Monument record 3066/1/1 - Iron Age Trackway

Two parallel ditches c 6m apart possibly bounding a trackway. A large amount of Iron Age pottery was recovered from the ditch fills. The northern part of the trackway has now been quarried away, but the southern part remains visible as a cropmark.

{1}{2}{3} A considerable amount of early Iron Age pottery was recovered from two parallel ditches, exposed by top soil clearance prior to ironstone quarrying. The earliest pottery dates to the 5th or 6th centuries BC, but one of the ditches contained slightly later pottery and may have been re-cut. The two ditches were some 6m apart and, assuming they were originally contemporary, may have flanked a trackway. Virtually no evidence of settlement was found adjacent to the ditches but it was not possible to investigate the area as thoroughly as desired.

{5} Cropmark of a ditched trackway (the northern extension of the excavated trackway)

{7} Two roughly parallel ditches ranging from c5-6m apart. Each ditch survived to a depth of 0.9-1.2m and averaged 2.5m wide at the planned level. The ditches seem originally to have been roughly U-shaped or to have resembled an inverted truncated triangle. The upper parts of the features had been weathered back, probably during and after use.
Ditch A. A layer of primary silt was overlain by two layers of deliberate backfill. Between these was an intermittent layer of clay loam and limestone rubble, possibly deriving from an internal bank, and overlying them were two discontinuous layers of silting or plough accumulation.
Ditch B. Two layers of primary silt were stratified below one continuous and two discontinuous layers of deliberate backfill, and below two intermittent layers of natural silting or plough accumulation.
Sections taken of the ditches c.100m to the south revealed an entirely different. Both ditches contained large quantities of limestone rubble, inter-stratified with light yellow-brown clayey loam, and appear to have silted naturally.
The spatial relationship of the ditches suggest that they had been in contemporary use, possibly as the components of a trackway or of a major linear boundary. The possibility of the eastern ditch B being dug later than Ditch A cannot entirely be ruled out however.
Trackway: The rubble layers on the upper parts of Ditches A and B might have derived from narrow internal flanking banks, or from a made-up rubble surface which had served to prevent erosion through trampling and to facilitate surface drainage. The lack of evidence for an external bank might reflect the dumping of material on internal banks or on the trackway surface, or may imply a wide external berm. The banks could have been capped by a hedge, hurdle fence, etc, and as noted below might conceivably have been associated with an external palisade.
Boundary ditches: The silting patterns which were observed in Ditches A and B might imply a single internal bank, which for only part of its length had approached sufficiently closely to the flanking ditches for its collapse to be registered in the ditch fillings. It could have been heightened by the addition of a fence, hedge, etc, and as argued above might have been associated with additional flanking banks and/or a continuous or discontinuous palisade
The rubbish layers which were recorded in Ditch A had been deposited after the accumulation of a significantly smaller amount of primary silt than the refuse from Ditch B. This suggests that Ditch A might have been infilled first. The source of the rubbish cannot be established with certainty. But the discovery in several features to the east of Ditch B of a small number of sherds of comparable form and fabric to those recovered from the parallel ditches may imply that it is secondary refuse generated by the occupants of an adjacent early Iron Age settlement.
Four radiocarbon dates were obtained from charcoal preserved in the ditches. The value of the dates is reduced by the fact that they were obtained from charcoal deriving from mature timbers. These might have been employed for structural purposes and hence could have been deposited long after the species had ceased to absorb atmospheric radiocarbon; if so the determinations may seriously over-estimate the actual date of deposition.

{8} Aerial photographs dating to 2018 indicate the trackway extends further south than previously observed.

<1> Brown A.E. (Editor), 1979, Archaeology in Northamptonshire 1978, 14/102 (checked) (Article). SNN45225.

<2> Royal Commission on The Historical Monuments of England, 1982, An Inventory of The Historical Monuments in The County of Northampton, p.199/Site 12 (checked) (Series). SNN77382.

<3> Hall, D. (Ed.), 1979, CBA Group 9 Newsletter, 9/49 (checked) (Journal). SNN34098.

<4> Northamptonshire SMR Collection of Aerial Photographs, Used with NMR & CUCAP collections (Aerial Photograph(s)). SNN104822.

<5> COWLEY D.E.; FOARD G.R., 1979, Aerial Archaeology in Northamptonshire, 14/97 (checked) (Article). SNN60721.

<6> 1982, Aerial Photography in Northamptonshire 1981, 17/108 Gretton (Checked) (Journal). SNN104561.

<7> JACKSON D.A.; KNIGHT D., 1985, An Early Iron Age and Beaker Site Near Gretton, Northamptonshire, 20/67-86 (checked) (Article). SNN70122.

<8> Vertical Aerial Photograph, Google Earth Imagery 25/06/2018; Accessed 16/07/2024 (Aerial Photograph(s)). SNN112695.

Record last edited

Feb 25 2025 6:18PM