustrated

Area 5 Phase 2 Enclosure Ditch EN3 (F127) H05.2 OV/N/RD. Ovoid neckless jar with rounded direct rim with external sooting. 1191, ditch, F127, diam. 120mm (10%), not illustrated

Enclosure Ditch EN7 (F158) 6. OV/N/FD. Ovoid neckless jar with flattened direct rim. 1261, ditch, F158, diam. 200mm (36%)

Area 5 Phase 3 Curvilinear Ditch CD4 (F118) H05.2 RS/C/FPEI. Rounded shouldered jar with concave neck and flattened pinched out externally rim with finger-tipping on rim. 1172.2, ditch, F118, diam. 230mm (6%), not illustrated

Curvilinear Ditch CD5 (F217) F021 OV/N/EVR. Ovoid neckless jar with everted rim. 1320, ditch, F217, diam. 90mm (15%), not illustrated

Curvilinear Ditch CD8 (F252) F021v

94

THE POTTERY 7. OV/N/SIC. Ovoid neckless jar with single internal channel rim with external sooting on rim surface. 1402, ditch, F252, diam. 130mm (15%)

Curvilinear Ditch CD11 (F246) F021 Decorated body sherd with cordon at girth. 1387, ditch, F246, not illustrated

Curvilinear Ditch CD12 (F262) F021 8. NJ/C/EVR. Necked jar with concave neck and everted rim with cordon at base of neck and grooves on girth. Thompson 1982, E3-6, small flask with high narrow neck. 1411, ditch, F262, diam. 120mm (100%) 9. BB/N/EVR. Butt beaker with slight cupped / ledged rim and cordon at girth. 1411.1, ditch, F262, diam. 100mm (29%)

Curvilinear Ditch CD21 (F255) H05.2 OV/N/SIC. Ovoid neckless jar with single internal channel rim. 1400, ditch, F255, diam. 150mm (22%), not illustrated

Enclosure Ditch EN3 (F113 and F127) F021 10. OV/N/EVR. Ovoid neckless jar with everted rim. 1191, ditch, F127, diam. 230mm (5%) F025 11. OV/N/RD. Ovoid neckless jar with rounded direct rim. 1188, ditch, F113, diam. 120mm (12%)

Enclosure Ditch EN5 (F202, F212) F021 12. OV/N/RDA. Ovoid, neckless jar with rounded direct rim with sharp internal angle at base of rim. 1375, ditch, F212, diam. indeterminate Decorated body sherd with incised linear decoration on body. 1310, ditch, F202, not illustrated H05.2 13. OV/N/FEI. Ovoid neckless bowl with flattened everted internal rim. 1322, ditch, F209, diam. 130mm, 12%

Enclosure Ditch EN6 (F130, F235, F505) F021 14. CC/E/BEAD. Carinated cup with everted neck and bead rim, cordons on neck. Thompson 1982, E1-1. Simple carinated cup with cordon constricting waist. 1195, ditch, F130, diam. 170mm (19%) Pedestal base angle. E504, ditch, E505, diam. 130mm (20%), not illustrated Base angle. 1364, ditch, F235, diam. 170mm (24%), not illustrated H05.2 Flattened base angle. 1365, ditch, F235, diam. 60mm (100%), not illustrated 15. GLOB/N/EVR. Globular neckless jar with everted rim with cabling on rim exterior. Thompson 1982, C5-2, lid-seated jar with slashed rim. 1205, ditch, F130, diam. 200mm, 18%

Enclosure Ditch EN7 (F159, F177, F211) F021 16. CC/-/EVR. Carinated cup with everted rim with smoking. 1240, ditch, F159, diam. indeterminate 17. Decorated body sherd with incised lattice lines on body. 1263, ditch, F159 18. NB/-/BEAD. Necked bowl with bead rim and cordons on neck. 1240, ditch, F159, diam. 140mm (12%) F021v 19. GLOB/N/RD. Globular neckless bowl with rounded direct rim with finger-tipping on neck. 1279, ditch, F177, diam. 100mm (9%) F022 20. Pedestal base angle. 1279, ditch, F177, diam. 140mm (30%) 21. CB/N/EVR. Carinated neckless bowl with everted rim with corrugation on shoulder. 1303, ditch, F177, diam. 160mm (3%)

95

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK 22. SSB/N/EVR. S-Sided neckless bowl with everted rim corrugation on body. Thompson 1982, E2-2/3-7, cup with tall elaborate cordoned neck. 1279, ditch, F177, diam. 260mm (10%) H05.2 OV/N/RD. Ovoid neckless jar with rounded direct rim. 1325, ditch, F211, diam. 150mm (11%), not illustrated 23. OV/N/EVR. Ovoid neckless jar with everted rim and external smoking. 1240, ditch, F159, diam. 220mm (10%) 24. OV/N/FRE. Ovoid neckless jar with flattened, rounded everted rim and external sooting. 1240, ditch, F159, diam. 190mm (6%) OV/N/SIC. Ovoid neckless jar with single internal channel and cabling on rim exterior. 1240, ditch, F159, diam. 160mm (6%), not illustrated

Enclosure Ditch EN9 (F304) F021 NB/-/BEAD. Necked bowl with bead rim. 1522, ditch, F304, diam. 250mm (15%), not illustrated

Linear Ditch LD8 (F307) H05.2 JL type large storage jar. 1528, ditch, F307, diam. 200mm (7%), not illustrated

Linear Ditch LD17 (F226) F021 NJ. Necked jar type. 1349, ditch, F226, diam. 350mm (8%), not illustrated NJ. Necked jar type. 1349, ditch, F226, diam. 160mm (10%), not illustrated 25. BK/N/EVR. Neckless beaker with everted rim and shoulder cordons. Thompson 1982, B3-6, girth beaker with shoulder cordons and panelling of cross-hatch burnishing. 1349, ditch, F226, diam. 220mm (20%)

96

THE POTTERY

Fig. 56 Belgic pottery: numbers 1 to 25

97

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK Linear Ditch LD18 (F293) 26. NB/C/EVR. Necked bowl with concave neck and everted rim. Thompson 1982, E3-2, plain everted rim cup with exaggerated neck above offset. 1485, ditch, F293, diam. 200mm (18%) NJ/C/BEAD. Necked jar with concave neck and bead rim. Thompson 1982, E3-2, plain everted rim cup with exaggerated neck above offset. 1485, ditch, F293, diam. 90m (15%), not illustrated

Linear Ditch LD26 (F114) Decorated body sherd with grooved linear lines at girth. 1168, ditch, F114, not illustrated H05.2 GLOB/C/SIC. Globular jar with concave neck and single internal channel rim. 1168, ditch, F114, diam. 180mm (7%), not illustrated

Linear Gully LG6 (F152) F021 27. CC/N/EVR. Carinated neckless cup with everted rim with cordons at girth. Thompson 1982, E2-1, squat wide-mouthed cup. 1227, Gully, F152, diam. 190mm (20%) NB/U/EVR. Necked bowl with upright, everted rim with cordons at girth. 1227, Gully, F152, diam. 100mm (14%), not illustrated F021v OPEN/N/BEAD. Open neckless bowl with bead rim. 1227, Gully, F152, diam. 200mm (40%), not illustrated 28. GLOB/N/EVR. Globular, neckless jar with everted rim with cabling on rim exterior. Thompson 1982, C5-2, lid-seated jar with slashed rim. 1227, Gully, F152, diam. 170mm (83%), not illustrated

Ditch (F137) F021 Base angle from strainer / colander. 1198, ditch, F137, not illustrated

Gully (F227) Rim type. 1350.1, Gully, F227, diam. 350mm (8%), not illustrated Pits (F122, F254, F267, F271, F287) 29. NB/C/EVR. Necked bowl with concave neck and everted rim. Thompson 1982, E1-1, simple carinated cup with one cordon constricting waist.1422, pit, F271, diam. 170mm (16%) Shoulder from vessel. 1178, pit, F122, not illustrated Rim type. 1398, pit, F254, diam. 160mm (12%), not illustrated Rim type. Thompson 1982, E1-1/E3-7, simple carinated cup with one cordon constricting waist/cup with tall elaborately cordoned neck. 1417, pit, F267, diam. 180mm (16%), not illustrated Quartz-tempered OV/N/SIC. Ovoid neckless jar with single internal channel. 1475, pit, F287, diam. 100mm (9%), not illustrated

Area 5 Phase 3 to 4 Curvilinear Ditch CD5 (F225) F021 30. Decorated body sherd with corrugated linear lines at girth. Thompson 1982, E3-7, cup with tall elaborately cordoned neck. 1348, ditch, F225 31. NJ/C/EVR. Necked jar with concave neck and everted rim. 1348, ditch, F225, diam. 200mm (23%) 32. Decorated body sherd from butt beaker with incised linear lines on body. 1348, ditch, F225 33. BB/N/EVR. Butt beaker with no neck and everted rim. 1348, ditch, F225, diam. 130mm (25%) 34. NJ/U/EVR. Necked jar with upright neck and everted rim with cordons on body. Thompson 1982, E3-6, small true flask with high narrow neck. 1348, ditch, F225, diam. 110mm (100%)

Enclosure Ditch EN5 (F210) Quartz-tempered RS/N/EVR. Rounded shoulder neckless jar with everted rim. 1333, ditch, F210, diam. 90mm (26%), not illustrated

Curvilinear Ditch CD5 (E404) F021 OV/N/RD. Ovoid neckless jar with rounded direct rim. E406, ditch, E404, diam. 130mm (9%)

Enclosure Ditch EN7 (F145) 35. OV/N/FD. Ovoid neckless jar with flattened direct rim with finger-tipping on rim. 1224, ditch, F145, diam. 200mm (17%) 36. NJ/-/EVR. Necked jar with everted rim. 1224, ditch, F145, diam. 200mm (15%)

98

THE POTTERY

Fig. 57 Belgic pottery: numbers 26 to 44Area 5 Phase 4

99

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK Gully (F146) Quartz-tempered GLOB/N/EVR. Globular neckless jar with everted rim. 1217, Gully, F146, diam. 180mm (40%)

Area 6 Unphased Enclosure Ditch EN16 F021 37. Domed lid type. Unstratified 6804/5290

Area 6 Phase 2 Pits (F468, F511 and F512) 38. GLOB/N/SIC. Globular neckless jar with single internal groove on channel rim with slashed decoration. 2151, pit, F468, diam. 160mm (9%) 39. BB/N/EVR. Butt beaker with concave neck and everted rim. 2211, pit, F511, diam. 140mm (16%) 40. PL/-/EVR. Shallow platter with everted rim and slight incised groove on internal lip. 2211, pit, F511, diam. 180mm (15%) 41. Decorated body sherd with incised linear body decoration. 2212, pit, F512 42. OV/N/BEAD. Ovoid neckless jar with bead rim with brushing on body. 2212, pit, F512, diam. 100mm (9%) 43. OV/N/RD. Ovoid slack-profiled jar with rounded direct rim with brushing on body. 2212, pit, F512, diam. 100mm (8%) 44. GLOB/N/REE. Globular neckless jar with rounded everted rim. 2212, pit, F512, diam. 100mm (5%)

Enclosure Ditch EN14 (F447) GLOB/U/RD. Globular jar with upright neck and rounded direct rim. 2120, ditch, F447, diam. 140mm (10%), not illustrated

Enclosure Ditch ED17 (F476, F489) 45. NJ/B/-/BEAD. Necked jar / bowl with bead rim. 2165, ditch, F476, diam. 140mm (12%) 46. OV/N/RD. Ovoid neckless jar with rounded direct rim. 2165, ditch, F476, diam. 80mm (10%) 47. SHC. Strap handle. 2165.2, ditch, F476 48. OV/N/RD. Ovoid neckless jar with rounded direct rim. 2184, ditch, F489, diam. 150mm (11%)

Linear Ditch 11 (F537) F024 49. OV/N/SIC. Ovoid neckless jar with single internal channel rim with cabling on rim exterior. Thompson 1982, C5-2, lidseated jar with slashed rim. 2239, ditch, F537, diam. 180mm (9%)

Area 6 Phase 3 Ditches (F536, F547) F021 50. Body and shoulder from necked jar with everted rim. Thompson 1982, E3-6, small true flask with high narrow neck. 2238, ditch, F536 51. NJ/U/EVR. Necked jar with upright neck and everted rim. 2238, ditch, F536, diam. 100mm (5%) 52. NJ/C/EVR. Necked jar with concave neck and everted rim. 2125, ditch, F547, diam. 350mm (13%) 53. NB/U/BEAD. Necked bowl with upright neck and bead rim. 2125, ditch, F547, diam. 180mm (11%) Decorated body sherd with groove. 2265, ditch, F564, not illustrated OV/N/SIC. Ovoid neckless jar with single internal channel rim. 2265, ditch, F564, diam. 140mm (9%), not illustrated OV/N/SIC. Ovoid neckless jar with single internal channel rim. 2265, ditch, F564, diam. 160mm (10%), not illustrated

Pits (F421, F450, F459, F538, F588) 54. NB/N/RD. Necked bowl with rounded direct rim with cordons on neck. Thompson 1982, D3-4, elaborate lidded bowl or barrel. 2100.1, pit, F421, diam. 170mm (20%) 55. NB/C/EVR. Necked bowl with upright neck and everted rim. 2100, pit, F421, diam. 120mm (15%) 56. LID. Domed shaped lid. 2100, pit, F421, diam. 200mm (6%) 57. NJ/U/EVR. Necked jar with upright neck and everted rim. 2100, pit, F421, diam. 150mm (21%) 58. NJ/U/EVR. Necked jar with upright neck and everted rim cordon at base of neck and groove at girth. Thompson 1982, E3-6, small true flask with high narrow neck. 2100, pit, F421, diam. 140mm (26%) 59. LID. Lid with bifid rim. 2100, pit, F421, diam. 300mm (16%) 60. GLOB/C/SIC. Globular jar with concave neck and single internal channel rim with incised, diagonal slashed decoration on rim exterior. 2140, pit, F450, diam. 100mm (10%) 61. NJ/C/BEAD. Necked jar with concave neck and bead rim with cordon at base of neck. Thompson 1982, E1-1, simple carinated cup with one cordon constricting waist. 2121, pit, F450, diam. 200mm (11%) NJ/C/BEAD. Necked jar with concave neck and bead rim. Thompson 1982, E1-1, simple carinated cup with one cordon constricting waist. 2121, pit, F450, diam. 180mm (20%), not illustrated

100

THE POTTERY

Fig. 58 Belgic pottery: numbers 45 to 61

101

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK 62. SJ/C/EVR. Large storage jar with concave neck with everted rim with stab decoration on the shoulder. 2140, pit, F450, diam. 350mm (15%) 63. Base angle. Flattened pinched out base angle with combed linear decoration on lower body. 2133, pit, F459, diam. 160mm (27%) 64. Decorated body sherd with incised linear decoration. 2241, pit, F538 65. GLOB/N/EVR. Globular neckless jar with everted rim. 2241, pit, F538, diam. 120mm (9%) SHC. Strap handle. 2273, pit, F588, not illustrated F022 66. LID/-/MIC. Lid with multiple internal channels. 2134, pit, F459, diam. 250mm (10%) Quartz-tempered 67. NJ/C/EVR. Necked jar with concave neck and everted rim with incised wavy line on shoulder and parallel incised lines at base of shoulder. 2241, pit, F538, diam. 250mm (24%) 68. LID. Domed lid type. 2133, pit, F459, diam. 200mm (27%)

Enclosure Ditch EN15 (F393, F488, F535, F543, F553) F021 69. SJ/-/EVR. Large storage jar with everted rim. 2039, ditch, F393, diam. 400mm (12%) 70. NC/U/EVR. Necked cup with upright neck and everted rim with grooves at base of neck and at girth. Thompson 1982, E2-1, squat wide-mouthed cup. 2182, ditch, F488, diam. 150mm (48%) 71. NJ/C/EVR. Necked jar with concave neck and everted rim with incised cordon and burnished lattice decoration. 2236, ditch, F535, diam. 230mm (48%) 72. NJ/C/BEAD. Necked jar with concave neck and bead rim. Thompson 1982, E3-2, plain everted rim cup with exaggerated neck above offset. 2236, ditch, F535, diam. 200mm (24%) 73. NJ/B/-/EVR. Necked jar/bowl with everted rim and cordon at girth. Thompson 1982, E1-1, simple carinated cup with one cordon constricting waist. 2237, ditch, F535, diam. 130mm (9%) 74. NJ/B/C/EVR. Necked jar/bowl with concave neck and everted rim. Thompson 1982, E3-2, plain everted rim cup with exaggerated neck above offset. 2236.1, ditch, F535, diam. 170mm (16%)

102

THE POTTERY

Fig. 59 Belgic pottery: numbers 62 to 74

103

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK 75. NJ/B/C/EVR. Necked jar/bowl with concave neck and everted rim with cordons at neck. Thompson 1982, E3-7 cup with tall elaborately cordoned neck. 2248, ditch, F543, diam. 110mm (22%) F024 76. Decorated body sherd with parallel grooves with ovoid impressions within. 2264, ditch, F553 77. NB/U/RD. Necked bowl with upright neck and rounded direct rim. Thompson 1982, D3-4 elaborate lidded bowl or barrel. 2260, ditch, F553, diam. 130mm (20%) 78. Base angle. Flat base angle, possibly a waster as warped. 2264, ditch, F553, diam. 170mm (29%) H05.2 79. OV/N/SIC. Ovoid neckless jar with single internal channel rim and slashed decoration on rim exterior. 2182, ditch, F488, diam. 190mm (18%) 80. NB/N/SIC. Neckless bowl with single internal channel rim. 2236, ditch, F535, diam. 150mm (10%) OV/N/SIC. Ovoid neckless jar with single internal channel rim. 2236, ditch, F535, diam. 170mm (20%), not illustrated 81. BB/N/EVR. Neckless butt beaker with everted rim. 2264, ditch, F553, diam. 120mm (10%)

Enclosure Ditch EN16 (F474, F477) F021 82. SJ/C/EVR. Storage jar with concave neck and everted rim. 2166, ditch, F477, diam. 350mm (14%) 83. Base angle. Pedestal base angle with cordon at base of pedestal. 2168, ditch, F474, diam. 80mm (100%) H05.2 84. NB/N/EVR. Neckless bowl with everted rim and external sooting. 2168, ditch, F474, diam. 120mm (10%)

Area 6 Phase 3 to 4 Pit (F459, F538) F021 85. OV/C/FD. Ovoid jar with concave neck and flattened direct rim. 2240, pit, F538, diam. 300mm (6%) 86. NJ/B/C/EVR. Necked jar/bowl with concave neck and everted rim. 2240, pit, F538, diam. 300mm (11%) Quartz-tempered 87. NB/U/BEAD. Necked bowl with upright neck and bead rim and incised grooves at girth. 2136, pit, F459, diam. 120mm (30%) G02 88. PL. Platter type. 2136, pit, F459, diam. 160mm (26%) H05.2 89. BB/N/EVR. Neckless butt beaker with single internal channel rim. 2240, pit, F538, diam. 180mm (8%)

Enclosure Ditch EN15 (F548) 90. NJ/U/RDA. Necked jar with upright neck and rounded direct rim, with sharp internal angle at base of rim. 2253, ditch, F548, diam. 210mm (7%)

Area 6 Phase 4 Pit (F468) O06.25 91. NJ/U/SIC. Necked jar with upright neck and single internal channel rim. Thompson 1982, E3-6, small true flask with high narrow neck. 2151, pit, F468, diam. 60mm (25%) H05.2 92. OV/N/MIC. Ovoid neckless jar with multiple internal channels on rim. 2151, pit, F468, diam. 100mm (11%) 93. OV/N/SIC. Ovoid neckless jar with single internal channel rim. 2151, pit, F468, diam. 100mm (12%)

Area 6 Phase 5 Pit (F517) F021 94. NB/N/RD. Ovoid neckless bowl with rounded direct rim. 2215, pit, F517, diam. 200mm (12%) H05.2 95. OV/N/SIC. Ovoid neckless jar with single internal channel rim with suspension/rivet hole through rim. Thompson 1982, C51, plain lid-seated jar. 2215, pit, F517, diam. 200mm (20%)

104

THE POTTERY

Fig. 60 Belgic pottery: numbers 75 to 95

105

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK Table 23 Belgic pottery: totals by phase and area

Area/Phase No area 1 5 6 10 Total

Unphased 33 242 275

1 2 2

1/2 2 2

2 51 498 539

3 1142 1331 2473

Detailed analysis of key groups in Areas 5 and 6

3/4 138 213 1 362

4 3 101 182 286

5 59 59

Total 33 3 1676 2285 1 3398

ditch F535. The grog-tempered forms comprised necked jar and bowl types that were readily paralleled to Thompson’s 1982 corpus, while the shell-tempered forms consisted of ovoid jar types in the channel rim jar tradition.

Area 5 The range of fabrics within the key groups is greater than that from Area 6. Shell and grog-tempered fabrics prevail, but in a wider variety. There are more variants of these fabrics and quartz-tempering is also present. This would appear to be chronologically significant and may suggest that ceramic development in Area 5 to be later than Area 6. Several enclosure groups, EN3, EN7 and EN9, were studied in detail from Area 5 and an attempt was made to analyse any change over time amongst the assemblage, especially between enclosures EN7 and EN9. Three phases of activity were identified in enclosures EN7 and EN9. The earliest of these two enclosures is EN7.

The pottery recovered from the truncated pit or kiln, F421, was almost entirely grog-tempered in the redcoated / slip tradition with forms including necked jars and bowls (Fig. 58 and 59, nos. 54 to 68). This is in stark contrast to the ceramics recovered from pit F450 where, whilst the pottery was predominantly grog-tempered, there were also shell and quartz-tempered wares. What was significantly different compared to feature F421 was the range and variety of forms identified. These consisted of globular and ovoid jars and a large storage jar. This perhaps highlights the contrast between the function of these features, with pit F450 more than likely being a storage pit.

A total of 206 sherds of transitional pottery were recovered from enclosure EN7. The majority of the material was associated with Phase 3. The range and variety of fabrics and forms were greatest, but were predominantly grog-tempered fabrics F021, F021v, F022, F023, F024 in carinated cup, necked bowl, ovoid and globular jar and S-sided bowl forms (Fig. 56, nos. 16 to 24 and 57, nos. 35 to 36).

A comparison of the assemblages from the Areas 5 and 6 was also made. Both assemblages are remarkably similar in composition and in the range and variety of fabrics present. Shell and grog-tempered wares dominate both assemblages, although there is some difference in form. In Area 6, necked jar, bowl and storage jar forms prevail contrasting with the Area 5 assemblage, where ovoid, globular and carinated forms are dominant.

From comparative study of the nature of the composition of the ceramic assemblages, it seems likely that enclosure EN7 was contemporary with enclosure EN3. The range of forms and fabrics in the latter enclosure is remarkably similar to those associated with enclosure EN7, although only 161 sherds of pottery were recovered (Fig. 56, nos. 10 to 11). This is in contrast to the composition of the ceramic assemblage from enclosure EN9, which appears to be later in the sequence and comparable to Phases 2 and 3 of enclosures EN3 and EN7. The number of fabrics represented in this enclosure is restricted to three; grog, quartz and shell. The emergence of a quartz-tempered fabric seems to be chronologically significant.

Potter’s marks on Local Coarse Wares by Val Rigby All parallels quoted are from the authors records (Rigby, unpublished). There are several references to hitherto unpublished sites for which specialist reports have been prepared by the author. Phase 4 Area 5 96. Base angle. Curvilinear Ditch CD7, 1327, F214. Potter’s mark using repeated V-motifs. Central stamp; one raised cordon on the upper surface; small platter with a double or triple offset footring. Grey coarseware; fine matrix with coarse sand inclusions; abraded, rough surfaces. Source – unknown, but likely to be in the Upper Nene Valley area. Date: manufactured between 60 and 120 AD.

Area 6 Three main features types were selected for further detailed analysis, EN15 and pits F421 and F450. A total of 435 sherds, and 29 vessels were represented. The ceramics recovered were consistently of mid-1st century AD date (Figs. 59 and 60, nos. 69 to 81). The fabrics recognised were predominantly grog-tempered, although a range of shell-tempered forms were recovered from

No other stamps have been recorded for this die, however, the platter, with its raised cordon and multiple footring, and ‘sand-paper’ surfaced fabric is typical of the region, with

106

THE POTTERY

Fig. 61 Belgic pottery stamps: numbers 96 to 97 examples recorded at Brafield and Dunston, Northamptonshire and Odell, Bedfordshire. The cordon also occurs on platters in fine-grained fabrics at Dunston, Piddington, and Quinton, Northamptonshire, at Odell, Bedfordshire, and at Baldock, Hertfordshire, while the multiple footring is also recorded at Ashton and Quinton, Northamptonshire, at Felmersham, Bedfordshire, and at Baldock and Folly Lane, St. Albans, Hertfordshire. There is useful dating evidence at Baldock and Folly Lane where examples of platters with a multiple footring, technologically belonging to an early phase of Roman pottery production in southern Britain, occur in contexts dated c 50 to 80 AD (Stead and Rigby 1986, fig. 100, no. 7; Niblett 1999)

the rims of some of the jars with finger tipping or nail slashing. This technique has been recognised at the nearby site of Quinton (Friendship-Taylor 1979, fig. 32, no. 1) where the vessels have been dated to the Claudian period. The single groove channel rim is most common at Grange Park, with diameters of vessels ranging from 100180mm. Large ceramic domed lids are another form noticeable in the assemblage. The lids, or covers, could quite feasibly fit some of the larger diameters of the channel-rim jars recorded. This form has been identified on settlement sites such as Ashley and Rushden. There is evidence for some degree of continuity amongst the range of forms within the assemblage. This is reflected in the use of the shell and grog-tempered fabrics. The grog-tempered fabrics, particularly those from Area 6 at Grange Park, are soapy and smooth in texture and there is evidence for small-scale pottery production in the form of kilns and and kiln furniture. At Rushden several sherds retained traces of a red coating both internally and externally. This application of colour wash / paint to dishes continued into the Trajanic / Hadrianic period and was noted on some of the pottery found in association with the possible kilns in Area 6. In addition, some of the other ceramics have rippled corrugated shoulders on forms such as bowls. This has been noted at Rushden, Moulton Park and Aldwincle.

Phase 4 Area 6 97. Base angle. Pattern mark, bordered, central stamp; combed wreath around stamp, platter with multiple offset footring. Coarse ware; smooth matrix with sparse coarse inclusions; black core, brown surfaces, abraded. Source, unknown, but likely to be local in the Upper Nene Valley area. Date: manufactured between 70 and 120 AD. No other stamp has been recorded for this die, but a similar die is represented at Baldock, Hertfordshire, on a platter with a multiple, offset footring, in a context dated to c 50 to 70 AD (Stead and Rigby 1986, fig. 100, no 6.). The diestyle generally accords with stamps recorded at Ashton and Piddington.

ROMAN POTTERY by Annette Hancocks, with contributions by Steve Willis, Brenda Dickinson and Kay Hartley

Discussion The Grange Park transitional assemblage has key affinities with local ceramic assemblages of similar date. At Irchester (Hall and Nickerson 1967) a late Belgic phase was identified that had a continental influence that continued into the early post-conquest period (ibid., fig. 11, nos. 43 and 47; fig. 12, nos. 59 and 67). The Moulton Park assemblage also demonstrates local characteristics indicative of a conquest date. Some development may be seen with the occurrence of the slashed rim jars, which are always shell-tempered. The vessel form and surface treatment is commonly associated with a bead rim and external horizontal rilling. At Grange Park this vessel type seems to be more commonly grog-tempered, perhapsa local trait. It is quite feasible that these types of jar originate from the Nene and Ouse Valleys. This would explain the development of the technique of decorating

Summary A total of 3,659 sherds, weighing 59.63kg, with an average sherd weight of 16.3g was recovered. Several key ceramics sequences were identified and these are reported on in greater detail within this report. The criteria used for selection of the key groups was based on the presence of a secure stratigraphic sequence which did not have any intrusive or residual material. These key groups were selected and subject to detailed analysis and reporting. The ceramic dating was such that only a single distinct ceramic phase could be identified and dated within the Roman assemblage to between the 2nd to 4th century AD. 107

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK Table 24 Roman pottery: fabric, sources and quantities Fabric

NRFRC

Qty

% Qty

Wt (g)

% Wt (g)

B02 C01 C02 C03 C07 E02 F02 F08 F021 F021v F022 F023 F024 F025 G02 G02.2 G03 G06.18 G012 H04.3 H05.1 H05.2 H05.4 M02a M03 M04c M04cv M010d O06.22 O06.23 O06.24 O06.25 O06.26 Quartz Shell Samian S01 S02 S03 T01

DOR BB1 LNV CC LNV CC LNV CC OXF RS NOG RE

1 1 1 5 7 1 3 16 704 83 55 68 316 1 244 61 5 1 1 3 3 267 5 7 2 2 1 1 7 7 1 4 92 211 132 41 2 2 34 1

0.03 0.03 0.03 0.14 0.19 0.03 0.08 0.44 19.24 2.27 1.50 1.86 8.64 0.03 6.67 1.67 0.14 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.08 7.30 0.14 0.19 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.19 0.19 0.03 0.11 2.51 5.76 3.61 1.12 0.05 0.05 0.93 0.03

13 17 31 235 29 3 23 305 16837 1159 1236 1023 8025 20 2917 774 125 4 2 88 70 3565 78 345 25 335 217 85 179 27 10 84 874 1816 905 112 39 8 154 2

34 1 20

0.93 0.03 0.55

1 1 1 6 1196 3659

W05 W06 W12 W16 W17 W18 W19 Total non key groups (not analysed in detail) TOTAL

PNK GT SOB GT SOB GT

LNV GW HOR RE LON FR

MAH VER WH OXF OXF UNV WH

LGF SA LMV SA LEZ SA 2 GAB TN 2 LNV WH NOG WH 1

AVSW (g)

Rim EVE

% Rim EVE

0.02 0.03 0.05 0.39 0.05 0 0.04 0.51 28.24 1.94 2.07 1.72 13.45 0.03 4.89 1.30 0.21 0.01 0 0.15 0.12 5.98 0.12 0.58 0.04 0.56 0.36 0.14 0.30 0.04 0.02 0.14 1.47 3.04 1.52 0.19 0.06 0.01 0.26 0

10 10 42 952 71 73 22 218 344 422 168 18 15 310 30 9 25 19 5 91 132 157 45 22 19 12 28 9

0.27 0.27 0.82 19.5 1.92 1.92 0.27 4.94 9.39 3.29 0.55 0.55 7.14 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.55 0.27 0.27 0.82 2.47 4.40 1.37 0.27 0.55 0.55 1.10 0.27

1042 9 429

1.75 0.02 0.72

55 -

0.82 -

0.03 0.03 0.03 0.16 32.69

4 6 5 17 16320

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 27.37

-

34.06

100

59628

100

4491

N=364

16.3g

Key: NRFRC: National Roman Fabric Reference Collection, EVE: Estimated Vessel Equivalent, N: total number of vessels analysed

108

THE POTTERY For ease of reference much of the pottery information is tabulated by fabric and phase as follows:

Introduction and methodology The key groups identified for further analysis represented 28% of the total Roman ceramic assemblage from enclosures EN4, EN7, EN8, EN10, EN11 and EN12. This material weighed 19.67kg and had an average sherd weight (AVSW) of 19g. Full quantification of the ceramics by fabric type appears in Table 24.

Phase 3 F021 F021v F022 F024 G02 H05.2 O06.26

The material was recorded using the standard Birmingham Archaeology pottery recording system (Hancocks 1997) and analysed using Microsoft Access database software. The assemblage is quantified in full by sherd count, weight (g), and estimated vessel equivalent (EVE). Only rim equivalents (EVEs) are published for the key groups, but percentages for bases are recorded in the archive. The level of abrasion was recorded for individual sherds. The fabrics are listed in a section below. In this listing full descriptions are provided for non-standard types. Other characteristics noted included decoration, evidence for manufacture (wasters) and, if present, repairs (rivets and rivet holes). The form catalogue is by fabric group. Form codes are listed as follows: B B/D B/DA B/J BA BB BC BC/DB BE BH BI BK BKA BKD CB CC DA DA/DB DC FA J JE JE/JM JG JJ JJ/JG JL JM JN JW L LA MA

BE1.01x2, JJ14.18 BE1.01 BE1.01, JG1.01 L1.01 J, JJ JJ14.16x3, JJ14.19 JM20.20

Phase 3/4 F021 F021v F022 F023 F024 G02 H04.3 H05.2 O06.22 T01

Bowl type Bowl / dish type Straight-sided bowl / dish Bowl / jar type Carinated bowl Straight-sided bowl Curving-sided bowl Curving-sided bowl / dish Necked bowl Reeded rim bowl Flanged bowl Beaker type Butt Beaker Globular / Bulbous beaker Campanulate cup Conical cup Straight-sided dish Straight-sided dish / curving-sided dish Platter type Flask Jar type Necked jar Necked / medium-mouthed jar Globular / Bulbous jar Lid-seated jar Lid-seated / Globular / Bulbous jar Storage jar Medium-mouthed jar Narrow-mouthed jar Wide-mouthed jar Lid Flat, conical, domed lid Hooked rimmed / bead and flange

BE1.01x5, BKA7.08, JE, JJ, JE1.01, JE7.01x2, JJ14.16, JJ14.21, JL7.01 JJ, BE, JJ14.21 BE1.01, JG7.01 JL7.01 JJ, JJ14.13 JE1.01, JG6.05, JG7.01 JJ14.16x2 JJ14.16, JJ14.19 JG, JG6.05 BA1.01

Phase 4 F08 F021 F021v F022 F024 G02 G02.2 H05.1 H05.2 H05.4 M02a M04cv M010d O06.22 O06.26 Quartz Shell S01 S02 S03 W05

109

JE, JM2.09, JM20.21 BC1.01, BE1.01x4, BKA7.01x2, J, J1.01x2, JEx2, JG, JG1.01, JG7.01, JJ, JJ14.16x3, JJ14.21x2, JL, JN7.01, L, L1.01 BE1.01, JE1.01, JJ BE1.01, J, JE1.01x5, JE7.11, JG, JJ14.16, L1.01 JE1.01, JE7.11 BB8.31, BC7.01, BE1.01x2, BE7.07, BI8.31x2, J, JE, JE7.07, JG6.05, JJ2.01, JJ14.11, JJ14.21, L DC, JE1.01x3, JG1.01, JJ, JJ14.21x2 JG, JG6.05 BC20.21, J, JEx2, JE1.01x2, JG, JG13.01, JJ, JJ14.15, JJ14.16, JJ14.18, JJ14.21x2, JW20.20 JJ14.18 MA8.05 MA8.15 MA8.06 JG6.05 BC1.01, BK5.01, JE7.01, JJ14.13, JM2.08, JM20.20, LA1.01 DC1.01, FA2.01, JE1.01, JG, JG1.01, JG6.02, JJ/JG, JJ14.17, JJ14.21, JJ14.22 JE BI 1/01 B/DA1.01 CB1.01, CC16.04 CC1.01, DC1.00, JJ6.05

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK Phase 4a C03 F021 F022 F024 G02 G02.2 H05.2 M04c O06.26 Quartz Shell S01 S02 S03

result of the high average sherd weight. This is a direct reflection of the depositional processes referred to above, ditch, pit and gully fills and their proximity to areas of occupation.

BK BE1.01x2, JG JE1.01 JJ14.11, JJ14.16 B, BI8.31, J, JE, JE1.01x2, JJ6.05 JE1.01 BI8.02, JE1.01, JG7.01, JM20.20 MA8.13, MA8.16 BK BH17.20, JE1.01 J1.01, JE B/DA 1.01 B/DA 1.01 BI1.01, CC16.04

Table 25 Roman pottery: average sherd weight by phase

Area/Phase 1* 5 6 10*

3 32.38 11.38 -

3/4 29.79 36.55 -

4 26.95 13.91 15.33 7

4a 14.71 16.72 -

* indicates pottery from one single Phase 4 pit in each area

Fabrics A total of 46 wheelmade fabrics were identified (see Hancocks below). The occurrence of fabric by phase is detailed above and in Table 26. The most dominant fabric group in the ceramic assemblage is the grog-tempered ware F021 (19.24%). This fabric appears throughout all phases, but is most common during Phase 4, occurring in EN7 in forms such as butt beaker, narrow-mouthed, lidseat and bowls (Fig. 63, nos. 34 to 41). The second dominant fabric in the assemblage and in Phase 4 is the grog-tempered fabric F024 (8.64%; Fig. 63, no. 42), this is followed by fabric H05.2 (7.30%; Fig. 63 to 64, nos. 45 to 47), G02 (6.67%; Fig. 63, nos. 43 to 44) and quartz (5.76%). These fabrics and forms appear in enclosure ditch EN7 and linear ditch LD4 (Fig. 64, nos. 54 to56) and linear ditch LD6 (Fig. 64, nos. 59 to 65).

This report comprises brief discussions by phase, focusing on the chronological dating evidence. The evidence for broader trends in dating, taphomony, site function and supply is considered in the discussion section. This is followed by an overview of the contribution of the assemblage to wider regional studies. Chronology One of the key research aims was to establish the chronology of the site and to establish a date of abandonment of the settlement. Overall, the ceramics proved valuable in enhancing the stratigraphic and morphological study. In terms of ceramics, several distinct phases have been recognised within the overall pottery assemblage, but within the Roman assemblage it has not been possible to observe distinct ceramics episodes. There is an element of continuity between ceramic Phases 3 and 4, between stratigraphic Phase 3, Transitional Late Iron Age / early Roman, and Phase 4, the Roman period. The Roman period can be subdivided into two broad ceramic phases, Phase 4 and 4a.

Table 26 Roman pottery: totals by phase

Phase Unphased 3 ¾ 4 4a Total

Taphonomy

Count 1188 121 278 1591 427 2471

Wt (g) 16708 3771 9940 22976 6233 42920

AVSW 14.06 31.16 35.75 14.44 14.60

Surface finish

The majority of the Roman pottery was recovered from features excavated within Area 5 (91.4%), Area 6 (6.12%), Area 1 (1.2%) and Area 10 (0.08%). A further 1.2% was unstratified. The majority of the pottery was recovered from ditches, pits and gullies. A total of 364 minimum vessels (MV) were observed within the whole assemblage, with an average sherd weight of 16.3g (listed by phase in Table 25).

A range and variety of surface finishes were recorded on all pottery fabrics in the assemblage. The principal decorative motifs recorded included cordon at girth (CAA), combing on early transitional vessels (EAF), rilling (RA), incised horizontal lines (GA), fine incised vertical lines (GH) and roller stamped rouletting (LA). In some instances decorative motifs are found on particular vessel forms and types. For example, cordons on the girths of necked bowls / jars and butt beakers and combing and / or rilling on lid-seated jars. Only nine vessels within the whole Roman assemblage demonstrated signs of external sooting. No correlation was observed between fabric and form. At least six mortaria are represented, five of them and one unattributed base / body sherd show varying degrees of

The high average sherd weight for the total Roman assemblage is very high, reflecting the lack of abrasion and wear noted amongst the assemblage. Large, unabraded and diagnostic sherds were recovered, suggesting that the pottery from Area 5 was disposed into features rapidly backfilled or in use for a short period of time. Levels of fragmentation were deemed to be low as a 110

THE POTTERY burning. Two mortaria are well worn, one other and five unattributed body sherds (four conjoining) show visible wear.

Vessel size and function The most common diameter range is 200mm. This range of diameters occurs on forms such as necked, lid-seated and globular jars, with the range overall between 100mm to 200mm being the most common. There is a direct relationship between vessel size and vessel function and / or use. There does not appear to be any direct relationship between fabric, form, decoration and colour.

Forms The occurrence of form by phase is listed above and the catalogue of forms within the Roman assemblage is detailed below. Catalogue (Figs. 62 to 66) Area 5 Phase 3 Enclosure Ditch EN 7 (F155 and F158)

F021 1. JJ 14.18. Lid-seated jar with multiple internal channels on rim. Classic channel rim jar (Friendship-Taylor 1999, 13). Some sooting / smoking. Possibly a waster, base has been deliberately clipped. There are three parallel incised cuts on shoulder of jar which appear to suggest that suspension of the vessel is possible. 1249, ditch, F155, diam. 200mm (37%) 2. Decorated body sherd. Decorated with cordons and linear stab impressions on shoulder. Possibly from a large storage jar with concave neck and everted rim. See no. 62 in Belgic catalogue. 1249, ditch, F155 3. BE 1.01. Necked bowl with bead rim and incised groove at shoulder. Friendship-Taylor 1999, fig. 68.7 and Thompson 1982, E3-2, plain everted rim cup with exaggerated neck above offset. 1237, ditch, F158, diam. 200mm (20%) F022 4. JG 1.01. Globular, neckless jar with bead rim with external sooting and smoking and incised groove on shoulder. Dated AD 20-60. Thompson 1982, D3-4, elaborate lidded bowl or barrel. 1237, ditch, F158, diam. 200mm (10%) 5. Decorated body sherd. Decorated with corrugations / cordons at girth. Same vessel in 1238.2. Thompson 1982, E3-6 small true flask with high narrow neck. See nos. 34 and 50 in Belgic report. 1239, ditch, F158 H05.2 6. JJ 14.19. Lid-seated jar with single internal channel rim. Friendship-Taylor 1999, 13 and Thompson 1982, C5-2, lid-seated jar with slashed rim. Date mid-late 1st century AD. 1249, ditch, F155, diam. 190mm (35%). 7. JJ 14.16. Lid-seated jar with single internal channel rim with external sooting and comb decoration. Thompson 1982, C5-2, lid-seated jar with slashed rim. 1249, ditch, F155, diam. 160mm (16%) 8. JJ 14.16. Lid-seated jar with single internal channel rim and comb decoration. Thompson 1982, C5-2, lid-seated jar with slashed rim. 1249, ditch, F155, diam. 210mm (14%)

Enclosure Ditch EN9 (F342) F021v BE 1.01. Necked bowl with bead rim. Friendship-Taylor 1999, fig. 68.7 and Thompson 1982, E3-2, plain everted rim cup with exaggerated neck above offset. 1546, ditch, F342, diam. 120mm (17%), not illustrated

Linear Ditch LD4 (F132) F021 Decorated wall sherd. Date AD 5-50. 1196, ditch, F132, not illustrated

Linear Ditch LD6 (F168) F024 9. L 1.01. Dome-shaped lid with bead rim. 1254, ditch, F168, diam. 400mm (6%)

Area 5 Phase 3/4 Curvilinear Ditch CD5 (F225) F024 10. JJ 14.13. Lid-seated jar with pronounced single channel rim. 1348, ditch, F225, diam. 150mm (15%)

Curvilinear Ditch CD8 (F252) 111

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK

F021 11. JE 1.01. Necked jar with bead rim. 1392, ditch, F252, diam. 120mm (15%) 12. Decorated body sherds. Two decorated wall sherd with burnished zig-zag decorative motif. 1392, ditch, F252 F021v 13. JJ 14.21. Lid-seated jar with multiple internal channel rim with slashed decoration and external rilling all over body. Thompson 1982, C5-2, lid-seated jar with slashed rim. 1392, ditch, F252, diam. 200mm (10%)

Enclosure Ditch EN7 (F155) F021 14. BKA 7.08. Butt beaker with neckless everted rim and cordon at girth. Date 50-60 AD. Similar to Thompson 1982, G4 girth beaker with shoulder cordons. 1234, ditch, F155, diam. 100mm (15%) 15. JE 7.01. Necked jar with everted rim. 1234, ditch, F155, diam. 500mm (10%) 16. BE 1.01. Necked bowl with bead rim with cordon on neck. Date 50 AD. Similar to Thompson 1982, B3-6 Tall jar with shoulder cordons and Moulton Park 1977, no. 144. 1234, ditch, F155, diam. 160mm (16%) BE 1.01. Necked bowl with bead rim and burnished horizontal lines. Date 50 AD. Similar to Thompson 1982, B3-6 Tall jar with shoulder cordons. 1234, ditch, F155, diam. 160mm (15%), not illustrated 17. BE 1.01. Necked bowl with concave neck and bead rim and cordon. Date 25-45 AD. Thompson 1982, E1-1 simple carinated cup with one cordon constricting waist. 1249, ditch, F155, diam. 155mm (45%). 18. BE 1.01. Necked bowl with everted rim and cordon on body. Date 25-45 AD. Thompson 1982, E1-1 simple carinated cup with one cordon constricting waist. 1234, ditch, F155, diam. 100mm (6%) JJ 14.21. Lid-seated jar with single internal channel rim. Thompson 1982, C5-2 lid-seated jar with slashed rim. 1234, ditch, F155, diam. 100mm (11%), not illustrated 19. Decorated body sherd from large storage jar with corrugation and arc on shoulder. 1234, ditch, F155.

112

THE POTTERY

Fig. 62 Roman pottery: numbers 1 to 19

113

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK 20. Decorated body sherd with cordon and burnished lattice decoration from narrow necked jar. Thompson 1982, E3-6 small true flasks with high narrow neck. 1234, ditch, F155. 21. Base angle. Flat out-turned rounded concave base angle. 1234, ditch, F155, diam. 100mm (21%) F022 22. JG 7.01. Globular neckless jar with everted rim. Date AD 25. 1234, ditch, F155, diam. 200mm (12%) BE 1.01. Necked bowl with bead rim. Date AD 25-45. Thompson 1982, E1-1 simple carinated cup with one cordon constricting waist. 1234, ditch, F155, diam. 130mm (14%), not illustrated 23. JJ 14.16. Lid-seated jar with single internal channel rim with external rilling on body. Thompson 1982, C5-2 lid-seated jar. 1234, ditch, F155, diam. 160mm (12%) O06.22 24. JG 6.05. Globular jar with almost upright, everted shallow cupped rim on globular jar. 1234, ditch, F155, diam. 100mm (41%) W05 25. Handle. Four-ribbed handle. 1234, ditch, F155 T01 26. BA 1.01. Shallow carinated bowl with everted rim. 1234, ditch, F155, diam. 80mm (9%)

Ditch (F490) F021 Rim type. 1612, ditch, F490, diam. 280mm (23%), not illustrated Rim type. 1612, ditch, F490, diam. 240mm (48%), not illustrated

Spot find F021 BE 1.01. Necked bowl with concave neck and everted rim. 1610, Spot find, diam. 300mm (12%), not illustrated Base angle type. 1610, Spot find, diam. 180mm (100%), not illustrated

Area 1 Phase 4 Pit (F83) F021 JG 7.01. Globular jar with concave neck and everted rim. 1128, pit, F83, diam. 300mm (6%), not illustrated BE 1.01. Necked bowl / jar with concave neck and bead rim. 1128, pit, F83, diam. 300mm (12%), not illustrated BKA 7.01. Butt Beaker with everted rim and cordon. Thompson 1982, G4 girth beaker with shoulder cordons. 1128, pit, F83, dimensions indeterminate, not illustrated Decorated body sherd with cordon / incised lines. 1128, pit, F83, not illustrated Quartz tempered Decorated body sherd with combed, linear vertical decoration at girth. 1128, pit, F83, not illustrated Base angle type. 1128, pit, F83, diam. 90mm (65%), not illustrated

Area 5 Phase 4 Curvilinear Ditch CD5 (F213) H05.2 27. JJ 14.18. Lid-seated jar with single internal channel rim. Thompson 1982, C5-2 lid-seated jar with slashed rim. 1332, ditch, F213, diam. 160mm (15%)

Curvilinear Ditch CD6 (F230 and F231) F021 Lid type. 1356, ditch, F230, diam. indeterminate, not illustrated F024 JE 7.11. Necked jar with everted rim and rilling on exterior of body. 1357, ditch, F231, diam. 130mm (10%), not illustrated

114

THE POTTERY

Fig. 63 Roman pottery: numbers 20 to 45

115

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK Quartz tempered JJ 14.22. Lid-seated jar with grooved rim and internal lid-seat with external rilling on body. 1357, ditch, F231, diam. 150mm (15%), not illustrated

Curvilinear Ditch CD7 (F214) F021 J 1.01. Jar with bead rim. 1327, ditch, F214, diam. 300mm (5%), not illustrated JE. Necked jar type. 1327, ditch, F214, diam. 140mm (10%), not illustrated Handle type. Four ribbed handle type. 1327, ditch, F214, not illustrated JJ. Lid-seated jar type. 1327, ditch, F214, diam. 130mm (18%), not illustrated DA / DB. Straight-sided / Curving-sided dish type. 1327, ditch, F214, diam. 200mm (11%), not illustrated

Curvilinear Ditch CD8 (F244, F252, F269) BH. Reeded rim bowl type. 1381, ditch, F244, diam. 250mm (8%), not illustrated W05 JJ 6.05. Lid-seated jar with almost upright, everted shallow cupped rim on globular jar. 1419, ditch, F269, diam. 130mm (21%), not illustrated

Curvilinear Ditch CD9 (F313) JE/JM 2.01. Necked / Medium-mouthed jar with near even bifid rim. 1533, ditch, F313, diam. 220mm (14%), not illustrated

Curvilinear Ditch CD19 (F123) G02.2 28. JE 1.01. Necked jar with everted, simple bead rim with cordon at base of neck and at girth. 1181, ditch, F123, diam. 140mm (20%) 29. JG 1.01. Globular jar with everted, simple bead rim. 1181, ditch, F123, diam. 130mm (15%) JJ. Lid-seated jar type. 1181, ditch, F123, diam. 100mm (15%), not illustrated

Curvilinear Gully CD3 (E410) DC. Platter type. E407, Gully, E0410, diam. 150mm (11%), not illustrated

Enclosure Ditch EN4 (F163, F241) G02.2 JE 1.01. Necked jar with simple, everted bead rim. 1246, ditch, F163, diam. 180mm (15%), not illustrated 30. JJ 14.21. Lid-seated jar with internal groove. 1246, ditch, F163, diam. 150mm (17%) H05.2 31. JE 1.01. Necked jar with everted, simple bead rim with external sooting. 1351, ditch, F228, diam. 130mm (9%) O06.26 32. Handle. Two-ribbed handle. 1246, ditch, F163. JE. Necked jar with everted rim. 1371.2, ditch, F241, diam. 130mm (10%), not illustrated BC 1.01. Curving sided bowl with simple, bead rim. 1371, ditch, F241, diam. 180mm (37%), not illustrated

Enclosure Ditch EN5 (F202, F210) JJ. Lid-seated jar types. 1310, ditch, F202, Diams. 170mm and 190mm (21% and 18%), not illustrated JG 6.05. Globular jar with almost upright, everted shallow cupped rim. 1334, ditch, F210, diam. 100mm (41%), not illustrated

Enclosure Ditch EN6 (F198) G02 33. JG 6.05. Globular jar with almost upright, everted shallow cupped rim with two bands of incised horizontal lines on external surface with acute lattice burnished decoration between. 1304, ditch, F198, diam. 100mm (5%)

116

THE POTTERY Enclosure Ditch EN7 (F155, F158, F159, F166, F176 and F177) F021 34. BKA 7.01. Butt Beaker with everted rim. 1249, ditch, F155, diam. 110mm (80%). Joins rim 1249.1 35. JN 7.01. Narrow-mouthed jar with everted rim with incised decoration. 1249, ditch, F155, diam. 130mm (46%) 36. JJ 14.21. Lid-seated jar with internal groove. 1252, ditch, F166, diam. 190mm (14%) 37. L 1.01. Dome-shaped lid with bead rim. 1249, ditch, F155, diam. 350mm (12%) 38. BE 1.01. Necked bowl with bead rim and corrugation at shoulder. Thompson 1982, E3-7 cup with elaborately cordoned neck. 1238, ditch, F158, diam. 170mm (52%) 39. BC 1.01. Curving-sided bowl with simple rim. 1264, ditch, F176, diam. 150mm (15%) 40. Decorated body sherd with incised linear x-hatch decoration on body. 1249, ditch, F155 41. Decorated body sherd with tooth-combed impression as decoration. 1249, ditch, F155 F024 42. JE 1.01. Necked jar with simple bead rim. 1240, ditch, F159, diam. 250mm (12%) G02 43. BI 8.31. Simple flanged rimmed bowl with burnished lattice decoration on external surface. 1252, ditch, F166, diam. 220mm (14%) 44. JJ 14.21. Lid-seated jar with internal groove and external rilling. 1264, ditch, F176, diam. 200mm (16%) H05.2 45. JW 20.20. Wide-mouthed jar with hooked rim. 1252, ditch, F166, diam. 300mm (9%) 46. JJ 14.16. Lid-seated jar with single internal channel rim and slashed decoration on rim. Thompson 1982, C5-2 lid-seated jar with slashed rim. 1248, ditch, F177, diam. 140mm (10%) 47. JJ 14.15. Lid-seated jar with single internal channel rim. 1264, ditch, F176, diam. 180mm (14%) H05.4 48. JJ 14.18. Lid-seated jar with multiple internal channels on rim, with incised, vertical linear lines on body. 1249, ditch, F155, diam. 150mm (30%) W05 49. CC 1.01. Conical cup with simple bead rim and red-painted decorative motif comprising three parallel horizontal bands, one infilled with a zig-zag motif and one with a series of dots. 1264, ditch, F176, diam. 190mm (17%) O06.26 50. JE 7.01. Necked jar with everted rim. 1252, ditch, F166, diam. 120mm (16%) O06.22 51. JG 6.05. Globular jar with almost upright, everted shallow cupped rim. Rouletted roller stamp decoration. 1249, ditch, F155, diam. 100mm (50%) W05 52. Body of flagon type, slightly burnt on handle. 1248, ditch, F177, diam. indeterminate

Enclosure Ditch EN8 (F276, F290) BC. Curving sided bowl type. 1437, ditch, F290, diam. 180mm (14%), not illustrated JE. Necked jar type with everted rim. 1427, ditch, F276, diam. 200mm (7%), not illustrated JE. Necked jar type with everted rim. 1437, ditch, F290, diam. 130mm (17%), not illustrated JE. Necked jar type with everted rim. 1437, ditch, F290, diam. 180mm (25%), not illustrated

Enclosure Ditch EN9 (F342) F021 JJ 14.21. Lid-seated jar with single internal channel. 1546, ditch, F342, diam. 150mm (10%), not illustrated

Enclosure Ditch EN10 (F308) JE. Necked jar type with everted rim. 1537, ditch, F308, diam. 150mm (22%), not illustrated

Enclosure Ditch EN11 (F332) JJ. Lid-seated jar type. 1562, ditch, F332, diam. 200mm (7%), not illustrated

117

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK F024 JE 1.01. Necked jar with simple, everted bead rim. 1562, ditch, F332, diam. 230mm (60%), not illustrated JE 1.01. Necked jar with simple, everted bead rim. 1562, ditch, F332, diam. 230mm (16%), not illustrated G02.2 53. JJ 14.21. Lid-seated jar with single internal channel rim and with external rilling. 1562, ditch, F332, diam. 150mm (23%)

Enclosure Ditch EN12 (F382) JJ. Lid-seated jar type. 1604, F382, diam. 130mm (12%), not illustrated Rim form. 1603, F382, diam. 130mm (14%), not illustrated

Linear Ditch LD4 (F132, F160) F021 J 1.01. Jar with rounded direct rim and cabelling on internal rim surface. 1270, ditch, F160, 80mm (6%), not illustrated H05.2 54. BC 20.21. Curving-sided bowl with undercut hooked rim and wavy decoration on rim. 1241, ditch, F160, diam. 300mm (12%) 55. JJ 14.16. Lid-seated jar with single internal channel rim. 1270, ditch, F160, diam. 120mm (9%) 56. Decorated body sherd with combed linear decoration on body. 1196, ditch, F132 G02 Decorated body sherd with groove at girth. 1196, ditch, F132, not illustrated W05 57. Flat base angle. Base angle with red painted decoration. 1196, ditch, F132, diam. indeterminate O06.26 58. JM 20.20. Medium-mouthed jar with hooked rim. 1196, ditch, F132, diam. 220mm (54%)

Linear Ditch LD6 (F168, F194 and F239) F021 59. JJ 14.16. Lid-seated jar with single internal channel. 1254, ditch, F168, diam. 160mm (11%) F024 60. JE 1.01. Necked jar with everted, simple bead rim and smoking on external surface. 1297, ditch, F194, diam. 190mm (16%) 61. JJ 14.16. Lid-seated jar with single internal channel rim with external rilling. 1369, ditch, F239, diam. 150mm (34%) 62. L 1.01. Lid with bead rim with external sooting. 1254, ditch, F168, diam. 360mm (6%) 63. Decorated body sherd with incised vertical linear decoration on body. 1254, ditch, F168 G02 64. BC 7.01. Curving-sided bowl with everted rim. 1297, ditch, F194, diam. 250mm (16%) H05.2 65. JJ 14.21. Lid-seated jar with single internal channel. 1254, ditch, F168, diam. 140mm (6%)

Linear Ditch LD20 (F240) BA. Carinated bowl type. 1370, ditch, F240, diam. 150mm (23%), not illustrated JJ. Lid-seated jar type. 1370, ditch, F240, diam. 130mm (6%), not illustrated JJ. Lid-seated jar type. 1370, ditch, F240, diam. 110mm (45%), not illustrated JJ. Lid-seated jar type. 1370, ditch, F240, diam. 200mm (14%), not illustrated JJ. Lid-seated jar type. 1370, ditch, F240, diam. 250mm (10%), not illustrated

Linear Ditch LD31 (F253) Rim type. 1397, ditch, F253, diam. 160mm (16%), not illustrated

Linear Ditch LD33 (F333) W05 Handle. Two ribbed handle. 1563, ditch, F333, not illustrated

118

THE POTTERY Linear Gully LG5 (F147) Quartz tempered JJ/JG type. Lid-seated / Globular jar type. 1218, Gully, F147, diam. 200mm (11%), not illustrated

Ditches (F261, F300, F323 and F514) JE. Necked jar with everted rim. 1410, ditch, F261, diam. 180mm (11%), not illustrated JL. Large storage jar type. 1552, ditch, F323, diam. 340mm (11%), not illustrated F021 JL. Large storage jar type. 1513, ditch, F300, diam. 240mm (9%), not illustrated Rim type, 1617, ditch, F514, diam. 250mm (6%), not illustrated

Grave (F334) 66. JE 7.01. Necked jar with everted rim. 1593, Grave, F334, diam. 180mm (9%) 67. JJ 14.21. Lid-seated jar with multiple internal channel rim. 1593, Grave, F334, diam.100mm (20%)

Layer (1202.1) F021 J 1.01. Jar with flattened, rounded, everted rim. 1202, Layer, diam. 100mm (10%)

Pits (F221, F124, F162, F346) F08 68. JM 2.09. Medium-mouthed jar with bifurcated rim. 1243, pit, F162, diam. 210mm (31%) G02 69. BE 7.07. Carinated bowl with everted, tapered, necked rim and rivet repair hole. 1243, pit, F162, diam. 230mm (21%) G02 BI 8.31. Simple flanged bowl. 1574, pit, F346, diam. 200mm (14%), not illustrated H05.2 70. JE type. Necked jar type with everted rim and internal sooting on rim. 1243, pit, F162, diam. 240mm (15%) O06.26 71. JM 2.08. Medium-mouthed jar with birfurcated rim. 1243, pit, F162, diam. 140mm (20%) 72. BK 5.01. Beaker with plain, cornice rim. 1598, pit, F162, diam. 50mm (15%) Quartz tempered JG 6.02. Globular jar with everted cup or lid-seat rim. 1597, pit, F346, diam. 150mm (9%) W05 73. DC 1.00. Platter type. Late 1st century. 1184, pit, F124, diam. 100mm (17%)

Surface (F552) JJ. Lid-seated jar type. 1627, Surface, F552, diam. 180mm (6%), not illustrated

Well (F180) C07 BKD 5.02. Globular bulbous beaker with late devolved cornice rim. 1283, Well, F180, diam. 100mm (10%), not illustrated

Area 5, unphased Pit (F221) Rim type 1343, pit, F221, diam. 60mm (15%), not illustrated

Area 5 Phase 4a

119

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK Enclosure Ditch EN4 (F228 and F281) H05.2 74. BI 8.02. Flanged bowl with high flange and curved wall. 1351, ditch, F228, diam. 240mm (6%) G02 75. JE 1.01. Necked jar, with everted, simple bead rim. 1351, ditch, F228, diam. 150mm (10%) F024 76. JJ 14.11. Lid-seated jar with plain, pronounced rim, with external rilling and smoking. 1352, ditch, F228, diam. 120mm (6%) JL. Large storage jar. 1434, ditch, F281, diam. 300mm (5%)

Enclosure Ditch EN7 (F177) F021 77. BE 1.01. Necked bowl with bead rim with cordon on neck. Date AD 50. Similar to Thompson 1982, B3-6 Tall jars with shoulder cordons and Moulton Park 1977, no. 144. 1248, ditch, F177, diam. 100mm (15%). 78. Base angle. Footring base angle type. 1248, ditch, F177, diam. 80mm (15%)

120

THE POTTERY

Fig. 64 Roman pottery: numbers 46 to 78

121

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK Linear Ditch LD5 (F167) C03 BK type. Beaker type. 1253, Gully, F167, diam. 100mm (10%), not illustrated

Linear Ditch 21 (F282) JJ type. Lid-seated jar type. 1435, ditch, F282, diam. 200mm (10%), not illustrated

Well (F180) H05.2 JM 20.20. Medium-mouthed jar with hooked rim. 1283, Well, F180, diam. 240mm (8%), not illustrated

Ditch (F187) F021 Rim type. 1290, F187, ditch, diam. 260mm (15%), not illustrated

Pit (F347) F022 79. JE 1.01. Necked jar with everted incised bead rim. Cordon at base of neck and groove at girth. 1576, pit, F347, diam. 200mm (13%) 80. F02480. JJ 14.16. Lid-seated jar with single internal channel rim. 1576, pit, F347, diam. 140mm (100%) 81. G0281. BI 8.31. Simple flanged bowl. 1576, pit, F347, diam. 200mm (54%) 82. W0582. Base angle. Flat base angle. 1576, pit, F347, diam. 60mm (100%) Layer BI. Simple, flanged bowl type. 1292, Layer, diam. 160mm (10%), not illustrated JE. Necked jar with everted rim. 1292, Layer, diam. 120mm (6%), not illustrated

Area 6 Phase 3/4 Enclosure Ditch EN16 (F474 and F479) F021 83. BE 1.01. Necked bowl with concave neck and bead rim with combed chevrons at girth. 2167, ditch, F474, diam. 130mm (10%) 84. JL 7.01. Large storage jar with concave neck and bead rim, decorated with cordons and linear stab impressions on shoulder. Rivet hole near base. 2167, ditch, F474, diam. 290mm (48%) 85. JE 7.01. Necked jar with everted rim and cordons at base of neck and girth with burnished lattice decoration between. Thompson 1982, E3-6 small true flasks with high narrow neck. 2167, ditch, F474, diam. 140mm (15%) F023 86. JL 7.01. Large storage jar with concave neck with everted rim. 2171.2, ditch, F479, diam. 400mm (22%) G02 87. BE 1.01. Necked bowl with concave neck and everted rim. 2171, ditch, F479, diam. 140mm (24%) H04.3 88. JJ 14.16. Lid-seated jar with single internal channel rim. Combed, linear horizontal lines on body. 2167, ditch, F474, diam. 200mm (13%)

122

THE POTTERY

Fig. 65 Roman pottery: numbers 79 to 88

123

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK Area 6 Phase 4 Pits (F531 and F549) F021 89. JJ 14.16. Lid-seated jar with single internal channel rim. 2222, pit, F549, diam. 180mm (10%) JE. Necked jar with everted rim type. 2257, pit, F551, diam. 360mm (14%) JE. Necked jar with everted rim type. 2258, pit, F551, diam. 300mm (17%) JJ. Lid-seated jar type. 2258, pit, F551, diam. 90mm (15%) G02 90. BE 1.01. Necked bowl with simple bead rim. 2222, pit, F531, diam. 90mm (20%) H05.1 91. JG 6.05. Globular jar with almost upright, everted shallow cupped rim. 2222, pit, F531, diam. 130mm (15%)

Detailed analysis of Roman key groups in Area 5 (EN4, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12)

different fabric types from EN11 (average sherd weight 14.9g).

Of the overall Roman ceramic assemblage, 28% is derived from the six key ceramic groups identified. What is apparent is that EN7 was in use during the transitional period (Phase 3). Fabrics recognised include a few examples of early Roman whitewares, shell-tempered wares (H05.2) in lid-seated jar forms and grog-tempered wares (F021) in necked bowl forms. This enclosure was later re-dug during Phase 4 and the subsequent recut was truncated by the construction of the later curvilinear ditch CD08.

While there is no doubt that EN12 is chronologically later than EN11, the limited range of forms recovered from EN12 makes it impossible to discuss the possibility of any functional differences between the two enclosures. Mortaria catalogue by Kay Hartley Area 5 Phase 4 Enclosure EN4

There is limited evidence to suggest that EN4 may be slightly later than EN7 in date with a small amount of the EN4 assemblage having been assigned to Phase 3. It is likely that this later material may well be intrusive as a result of subsequent Phase 4 activity and the later recutting of features. Less than 120 sherds of pottery from the key groups selected were assigned to the Phase 3 and 3/4 assemblages of EN4 (three sherds) and EN7 (111 sherds).

M010d 1. MA 8.06. A flanged mortarium with flange rising above bead; well worn and slightly singed. 1246, ditch, F163, diam. uncertain but at least 330mm. Upper Nene valley, AD 140-180 A mortarium with incomplete rim-section, body and rim made of two different clays, both off-white. The bead and flange are in a fabric similar to that produced in the Verulamium region, ie. packed with tiny to small, transparent quartz inclusions with rare orange-brown material (Tomber and Dore 1998, 154-5). This was lapped over the finetextured, body fabric, which is filled with small to large, illsorted inclusions, probably mostly re-fired pottery (streaked white, orange, and red-brown), and rare quartz. The body is so heavily tempered and compacted that it gives the fabric a lumpy quality. Extra grit may have been scattered onto the internal surface for trituration, but there is so much in the body that one cannot regard it as certain since wear could have exposed the inclusions. There is probably a broken stamp on the flange, but it is too abraded to identify and impossible to illustrate. Using two clays is a very unusual technique and only one potter, Vediacus, is known to have sometimes done this. Mortaria made in this way were first noted at Piddington (Rollo 1994, 18f., 15-16); at least three other mortaria in this technique are now known, one certainly by him, the others possibly by him. The number of mortaria made in this way is now high enough to indicate that the technique was a deliberate one and not the result of running out of the correctly prepared clay. It is also suggested that the bodies of these mortaria were handmade. Hilary Healey, potter and archaeologist, commented as follows on the Piddington mortaria: “the body had been built up on the

Certainly the majority of the ceramics recovered from EN4 date to Phase 4 (121 sherds), with 440 sherds of pottery associated with EN7, Phase 4. Both of these enclosures still appear to be in use when subsequent enclosures were being constructed. It would appear that both EN10 and EN8 are chronologically successive to EN4. This is evidenced by the greater range and variety of fabrics and forms recovered from EN4 (16 fabrics) and EN7 (23 fabrics), compared to EN8 (two fabrics; F021 and Shell) and EN10 (four fabrics; F021, shell, samian and M04c). On this evidence alone, it is fair to say that Enclosures EN4 and EN7 are more likely to be contemporary, with the construction of EN10 and EN8 occurring later. Only 15 sherds of pottery and one single rim form, a lidseated jar type, were recovered from EN12 in two different fabrics. This compares to eight jar forms, mainly necked and lid-seated types, and 179 sherds, in seven 124

THE POTTERY

Fig. 66 Roman pottery: numbers 89 to 91; mortaria, numbers 1 to 5 and decorated samian, numbers 1 to 6

125

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK wheel by ribbon- or coil-building technique…When the body had been constructed it was allowed to air-dry so that it would not collapse under the pressure on it by adding the flange and bead. The bowl was then placed on the wheel and the flange and bead are wheelthrown.” (Hilary Healey in Rollo 1994, 20). It is not possible to attribute the Grange Park mortarium to Vediacus, but there is a high probability that he made it. The mortaria of Vediacus can be attributed to a workshop in Northamptonshire c AD 140-180.

Enclosure EN10 M04c 5. MA 8.016. Mortarium with downward pointing angular flange, hooked sharply back; grooves on bead and at distal end of flange. Burnt. Both rim and flange can be grooved. 1504, ditch, F308, diam. 290mm (10%), AD 240 to 350 (Young 2002, 75, M21)

Ditch (F348)

Enclosure EN7

M02a A base and body sherd. Some wear and burnt. MancetterHartshill potteries (Tomber and Dore 1998, 188-9), AD 140 to 350, not illustrated

M02a 2. MA 8.05. Flanged mortarium with some wear, slight burning visible. 1238, ditch, F158, diam. 270mm (9%). Mancetter-Hartshill potteries (Tomber and Dore 1998, 1889). AD 140-180

Pit (F347)

M04vc 3. MA 8.015. The deep flange of this mortarium is square in section and ends in a distal bead; the bead is lower than the flange. It would almost certainly have been stamped. Much of the earliest pottery and certainly the earliest mortaria made in the Oxford region closely mirror mortaria made in the Verulamium region in the same period, strongly indicating that some of the earliest Oxford potters came from there. Fabric and trituration grit indicates manufacture in one of the Oxford workshops in the early 2nd century; optimum date AD 100-130 (Tomber and Dore 1998, 174-5). Slightly burnt.

M02a Four joining worn body sherds. Mancetter-Hartshill potteries (Tomber and Dore 1998, 188-9). Probably AD 140 to 350, not illustrated

Samian pottery by Steven Willis, with a contribution from Brenda Dickinson Introduction A total of 66 sherds (537g) of samian pottery (terra sigillata) were recovered. The samian, overall, has a date range of c AD 40 to 260, with items coming from a variety of sources. The majority of vessels represented are of 2nd century AD date and come from Lezoux; this is in line with a general pattern in Britain where samian recovered from rural sites tends to be dominated by items of this source and period (Willis 1998). All bar one of the vessels represented came from Area 5; Area 6 yielded the other samian item. The sherds are of variable sizes which, in significant part, reflects the variety of contexts investigated and a diversity of deposit formation factors. The sherds are not particularly abraded and the state of preservation is fairly good. It has been possible to identify a high proportion of sherds to vessel form, while all pieces can be allocated to reasonably tight date brackets. One stamp and a part of another stamp occur, while several fragments with decoration are represented.

Area 6 Phase 4 Pit (F549) M03 Flange fragment. Verulamium region. AD 70-120, not illustrated

Area 5 Phase 4a Enclosure EN4 M04c 4. MA 8.013. 1351, ditch, F228, diam. 350mm (15%), Mortatirum with upstanding rim and squat flange folded quite close to body. Nearest in form to Young 2000, 77, M22.9. Oxford potteries, AD 240 to 400 (Tomber and Dore 1998, 174-5) M010d. Two joining bead and body sherds in sandwich fabric, fired to pinkish near surface; the main fabric is brownish-pink with thin grey, central core. Probably selfcoloured. Inclusions: moderate to fairly frequent, tiny to small, quartz, black and orange-brown, randomly distributed. The trituration grit is very mixed, including transparent and pinkish quartz, ?flint, quartz sandstone, ?chert, and red-brown material. Attributable to one of the small workshops in the Upper Nene Valley. Without the profile it is not strictly datable, but the industry appears to have been active only in the period AD 140 to 250; what little survives of the profile would fit better with the 2nd century than 3rd. Well-worn and burnt. 1352, ditch, F228. Not illustrated

Catalogue The catalogue lists all the samian sherds from the excavations and adheres to a consistent format. Sherds are listed by area and within area by phase; they are then ordered by fabric and context number. Each vessel represented is listed as a separate entry. The following data are given: the source of the item (South Gaulish is abbreviated to SG, Central Gaulish to CG and East Gaulish to EG); the vessel form (where identifiable); the number of sherds and their type (ie. whether a sherd is from the rim, base (footring) or body of a vessel; for reasons of brevity the catalogue lists single rim, body and base sherds as simply ‘rim’, ‘body’ or ‘base’); any 126

THE POTTERY decoration, catalogue entry 23. 1369.2, LD6, F239, 4g, c AD 130 to 200 9. Drag. 37. Body, a small area of decoration is extant; the design is arranged in panels, with a medallion; part of the small winged figure 0.688 is present, as is the detail Rogers P3; part of a rosette occupies a panel corner. This fragment is potentially from the same vessel as no. 8 above and 24 below. 1369.3, LD6, F239, 7g, c AD 130/135 to 200 10. Bowl or dish. Base, 1381.2, CD8, F244, 19g, BE: 0.13, diam. 90mm, c AD 120 to 150 11. Form not identifiable. Body, the outer surface of the sherd is completely missing. 1430, CD10, F278, 2g, c AD 120 to 200 12. Bowl or dish. Body, Burnt. 1483, EN10, F308, 6g, c AD 120 to 200 13. Form not identifiable. Body, 1548, hollow, F321, 3g, c AD 120 to 200 14. Drag. 38. Body, 1565, pit, F335, 1g, c AD 130 to 200

descriptive information is then given such as details of decoration present; with regard to decoration Oswald’s figure types (Oswald 1936-7) are referred to following the standard convention, for example O.1373 is his type 1373; similarly the decorative details catalogued by Rogers (Rogers 1974) are referred to as, for example, Rogers B161, without quoting the bibliographic reference on every occasion; contextual data is then listed. Following these details the weight of the sherds in grams is given and then the percentage of any extant rim (ie the RE figure, where 1.00 would represent a complete circumference) or base (ie. the BE figure) and the rim and base diameters; finally an estimate of the date of the sherd in terms of calendar years is given, this being the date range of deposits with which like pieces are normally associated. Area 5, Phase 3

S04R (EG Rheinzabern) 15. Probably Drag. 37. Body, probably from same vessel as 16, 1483, Enclosure Ditch EN10, F308, 2g, c AD 150/160 to 225 16. Drag. 37 (Fig 66, no. 2). Two conjoining body sherds. An area of decoration is present, evidently in a panelled arrangement; this includes a variant of the Neptune figure O.14 on its side, with a large beast, represented here by its hind legs (probably a lion and similar to O.1373), above; two ancillary motifs appear but are indistinct and are not identifiable. No. 15 is probably from the same vessel. 1499, Enclosure EN10, surface find, 22g, c AD 150/160 to 225

S03 (CG Lezoux) 1. Body, Drag. 18/31. 1196, LD4, F132, 1g, c AD 120 to 150

Area 5, Phase 4 S01 (SG La Graufesenque) 2. Drag. 37. 2 conjoining body sherds, no decoration is present. 1505, EN10, F308, 23g, c AD 70 to 110 3. Small Drag. 37 (Fig 66, no. 1). Rim, a small area of decoration is present comprising a small section of the ovolo band; the latter is poorly fashioned in a manner that is often characteristic of late export-period products from this source; the ovolo itself is double-bordered, asymmetrical and rather splayed; the tongue is abraded but appears attached on the ovolo on the right extending to a thickened terminal turned to the right. 1599, pit, F346, 7g, RE: 0.07, diam. 160mm, c AD 90 to 110 4. Probably Drag. 18. Body, 1618, layer, F382, 1g, c AD 40 to 100

S04A/M (possibly Argonne or La Madeleine) 17. Bowl or dish. Two conjoining body sherds. 1548, hollow, F321, 34g, c AD 150 to 260

Area 5, Phase 4A S01 18. Drag. 18/31. Rim, 1576, pit, F347, 32g, RE: 0.13, diam. 160mm, c AD 90 to 110

S02 (CG Les Martres) 5. Probably Drag. 18/31. Rim. 1351, EN4, F228, 2g, RE: 0.07, diam. 160mm, c AD 100 to 130

S02

S03 (CG Lezoux) 6. Drag. 31 (Fig 66, no. 2). Seven base sherds and 17 body sherds, all same vessel, evidently shattered, with high gloss finish, footring only slightly worn. Brenda Dickinson writes: The potter’s stamp, C·EII:IL·ISE, almost certainly belongs to the Lezoux potter, Senilis iii (Tilhard 2004, pl.48, no. 474.3). Here, the lower curve of the first S has been obliterated, either by a peculiarity of the stamping, or because the corner of the die may have been chipped. This unusual stamp comes from the potter’s Die 3b. The evidence for it, use on Drag. 31R and Walters 79 and 80 or Tx is consitent with this potters range of forms, and, combined with its occurrence at Chesters and Haltonchesters, suggests activity in the later 2nd century. 1196, LD4, F132, 68g, BE: 0.49, diam. 100mm, c AD 160 to 190 7. Drag. 33. Rim, abraded. 1243, pit, F162, 14g, RE: 0.11, diam. 130mm, c AD 140 to 200 8. Drag. 37. Two conjoining body sherds from the same vessel as in context 1351.2; see below for description of the

S03

19. Drag. 18/31. Rim, 1197, pit, F135, 5g, RE: 0.05, diam. 200mm, c AD 100 to 130 20. Drag. 18/31. Body, the interior is worn. 1283, well, F180, 12g, c AD 110/120 to 135 21. Drag. 18/31. Body, 1292, Layer, 11g, c AD 120 to 150 22. Dish. Body, from a different vessel to 21, 1292, layer, 1g, c AD 120 to 200 23. Drag. 37. One rim sherd and two conjoining body sherds, all same vessel; No. 8, is also from the same vessel. Part of the ovolo band is represented; the ovolo is rather rounded with a double border; the tongue has a straight stem ending in a roundel (or rosette) terminal; the type is similar to Rogers B111, but the fine detail is indistinct; from entry 8 it is clear that there is a bead border below the ovolo, and below this, in the case of No. 8, there is a small astragalus; this bowl is not attributable. 1351, EN4, F228, 12g, RE: 0.07, diam. 190mm, c AD 130 to 200 24. Drag. 31. Base, somewhat worn footring; burnt. 1373, EN5, F212, 31g, BE: 0.17, diam. 100mm, c AD 150 to 200 25. Drag. 31R (Fig 66, no. 4). Base, Brenda Dickinson writes: “Stamped ‘CIN[TVSMIX]’ (Dickinson 1986, 188,

127

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK 3.35); being Cintusmus i of Lezoux, Die 1a. That this stamp was in use in the later 2nd century is indicated by examples on forms 31R, 79R and 80. It occurs in a group of unused samian dated c AD 170-180, found at St. Magnus House, London, and forming part of the infilling of a quay (Bird 1986, 139, 141). Cintusmus i’s output in general suggests that he began work in the 150s, but this item will be from one of his later dies, used c AD 160 to 180”. 1504, EN10, F308, 149g, BE: 0.41, diam. 100mm, c AD 160 to 180 26. Drag. 33. Rim, burnt. 1576, pit, F347, 2g, RE: 0.07, diam. 120mm, c AD 120 to 200 27. Drag. 37. Body, part of the ovolo band is represented; this is abraded but is probably Rogers B161, of Doeccus i; sufficient detail survives to discern that the ovolo is double bordered with a narrow central projection; the tongue is relatively thick and may be corded; the motifs are well spaced. 1577, ditch, F348, 6g, c AD 160 to 200

potentially across the whole period of samian importation into Britain following the Claudian conquest (c AD 40 to 260); 2nd-century samian is prominent (Table 27). A variety of sources are represented. The firm impressions therefore are that this site received or had access to samian more or less throughout the early and middle Roman period (see below), and this recovered sample is probably a reliable indicator of the undoubtedly much larger population of samian in the unexcavated site deposits. There is a case for considering the few sherds from Area 6 (four sherds from a single vessel) as separate from the collection from Area 5 given that these areas are some considerable distance apart. Table 27 Samian pottery: number of vessels represented by date range; see catalogue for details

S04A 28. Drag. 33. Two rim sherds and a body sherd, all conjoining, 1292, layer, 18g, RE: 0.22, diam. 100mm, c AD 150 to 230

Period Claudian - Flavian Flavian Late Flavian Flavian - early Trajanic Late Flavian - early Trajanic Trajanic - early Hadrianic Late Trajanic - Hadrianic Hadrianic - early Antonine Hadrianic - Antonine Late Hadrianic - Antonine Early Antonine Antonine Mid Antonine Mid - late Antonine Antonine - early Third Century Antonine - mid Third Century Total

Area 6, Phase 4 S03 (CG Lezoux) 29. Drag. 27 or 35. Two base sherds and two body sherds, all conjoining. 2255, pit, F549, 5g, BE: 0.31, diam. 40mm, c AD 120 to 200

Unstratified S01 (SG La Graufesenque) 30. Drag. 15/17. Body, the sherd is abraded and its outer surface is almost completely missing. U/S, 3g, c AD 40 to 100 31. Drag. 37 (Fig 66, no. 5). Body, a small abraded area of decoration is present; this includes part of the ovolo band; the detail of the ovolo type is damaged but sufficient survives to show that this is a typical example of a Flavian period ovolo; the ovolo itself is double bordered and rather rounded; the tongue is straight and almost certainly ends in a trifid or bud terminal; the ovolo band is divided from a fine wreath band of simple V-shaped ‘leaves’ by a bead border; in turn a further bead border underlies the wreath. U/S, 4g, c AD 70 to 100 32. Drag. 37 (Fig. 66, no. 6). Rim, a small area of poorly executed decoration is represented; this includes a part of the ovolo band; the ovolo is rather square with a double border and a central projection; the tongue is straight and although indistinct it seems likely that it ends in a trident or spatula terminal (cf. Atkinson 1914); below is a twisted rope division; the gloss finish is orange-red. U/S, 30g, RE: 0.11, diam. 210mm, c AD 85 to 100

Number of vessels represented 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 6 2 1 2 1 1 2 or 3 1 29 or 30

Only one samian item is attributed to site Phase 3 (see samian catalogue), broadly dated to c AD 1 to 100. This is a sherd from a Drag. 18/31 of Lezoux, dating to the Hadrianic to early Antonine period. This discrepancy between the date of the sherd and its context may be explained if it is intrusive, a conceivable likelihood given its very small size. The rest of the stratified samian is all of ceramic Phase 4 or 4a and thus attributed to the era c AD 50 to 450 with no further chronological differentiation by stratification (Table 28). Table 28 shows that the principal sources of samian found in Britain are represented in both ceramic Phase 4 and 4a contexts at this site, but only Lezoux ware is present in any quantity. The samian present in both phases is broadly comparable.

Discussion The 66 samian sherds derive from a total of around 29 to 30 vessels. These items contribute some information of chronological value. Whilst this sample of samian is small it nonetheless covers a broad date range, extending,

128

THE POTTERY Table 28

Samian pottery: totals by phase and fabric / source in Areas 5 and 6

Phase 3 CG Lezoux Phase 4 SG La Grauf. CG Les Martres CG Lezoux EG Phase 4a SG La Grauf. CG Les Martres CG Lezoux EG Unstratified SG La Grauf. Total Table 29

Total number of sherds

Total weight (g)

Number of form types present per fabric per phase

1

1

1

4 1 37 5

31 2 129 58

2 1 5 1

1 1 10 3

32 5 224 18

1 1 5 1

3 66

37 537

2 -

Samian pottery: numbers of types represented in Areas 5 and 6

Form Type / Source Cups: Drag. 27 or 35 Drag. 33 Decorated Bowls: Drag. 37 Plain Bowls: Drag. 31R Drag. 38 Bowls or Dishes: Indeterminate Dishes: Drag 18/31 Drag 31 Indeterminate Platters: Drag. 15/17 Drag. 18 Total (Form not identifiable)

South Gaulish: La Grauf.

Central Gaulish: Les Martres

4

Central Gaulish: Lezoux

East Gaulish: Various

1 2

1

2

1 or 2

1 1 2 1

2

3 2 1

1 1 7

2

15 2

Seven 1st-century / early Trajanic vessels occur (including three unstratified sherds), all from South Gaul, accounting for approximately 25% of the samian vessels represented in the sample (Table 29). Of these seven vessels five are definitely Flavian or later, while the remaining two items (forms 15/17 and 18) may be of similar date (see catalogue above). It is thus possible that samian did not begin to arrive at the site until after c AD 70, when it is a more frequent site-find in Britain generally (Willis 1993; 1997; 1998; cf. Marsh 1981). Of

1

3 or 4

the seven vessels more than half are decorated bowls, of Drag. 37 type (two unstratified). At first sight this may seem very unusual since amongst the great majority of samian assemblages from Britain decorated vessels account for around a quarter or less of the total number of vessels represented. Recent research, however, has shown that decorated forms are very often as, if not more, common than plain forms amongst the modest sized assemblages forthcoming from rural sites during the 1st century AD. This is especially the case at sites of some

129

IRON AGE, ROMAN AND SAXON OCCUPATION AT GRANGE PARK Table 30

Samian pottery: average sherd weights of the sample in Area 5

Fabric Source SG La Graufesenque SG La Graufesenque, Unstratified CG Les Martres CG Lezoux CG Lezoux, excluding shattered base CG Lezoux, excluding large sherd EG Various sources Total

Total number of sherds 5 3

Total weight of sherds (grams) 63 37

AVSW (g) 12.6 12.3

2 44 20

7 349 281

3.5 7.9 14.1

43

200

4.7

8 62

76 532

9.5 8.6

standing, but not necessarily so (Willis 1997; 1998). This pattern does not continue into the 2nd century, for rural sites yield much smaller proportions of decorated samian in the 2nd century despite the continued manufacture and trade of decorated forms. This assemblage would also seem to be in line with this trend. The presence of a Drag. 18/31 dish in South Gaulish La Graufesenque fabric is of intrinsic interest being an early example of the form.

not be a close index of the proportions of samian in use at the site during the currency of samian ware (c AD 70 to 250, seemingly, in this case): the percentage figures may, then, be depressed by the inclusion of pottery of later Roman date within the sample). Such low proportions of samian ware are typical of rural sites in Britain during the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD (Willis 2005). The character of the samian present during the 2nd to 3rd centuries implies a site of modest status, an interpretation supported by the absence of amphorae.

Two early 2nd-century vessels from Les Martres-deVeyre are represented. Both vessels are examples of the dish Drag. 18/31 which is by far the most common plain ware form occurring in this fabric in Britain (Willis 2005). Les Martres samian is a comparatively infrequent ware amongst samples of samian from sites of the Roman era in Britain and its presence in this case indicates that people living at and using the site had sustained access to samian during the Trajanic to early Hadrianic period when samian imports were evidently much reduced.

Considering the taphonomy of the material, the condition of the samian sherds varies somewhat, but overall the assemblage is in a reasonable state of preservation. Average sherd weight figures give an idea of the degree of fragmentation of the assemblage and of deposit formation. Degree of fragmentation can be taken as an index of how ‘fresh’ the samian was when it was deposited within contexts: usually the lower the average sherd weight, the longer the material is likely to have been lying around the site and subject to trampling, etc, prior to its incorporation within the context from which it was recovered, or the more likely it is to be from a reworked deposit. Table 30 records the average sherd weights for the samian by fabric source. A larger sample would be preferable for establishing the character of the assemblage from this perspective, and it is evident from Table 30 that when dealing with a small sample the presence of a particularly large sherd or of a shattered item can have a skewing effect. On the whole these average sherd weights are somewhat low when compared with equivalent figures for samian from excavated towns, forts and smaller nucleated centres (Willis in press). Considering the 2nd-century Lezoux material the collective data give an average sherd weight of c 7.9g, the broad impression being that this is particularly fragmented material. Nonetheless this is perhaps normal for a rural site in Britain of this era. Much of the recovered samian at Grange Park comes from ditch fill contexts, as it does at other rural sites (Martin in press). Several pits and a well also produced sherds. More widely, ditches are often (though not always) observed to yield particularly fragmented sherds compared with other types of contexts, reflecting the manner in which they

Hadrianic / Antonine samian from Lezoux is represented by c 16 vessels, amounting to c 50% of the sample. A typical range of forms of this period from this production source is present (Table 29). The ratio of decorated to plain vessels is normal for an assemblage from this type of site and of such a date (see above). At least two of the vessels date from after c AD 160. Finally there are three East Gaulish vessels present. These pieces are noteworthy for their date (Antonine to 3rd century), with one item potentially, though not necessarily, of mid 3rd century date. The composition of the samian assemblage by form type during the 2nd century and perhaps continuing into the 3rd century, does not particularly suggest a site of some status at this stage. In addition, an examination of the quantitative data (see Table 28) shows clearly that samian is a rather minor component of the Grange Park assemblage. By weight it forms less than 1% of the pottery attributed to Phase 4, while within Phase 4a it forms around 3.2% of the pottery by this measure; (note that these figures are generated using a sample of pottery of c AD 50 to 450, which extends well beyond the period of samian importation and use, so these percentages may 130

THE POTTERY often filled. Since the majority of deposits at Roman rural sites are ditch fills it is not surprising that such sites tend to be associated with particularly low average sherd weights for samian.

possibly contemporary with it, was the site of Quinton (Friendship-Taylor 1974 and 1979). Quinton lies 8km to the southeast of Dunston, 2km from Piddington and 3.2km south of the Wootton Brook. Certainly the amount of lid-seated and necked jars forms recovered from that site are comparable to material observed at Grange Park. Comparatively few rural Roman settlements from Northamptonshire have been published. There are a few villa sites such as Piddington (Friendship-Taylor 1989) and Cosgrove (Quinnell 1992), but these have little or no affinity to the assemblage recorded from Grange Park.

To conclude, although this recovered samian assemblage is small there is every indication that the excavation strategy has captured a representative sample of the material supplied to and consumed at the site. The supply evidently began in the late 1st century AD and continued through until the end of the 2nd century, if not beyond. In a number of ways this small assemblage is typical of samples from rural sites of the Roman era in lowland Britain.

BELGIC AND ROMAN POTTERY: NORTHAMPTONSHIRE FABRIC DESCRIPTIONS by Annette Hancocks, with a contribution from Kay Hartley

Discussion The assemblage overall is of a significant size at both a local and regional level. Very few ceramic assemblages of this type have been recorded and published within Northamptonshire. The assemblage is broadly 2nd to 4th century AD in date, with an early post-conquest component (Phase 4) and a later 3rd to 4th century element (Phase 4a). The ceramics point to a low status, small-scale rural Roman domestic settlement. The low level of occurrence may be socially and economically significant. The principal importance of rural assemblages, particularly when they are relatively small, is through comparative study, as representative of a class or classes of site and assemblage, which may be situated within a region with considerable diversity of site / assemblage type. This links to such topics as status (Willis 2004, 11-12).

All the fabrics are wheelmade, unless stated otherwise. Burnished reduced wares B02 (Southeast) Dorset Black-burnished ware 1 (DOR BB1); Tomber and Dore 1998, 127 Colour-coated wares C01 Lower Nene Valley, cream (LNV CC); Tomber and Dore 1998, 118 C02 Lower Nene Valley (White) Colour-coated ware (LNV CC); Tomber and Dore 1998, 118 C03 Lower Nene Valley (Oxidised) colour-coated ware (LNV CC); Tomber and Dore 1998, 118 C07 Oxford Red Slip Ware (OXF RS); Tomber and Dore 1998, 132 Fine reduced ware E02 North Gaulish Reduced Ware (NOG RE); Tomber and Dore 1998, 74

Grange Park lies within a concentration of Roman villas to the south and east of the small towns of Duston and Towcester, and a villa has been identified close to the site to the north of the Wootton Brook and northeast of Grange Park itself. The main features within Area 5 (see Fig. 41) were a complex of subsquare and subrectangular enclosures of transitional date, which continued in use into the early Roman period.

Grog-tempered wares F02 Grog and shell tempered ware; Hancocks 2003, 206 F08 Pink grog-tempered ware (PNK GT); Tomber and Dore 1998, 210 F021 Southern British (‘Belgic’) Grog-tempered ware (SOB GT); Tomber and Dore 1998, 214 F021v Southern British (‘Belgic’) Grog-tempered ware variant (SOB GT); Tomber and Dore 1998, 214 F022 Grange Park grog-tempered ware F023 Grange Park grog-tempered ware F024 Coarse grog-tempered ware F025 Grog-tempered ware with white / brown slip

The assemblage of Roman ceramics is just as significant for what it contains as what it does not. For example, not one sherd of Black-Burnished Ware was recovered. The only imported ware of any note was a small assemblage of samian, although there was the odd sherd of imported Gallo-Belgic ware too. No amphorae or imported mortarium was observed. These absences are important in building up an idea of the nature and character of the assemblage and function of the observed Roman settlement.

Greywares G02 G02.2

It seems likely that there was a hiatus in occupation between the early and later Roman periods. This is reflected in the 4th-century dated coins and the few sherds of later Roman pottery recovered. Perhaps the nearest comparable site to Grange Park and one that was

G03 G06.18 G012

131

Lower Nene Valley Greyware; Tomber and Dore 1998, 117-8 Hard. Reduced throughout, with a light grey core (5Y 7/1 and dark grey surfaces (GLEY1 4/N). Common white sand