SNN100586 - Mawsley New Village Off-Site Sewer

The application area is centred on NGR SP 8265/ 7646 and lies to the west of the A43 Northampton-Kettering road in the village of Great Cransley, near Kettering, Northamptonshire. At the time of the current survey the evaluation area comprised a 20m survey corridor extending across the grounds of Cransley hall, and parts of six fields two recently seeded, one under short stubble and three under pasture. Typical soild of the locality comprise slowly permable calcareous clayey soils and well drained coarse loamy soils over chalky till and Jurassic and Cretaceous ironstone (SSEW 1983). Previous survey in the area have located a number of sites of archaeological interest, notably a system of settlement enclosures to the north of Cransley Lodge and two groups of hut circles to the north-east of the buildings known as Red Lodge (GSB 1999a and 1999). The latter correspond to evidence from recent aerial photographic (AP) surveys. Extensive cropmarks have also been noted outside the designated area of survey to the north, east and north-west. A combination of scanning and detailed gradiometry was undertaken with the aim of identifying any anomalies of archaeological interest along the proposed road access. This work forms part of a wider evaluation being undertaken by John Samuels Archaeological Consultants (JSAC) in advance of a proposed housing development. Scanning identified two areas of interest in Fields 2 and 5 respectively. Throughout the remainder of the corridor a generally low level of response was noted. Detailed survey has recorded the presence of two area areas of archaeological potential within the current evaluation area. These include a network of settlement enclosures, possible indications of industrial activity and a trackway in Field 2. These responses appear to continue beyond the current areas of survey. A concentration of linear and curvilinear ditch type features were identified either side of a possible trackway in Field 5. The results of detailed survey in field 5 appear to correspond with a number of broad topographic features. Several responses of possible interest have been recorded elsewhere, although these lack sufficient context to support an archaeological interpretation. Numerous parallel linear responses throughout the data reflect former cultivation trends.