If you have any comments or new information about this record, please email us.

Summary

The probable site of a castle built in 1221 by Faulke de Breaute. Documents from the Assize at Dunstable in 1224 record that he was said to have dammed the river unlawfully, presumably for the moat around the castle, resulting in flooding to surrounding property. The castle seems to have covered most of the area between St Mary's Church to the north and Lea Road to the south, with the River Lea at its eastern end and St Ann's Road to the west. The castle was subsequently demolished and the Court House built in the southern corner of its former area. This was a moated house, probably reusing part of the castle moat, which was apparently still extant in 1611.

Full Description

<1> J. Nicholls, 1780-1797, Biblioteca Topographica Britannica, p. 53 (Bibliographic reference). SBD10922.

Site of castle at Luton may be the bank & moat, now called Court Close, on south side of churchyard.

<2> F Davis, 1855, History of Luton, pp. 7-8; map, p. 144 (Bibliographic reference). SBD10887.

Faulke de Breaute built castle at Luton, 1221. Probably stood in meadow at east corner of churchyard, where site of large square moated mansion still plainly to be seen; meadow adjoining it surrounded by very high bank of earth & deep ditch. Castle no doubt demolished when Faulke de Breaute's fate decided, & Court House built on ruins. Meadow still called Court Close.
Map, p144: Earthwork shown.

<3> Bedfordshire Historical Record Society, Bedfordshire Historical Record Society, Vol. 9, 1925, p. 59 (Fowler & Hughes) (Serial). SBD10681.

1224 Assize at Dunstable: "Jurors say that Falkesius de Breaute threw up a dam wrongfully…by raising the dam, the water of Luton flooded 2 houses & a meadow of the Abbot & a tenement. And when the water is held up, the mill of the Abbot cannot grind. And that a certain highway there is obstructed by that dam."
Episode recorded by Matt Paris (Chron Maj iii, 20)

<4> W. Austin, 1928, History of Luton, Pt 1, pp. 101-102 (Bibliographic reference). SBD10898.

On south side of churchyard, between churchyard & Lea Road, many recollect a raised mound of considerable extent, surrounded by a good-sized ditch. In 1221, path ran diagonally from corner of churchyard to Lea Bridge; raised several feet above level of vicarage closes & known as "Church causeway". Ditch was described in 1221 as "deep moat" & was no doubt castle moat. It seems that Falk dammed river between vicarage & castle (ref. 3).
At some period after pulling down of castle, "Court House" erected, probably from castle stone-work. Gough said meadow was called "The Court" or "Manor Court Close" & had no doubt of its being the site of Falk's castle.
Leland, 1540: "part of old place standeth yet" - no doubt referring to Court House.
1707 terrier: churchyard described as "fended by water in part", & vicarage orchard as "fended by mote of water" - clearly the ancient moat of the castle.

<5> James Dyer, F Stygall, John Dony, 1964, The Story of Luton, pp. 63-64 (Bibliographic reference). SBD10900.

Faulke de Breaute's castle covered most of area from church to Lea Road, river forming boundary on E side & St Anne's Road on west. Substantial mound of earth still covered this area at beginning of present century; records show that castle moat bounded southern side.
Map, p64: Extent shown.
In 1221, Faulke de Breaute dammed river near castle.

<6> Ordnance Survey, Ordnance Survey Archaeology Record Cards, OS: TL 02 SE 22 (Unpublished document). SBD10879.

[TL 0960 2104] The site of the Court House, Luton 'a large square moated mansion', is also the probable site of a castle built in 1221 by Faulke de Brent. (`History of Luton' 1855 pp.7-8 (F Davis))
The court house was owned by the Rotherhams in 1611 and referred to by Leland in 1540. (`History of Luton' Vol.1 1928 p.102 (W Austin))
Indicated site falls under late 19c tenement houses scheduled for demolition. FDC 12-NOV-75

<7> F W Kuhlicke, Bedford Museum, Annotated OS 6" map (Map). SBD12671.

"Site of Fakes de Breaute's castle" marked at TL 0957 2112

<8> Luton Museum, Luton Museum Document, 1972 (Unpublished document). SBD10952.

TL 095 211. Site of Castle built by Flacasius de Breute, 13th century. (Dyer, story of Luton).

<9> Archaeology South-East, 2008, An Archaeological Evaluation on land at Vicarage Street, Luton; Site A, 2008/200 (Archaeological Report). SBD11709.

An archaeological evaluation revealed features & deposits of C13-C14 date, along with post-medieval features.

<10> The Bedfordshire Archaeological Council, 2017, Bedfordshire Archaeology, Volume 27, pp. 245-266 (2009, Wes Keir et. al., Albion Archaeology) (Article in serial). SBD10809.

‘Archaeological investigations on the western edge of the site of Fulk de Breauté’s castle, Park Square, Luton’ (Wesley Keir),

Selected text:

SUMMARY
Investigations by Albion Archaeology in 2009 within the University of Bedfordshire’s Park Square Campus in Luton revealed features dating to the medieval and post-medieval periods, the most prominent being part of the moat of Fulk de Breauté’s early 13th-century castle. The partial footprint of a large timber-framed building, broadly dating to the 12th–13th centuries, was revealed within the moated enclosure. Other medieval features included two refuse pits located outside the moated enclosure. Though historically termed a castle, the moated site was also a manorial centre — a court house was documented on the site until the early 17th century. The moat was still at least partially open during the post-medieval period, when its fills appear largely to have been quarried away, and a well and pit, likely to have been associated with the backyards of properties fronting onto Park Street, were in use. In the late 18th century, a burial ground was established by the Society of Friends to the north-west of the moat.

INTRODUCTION
Planning permission was granted by Luton Borough Council for the construction of a new student centre at the University of Bedfordshire campus at Park Square, Luton. Given the site’s location within the medieval core of Luton, a condition was attached to the planning permission requiring a programme of archaeological investigation. Albion Archaeology was commissioned by Davis Langdon LLP on behalf of The University of Bedfordshire to undertake the work. The first stage comprised trial-trench evaluation (Albion Archaeology 2009), which identified two undated human burials and a considerable depth of stratified, post-medieval deposits infilling a large pit or ditch. On the basis of its projected alignment, this feature was interpreted as the moat of Fulk de Breauté’s 13th-century castle. Given the results of the evaluation, archaeological excavation of the footprint of the new building was undertaken between 26th May and 13th June 2009, in accordance with specifications issued by the Conservation and Design Team of Central Bedfordshire Council.

Site Location and Description
The University of Bedfordshire’s Park Square campus is located in the centre of Luton (Fig. 1). The footprint of the new building, centred on OS grid reference TL0952 2111, measures approximately 0.2ha, within a development area of approximately 0.38ha that contained a workshop and car park prior to their demolition. Topographically, the site lies within the valley of the River Lea at a height of around 105m OD.

Archaeological and Historical Background
The excavated area lies within the medieval core of Luton, close to the 12th-century parish church of St Mary (Fig. 1). The original church, clearly a minster, is reputed to have been founded in the 10th century (Albion Archaeology 2005), although not necessarily on the same site as the present building.
Luton was a royal manor at Domesday, and was held by the Crown until the early 12th century. In the civil war between Empress Matilda and King Stephen it came briefly into the hands of Robert de Waudari, who subsequently built a castle in 1139 on the strategically important south-western approach to the town (Abrams and Shotliff 2010). This castle was destroyed under the terms of the truce of 1153 but gave its name to Castle Street, recorded in a deed of 1459 (BRO CRT/130/57/1), which is held by the Bedfordshire and Luton Archives and Records Service (BRO).
By the end of the 12th century Luton manor was again in royal hands. In 1216 it was briefly held by William Marshall before being passed to Fulk de Breauté, possibly under compulsion from King John, on whose side de Breauté had fought during the civil war against the King’s barons (Page 1908). By 1221 de Breauté had built a castle in the town on the south side of St Mary’s church (Dyer and Dony 1975, 47–8). It was surrounded by a moat and associated bank, parts of which were still visible in the mid-19th century (Davis 1874, 30). In 1224 Fulk de Breauté fell into disgrace and was exiled. Luton manor subsequently passed through a period of division, before being mostly reunited under the Rotherham family in the late 15th century (Page 1908). It was held by the Napier family in the 17th and early 18th centuries, after which it passed through various hands. A court house is documented as standing on the castle site up until the early 17th century (Austin 1911, 148–9).
Luton’s open fields were subject to piecemeal enclosure over a period of many years, so that by the time the Luton Enclosure Act was passed in 1808, little unenclosed land remained (Albion Archaeology 2005). The 1842 tithe map (BRO MAT 30.T) and town map (BRO X214/4) (Fig. 2) show the excavated area as largely falling within an enclosed yard or garden, and partly within a large pasture field named ‘Brown’s Mead’, both owned by Frederick and Charles Burr. The site was bounded to the west by St Ann’s Lane, described as an ancient footway in an 1822 glebe terrier (Pickford 1998, 444) and a brewery (HER12376). By the early 20th century, Ordnance Survey mapping shows the area as being occupied by terraced housing fronting onto the newly built St Ann’s Road, as well as the backyards of plots that fronted onto Park Street. St Ann’s Road was repositioned in the later 20th century.
Little archaeological evidence for the medieval or earlier development of the town has to date been revealed. However, recent excavations c. 100m south-east of the site, adjacent to Vicarage Street and within the postulated extent of Fulk de Breauté’s castle, have revealed ditches and pits mostly dating from 1250 to 1400 (Archaeology South-East 2010). Pottery dating from the 13th to 15th centuries was also found during building work on the site of the Technical College immediately west of the site (HER1948).

RESULTS OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS
The excavations revealed features dating to the medieval and post-medieval periods (Fig. 3), the most prominent being a large ditch interpreted as part of the moat of Fulk de Breauté’s castle. Other features included a group of post-holes and gullies defining the footprint of a large building within the circuit of the moat, and a small post-medieval children’s cemetery. Hints of earlier activity in the vicinity were provided by small residual amounts of abraded late Iron Age and Saxo-Norman pottery, as well as fragments of brick that are probably Roman.
The following narrative is presented in chronological order by Phase. It includes the results of both the trial-trench evaluation and the excavation, and integrates specialist finds reports. Elements within each Phase are usually referred to by a Group (G) number which represents an agglomeration of ‘contexts’ that are closely related both stratigraphically and interpretatively. Subgroup (S) and ‘context’ numbers are used where reference to specific features and deposits is necessary.

Phase 1: Undated Inhumations [see HER 8926]

Phase 2: The Medieval Castle (c. 1150–1500)
Evidence for medieval activity included a large ditch, believed to have been part of the moat of Fulk de Breauté’s castle, and a group of post-holes and gullies defining the footprint of a building (Fig. 4). Other features comprised a ditch connected to the moat, and three pits lying beyond its circuit. The Phase 2 pottery assemblage is mainly of 12th- to late 13th-century date.
Moat
The most prominent feature revealed on the site was a large ditch G2, aligned NE–SW and measuring up to 12m wide and 3m deep (Fig. 4; Pl. 1).
Two segments of the ditch were excavated, revealing marked differences in its primary fills. To the south, they predominantly comprised stony sand and clay silts, together with a compact deposit of larger stones and sandy silt located on the south-east side of the ditch. To the north, however, a homogenous fill of compact chalky silt filled most of the base of the ditch. These deposits appeared to be the result of deliberate backfilling. They produced a small amount of pottery dated to the high medieval period, and a type of horseshoe nail thought to have been in use during the 11th to 13th centuries. Waterlogging of the deposits preserved an assemblage of plant and insect remains which indicate that the ditch held standing water, but may have been subject to periodic drying-out.
The ditch corresponds with the postulated location of the north-western arm of the moat of Fulk de Breauté’s castle built in 1221 (Fig. 1). The castle site is thought to have extended from St Mary’s Church to Lea Road (Dyer and Dony 1975, 47–8). Although the castle may only have survived for a few years (Albion Archaeology 2005), its moat and mound at least partly lasted into the 19th century (Davis 1874, 30). Pecked lines marked on the 1842 town map (Fig. 2) are likely to indicate the then surviving parts of the southern and western corners of the castle bank or moat.
A small ditch G3, 1m wide and 0.45m deep, joined the north-western side of the moat. Its primary fill mostly comprised large, compacted flints, presumably placed to consolidate the base of the ditch, which is likely to have channelled water into the moat. A small amount of early medieval pottery was recovered from it.

Timber-framed building
The remains of a large timber-framed building G1, measuring in excess of 12m long and 3.3m wide, was partially revealed in the southern corner of the site, in what would have been the interior of the moated enclosure (Fig. 4; Pl. 2). Pottery recovered from deposits associated with the building date it broadly to the 12th–13th centuries; abraded sherds of Iron Age and Saxo-Norman pottery were also recovered.
Parts of two sides of the building were visible, defined by a 0.2–0.4m deep gully that contained several post-holes of varying sizes (Fig. 4: a, c and d). The gully is likely to have held horizontal sill beams interrupted by vertical posts. However, the closer spacing of the posts near the northern corner of the building suggests the use of vertical earth-fast posts with an infill of planks or wattle in this location. Darker fills within several of the post-holes denoted the posts’ erstwhile extent: the fills are likely to represent topsoil that entered the cavities left where posts had been removed.
Interior features of the building comprised two very shallow gullies with some associated post-holes and a large post-pit S2, located near the corner of the structure. The proximity of the two shallow gullies to the main wall gully suggests that they are most likely to have been associated with extra support for the wall. Measuring c. 0.9m in diameter and 0.52m deep, the post-pit is likely to have held one of the main supporting posts for the roof, and may have been associated with an internal aisle (Fig. 4b). A darker, charcoal-rich deposit within the fill of the pit that was partly encircled by several large stones is likely to represent the location of a removed post, c. 0.5m in diameter. The charcoal predominantly derives from oak timber, possibly an indication of the wood used in the construction of the building. Prunus (cherry species) was also present, possibly derived from wood burnt on a hearth or from smaller structural elements, such as wattling.

Pits
Three pits located outside the moated enclosure were also dated to the medieval period. Two of the pits (G5) contained distinctive dark grey silty fills, which produced substantial amounts of pottery and animal bone; they are likely to have been used for the disposal of refuse. Both had nearly vertical sides and flat bases. The larger of the two, S17 (Fig. 4: e), was 1.7m in diameter and 1.2m deep; the other, S19, was 0.8m in diameter and 0.65m deep. The majority of the recovered pottery dates to the early– high medieval period, although a few later sherds within the upper fills of the larger pit indicate that it was finally backfilled during the late medieval / early post-medieval period (see below, Phase 3). A much shallower, oval pit G4 of unknown function was located adjacent to the north-west side of the moat.

The finds
Pottery
Jackie Wells
Phase 2 deposits yielded 125 sherds representing seventy-seven vessels (2.0kg), and constituting 44% (by weight) of the total assemblage. The greatest pottery concentration derived from rubbish pits G5 (1.5kg), with the other features each yielding small quantities. With the exception of three abraded late Iron Age sherds (5g) occurring as residual finds in building G1, the assemblage ranges in date from the Saxo-Norman to the high medieval periods. Although surviving in fair condition, the highly fragmented nature of the pottery is attested by a low vessel to sherd ratio of 1:1 and average sherd weight of 16g. Only one complete vessel profile and a few partial profiles are present. Appendix 1 contains a complete list of the recovered fabric types.
Saxo-Norman pottery (c. 850–1150) comprises twelve shell-tempered, wheel-thrown sherds (24g) in the St Neots-ware tradition and its variants. Two sherds derived from rubbish pits G5 and the remainder from deposits associated with building G1. No diagnostic elements occur, and all sherds are abraded.
The medieval assemblage totals 110 sherds, and is mainly of 12th- to late 13th-century date. Pottery occurs in a range of locally manufactured, fine to coarse, sand-tempered fabrics which are characteristic of the period. These include the long-lived South Hertfordshire-type grey wares (incorporating fine, coarse, micaceous and flint-tempered variants), which constitute the bulk of the material. The grey wares are widespread in Hertfordshire, London and much of south-east England (Turner-Rugg 1995, 48) and are well attested from sites in the south of the county, e.g. Chalgrave (Brine 1988), Grove Priory (Baker 2013, 103) and Stratton, Biggleswade (Shotliff and Ingham forthcoming). The range and variety of medieval pottery is comparable with that recovered from nearby excavations at Vicarage Street, where the assemblage was also dominated by South Hertfordshire-type grey wares (Archaeology South-East 2010, 18).
The medieval pottery comprises a range of both handmade and wheel-thrown, or handmade and wheel-finished, vessels, amongst which high-shouldered jars are predominant. Jars vary in diameter from 180mm to 260mm; rims are square, rectangular, everted and occasionally bevelled internally, and bases are flat. Other forms are bowls (Fig. 5: 2) and jugs of variable diameter. Decoration is rare, comprising horizontal combing and applied vertical thumbed strips on body sherds, while jug handles are thumbed and stabbed. Sooting marks on a number of sherds confirm that a proportion of these types represent cooking pots. One body sherd has been modified post-firing by the drilling of a hole, presumably to facilitate the vessel’s repair. Coarse wares recovered from rubbish pits G5 were found in association with glazed sherds from a high medieval Brill-Boarstall jug (Fig. 5: 1) and a transitional Brill jug.

Ceramic building material
Jackie Wells
Three abraded, sand-tempered brick fragments (658g) of probable Roman date derived from moat construction deposits G2 and rubbish pits G5. Small quantities of Roman building material were also recovered from excavations at Vicarage Street (Archaeology South-East 2010), suggesting a Roman presence in the vicinity.

Other artefacts
Holly Duncan
The non-ceramic assemblage from Phase 2 deposits is limited in quantity and is not closely dated. A selected catalogue is contained in Appendix 2.
The upper portion of a worn ‘fiddle key’ shoeing nail derived from the fill of moat G2. These were used in conjunction with horseshoes of Clark’s types 2 and 3 (1995, 85–7). Fiddle key shoeing nails have been found in deposits dating to the 11th century (Clark 1995, 93–4) and continued to be used throughout the 12th and 13th centuries.
The fills of refuse pit S17 (G5), located outside the moated enclosure, produced a fragment of what is probably a lace tag and a fragment from a limestone mortar. Lace tags or points served to protect the ends of laces, either leather or textile, and facilitated threading them through garments’ eyelets. They are certainly known from the 14th century, and there are indications that they may have been in use as early as the mid-13th century (Egan and Pritchard 1991, 281). Unfortunately, the tag from pit S17 does not survive in a complete enough condition to determine its method of manufacture. The mortar fragment, which may originate from the Isle of Purbeck, comprises a wall sherd, on which working lines (vertical facets) are clearly visible on the smoothly worn interior surface. The exterior is gently faceted; a hint of herringbone tooling survives. The fragment has patches of soot on both exterior and interior surfaces. It is generally accepted that mortars are a 13th-century introduction which superseded the use of the rotary quern for grinding foodstuffs (Biddle and Smith 1990, 891). How long they remained in use is less clear, due to their durability and frequent reuse in later contexts as packing or building material.

Animal bone
Mark Maltby
The animal bone assemblage is very small, predominantly comprising the food waste from cattle, sheep/ goat and pig. Eighty-four fragments were recovered from Phase 2 deposits, primarily from the two refuse pits G5 outside the moated enclosure.
Of the forty-nine elements identified, twenty-eight belong to pig and include three associated bone groups from contexts in pit S17 (G5). The first group comprises thirteen bones consisting of six ribs, a thoracic vertebra and six bones of the left forelimb (Table 1). All bones are slightly porous, and all epiphyses, including early fusion points such as the scapula and proximal radius, are unfused. The pig was probably, therefore, significantly younger than six months old. The second group comprises five bones from the lower right hind limb, including the unfused distal epiphysis of the tibia, astragalus and calcaneus. The porosity of these bones suggests that they also belonged to a juvenile pig, conceivably from the same animal found in the adjacent context. Similarly, the right femur, tibia and fibula comprising the third group are at a similar stage of development. No butchery marks were noted on any of these bones, and it seems probable that the fairly substantial remains of a carcass were deposited in the pit. No evidence of pathology was noted on any of the bones. A thoracic and a lumbar vertebra of older, although not fully mature, pigs from the same pit bear chop marks associated with the removal of the ribs and flanks of the animal.
Eleven elements are from cattle, and these include three metatarsals of adult animals, one of which is slightly splayed at the distal end. The femur of a very young calf attests to the culling of younger cattle as well. There are nine sheep/goat elements, including the horn-core of a male goat. This horn-core, which is still attached to the skull, has been sawn through halfway up to remove the outer horn sheath. Other sheep/goat elements include a calcaneus, a metacarpal, and a humerus which has been chopped through the shaft during dismemberment. Unlike subsequent phases, no bones of horse and dog were recovered. The only bird bone is unidentified, although it bears similarities to a domestic fowl radius.

Plant macrofossils
Charlotte O’Brien
Charred plant macrofossil remains were recovered from two post-holes in building G1 and refuse pit S17 (G5). They indicate that oats, barley and wheat were the main cereals used at the site during the medieval period (Table 2). Although diagnostic chaff was absent, the large size of some of the oat grains indicates that cultivated, rather than wild, oats were present. They are probably from Avena sativa rather than smaller-grained cultivars such as A. strigosa (Bristle oats). The cereal remains were generally in poor condition but some of the barley grains could be identified as being from the hulled variety. This is unsurprising, as hulled barley had superseded naked barley during the first millennium BC (Helbaek 1952). Most of the wheat grains had the characteristically compact shape associated with Triticum aestivo-compactum (a variety of bread wheat); however, wheat grain morphology is variable, and this identification cannot be certain in the absence of chaff.
Charcoal recovered from the post-holes was predominantly oak timber. The presence of tyloses (produced in the heartwood of certain trees) was noted, suggesting that mature oak trees had been felled to provide the posts. Prunus (cherry species) charcoal was also present.
Waterlogged conditions within the basal fills of moat G2 allowed the preservation of a range of uncharred seeds, wood fragments and mosses (Table 3). Arable, ruderal and wet-ground taxa were well represented, and fruit stones from trees/shrubs such as elder and bramble were common — the latter were probably gathered for food. Aquatic plant remains were low in number, and a few seeds from cultivated plants, flax and hop, were recorded. The only charred plant remains from this fill were an oat and wheat grain.
This assemblage of waterlogged plant remains from the moat provides information about the environment of the site during the medieval period. Macrofossils of the aquatic taxa rigid hornwort and duckweed indicate the presence of standing water in the moat, although the low number of aquatic plant remains suggests that the water levels were very low at times, perhaps as the moat silted up before re-cutting. Sedges, hemlock, bur-marigold, spike-rush, gypsywort, celery-leaved buttercup and bittersweet would have favoured the shallow water and wet ground conditions at the edges of the moat. The arable weeds fool’s parsley, stinking chamomile, sun spurge, black bindweed, fat-hen, fumitory and wild radish were present, which may reflect the proximity of arable fields, or that crop-processing waste was periodically deposited into the moat. Henbane, nipplewort, redshank, prickly sow-thistle, common chickweed and common nettle were probably growing on waste/disturbed ground in the immediate vicinity of the moat, possibly indicating that the ground around the feature had been trampled. Although most of the seeds suggest that there were relatively open conditions at the site, brambles, elder and roses were also recorded, which may have grown as opportunistic shrubs/small trees or in hedgerows and nearby scrub woodland. Taxa with broad habitat ranges, such as docks, goosefoots, buttercups, campions, woundworts and thistles, were also noted. These are generally found in arable, ruderal and grassland habitats.

Insects
Steve Davis
A very small insect assemblage was recovered from the waterlogged deposits in the base of the moat G2. It comprised six individuals, one each from six separate taxa. Included was the slow water taxon Hydrobius fuscipes and the chrysomelid Plateumaris sericea, which can be found on a range of water plants (cf. Atty 1983; Koch 1992), suggesting some standing water with emergent vegetation. Also recovered was the weevil Phyllobius pomaceus (formerly known as P. urticae), which lives primarily on stinging nettles, Urtica dioica (Koch 1992), a well known nitrophile.

Molluscs
John Carrott
A small collection of predominantly freshwater snails was recovered from the waterlogged basal deposits in moat G2. The suggestion that the moat may have been subject to drying out at this time is corroborated by the presence of Planorbis planorbis, which is often found in such conditions, and Lymnaea truncatula, which is more often found on mud at the waterside than in the water itself.

[Phase 3: Post-Medieval Disuse of the Moat, and Children’s Cemetery (c. 1500–1800)
Phase 3: Post-Medieval Disuse of the Moat, and Children’s Cemetery (c. 1500–1800)
The moat was still at least partly open in the post-medieval period, during which time its fills appear to have been partially quarried out. Subsequently, the moat gradually filled up through a mixture of natural silting and waste disposal. By the end of this period a children’s cemetery G8 had been established outside the moated enclosure, adjacent to St Ann’s Lane, along with a well and pit (G7) that are likely to have been associated with properties that fronted onto Park Street (Fig. 6).

Quarrying of the moat fills and subsequent infilling
Two adjacent cuts were clearly visible within the moat, the shape of which (Fig. 4: f) suggests that they are more likely to represent the deliberate quarrying of material from the moat rather than attempts to maintain its original form. They were filled by distinctive waterlogged deposits G2.01, generally consisting of dark brown clay-silts, up to 1.6m thick. These deposits appear to have formed over a relatively long period of time and contained a mixture of aquatic and terrestrial plant and insect remains, which indicate that the moat contained standing water but was also subject to episodic drying out.
Substantial quantities of artefacts were recovered from these deposits, ranging in date from the 12th to 18th centuries. These include leather shoe fragments of probable 14th- or 15th-century date; pieces of hipped ridged tiles, known as ‘granny bonnets’, that may date to the 16th or 17th centuries; and fragments of 18th-century bottle glass found towards the base of the cuts. There was also an abundance of animal bone, derived from a mixture of food waste from cattle, sheep/goat and pig, as well as waste from more specialist processes such as horn-working. The carcasses of non-food animals also appear to have been dumped within the moat, including a robust horse femur reminiscent of a carthorse.

[Children’s cemetery – see HER 19531]

Other features
Fragments of a tile and a possible skillet rim were recovered from the upper fill of Phase 2 rubbish pit S17 (G5), which became fully infilled by the late medieval / early post-medieval period. A backfilled, brick-lined well and linear pit G7 were located to the south-west of the graves (Fig. 6). Both produced pottery, brick and tile dating to the 17th and 18th centuries; the pit contained a particularly large amount of roof tile. These features are likely to have been associated with properties that fronted onto Park Street: their backyards are shown extending into the area of the site on the 1842 town map.

The finds
Pottery
Jackie Wells
Phase 3 deposits yielded sixty-five sherds, representing forty-seven vessels (1.3kg) and constituting 30% (by weight) of the total assemblage. The greatest pottery concentration derived from moat deposits G2.01 (1.1kg); the remaining features each yielded negligible quantities. Sherds survive in a similar condition to those of Phase 2, although, with an average weight of 21g, they are slightly larger. Residual medieval coarse wares occur in a similar range of sand-tempered fabrics to the Phase 2 assemblage, and are again dominated by the South Hertfordshire-type grey-ware cooking pots. High medieval table wares are represented by single glazed-jug body sherds of Brill-Boarstall ware, Surrey white ware and Hedingham ware; and four abraded London-ware sherds, the majority deriving from moat deposits G2.01. Pottery of 14th–15th-century date comprises seven undiagnostic, sand-tempered sherds in the south-east Midlands late medieval reduced ware tradition, and four contemporary oxidised sherds.
The twelve post-medieval sherds mainly comprise 17th-century, hard-fired, fine-glazed earthenwares (large shallow bowls and a single cup), with smaller quantities of 17th–early 18th-century tin-glazed earthenware and single sherds of black ware and a Staffordshire butter pot.

Ceramic building material
Jackie Wells
Ninety-five brick and tile fragments (17.8kg) were recovered, the majority from moat deposits G2.01 (11.6kg) and brick-lined well and pit G7 (5.6kg) (Table 4). The material survives in good condition, although it is fairly fragmented, with an average piece weighing 188g. The entire assemblage occurs in a hard fired, oxidised, sand-tempered fabric, likely to be of local origin.
Most of the building material comprises unglazed fragments of late medieval / early post-medieval peg tiles. These have circular holes for attachment using wooden pegs, and range in thickness from 15mm to 17mm. One example has a width of 180mm. Four unglazed ridge tiles occur, including a virtually complete hipped ridge tile (Fig. 5: 3). Mortar on the lower parts of these tiles indicates that they overlapped to give a ‘granny bonnet’ appearance to the ridges. Their dating is uncertain, although at nearby Grove Priory, an early post-medieval date (16th or 17th century) has been suggested for similar examples (Slowikowski 2013a).
Three pieces of plain floor tile or paviour (603g) were recovered from moat deposits G2.01. They measure 22–25mm thick and have a thin clear glaze coating their sides. None exhibit nail holes or keying. Seven moulded brick fragments were collected, including two complete examples; dimensions of the latter are 233 x 110 x 70mm and 220 x 100 x 60mm. They are thought to be contemporary with the peg tile.
Other artefacts
Holly Duncan and Quita Mould (leather shoe parts)
The majority of the non-ceramic assemblage derived from Phase 3 deposits. A selected catalogue is contained in Appendix 2.
The Phase 3 fills of the moat yielded a flint end scraper, a fragment of an undiagnostic iron strip, and glass from up to five wine bottles. At least three of the wine bottles have cylindrical walls, indicative of a date in the second quarter of the 18th century or later (Noel Hume 1961, figs 4 and 6). There are also parts of leather shoes, including a turnshoe sole and remains of at least two forepart clump repairs. A piece of secondary leather waste (cattle hide), comprising an intersectional cutting piece from the cutting-out of shoe soles, was also recovered.
All the shoe parts from Phase 3 can be securely dated to the medieval period. The turnshoe sole is of adult size and for the right foot. It has an oval toe and a relatively wide, though distinct, waist and a wide seat. It is heavily worn and has stitching from the attachment of repairs to the tread and seat. Moss was associated with the shoe parts and is likely to have been used to stuff the toe of the shoe upper. As no shoe uppers are present, the shoe parts cannot be closely dated. However, the shape of the sole suggests a date in the high medieval period (1250– 1400) and the associated moss stuffing is characteristic of the later 14th to later 15th century; taken together, a later 14th-century date is perhaps most likely.
The final fill of rubbish pit S17 (G5) yielded a rim fragment from a cast copper-alloy vessel. Although the most commonly recovered medieval metal vessel forms are cauldrons, skillets, ewers and jugs (Egan 1998, 161), confident identification of excavated fragments to particular forms is rarely possible, and this is the case in this instance. The sherd has been flattened, distorting its shape, and is sooted on both internal and external surfaces. It has a thickened, flat-topped rim, the rim wall almost vertical before turning sharply outwards. It has been tentatively identified as a skillet, which could suggest a 14th-century date (Dunning 1962, 98–100). Cemetery G8 comprised twelve burials, eight of which contained non-ceramic artefacts (Table 5). Six burials yielded nails, suggesting these inhumations were contained within coffins. In several cases, traces of mineralised wood adhered to the nail fragments. The nails survived in poor condition, but x-radiography indicated that some small, tack-like nails were present in addition to larger examples (the longest nail, missing its tip, measured 49mm).
[Objects from burials, and human bone – see HER 8926]

Phase 4: Modern Development of the Site
The majority of the medieval and post-medieval features were truncated by remains associated with the 19th- and 20th-century development of the site. The moat probably underwent its final backfilling and was levelled during this period. Its upper deposits G2.02 were 1.4–1.6m thick and contained a mixture of medieval, post-medieval and modern pottery and building material.
The footings of terraced houses, first depicted on the 1901 Ordnance Survey map, were also revealed at the northern end of the site. These fronted onto the former location of St Ann’s Road, which was repositioned further to the south during redevelopment of the area in the late 20th century.

The finds
Pottery
Jackie Wells
Phase 4 deposits yielded seventy-five sherds representing sixty-six vessels (1.2kg), and constituting 26% (by weight) of the total assemblage. The majority were associated with the upper moat deposits G2.02. Sherds are highly fragmented, with an average weight of 15g and a low vessel to sherd ratio of 1:1, and survive in a similar condition to those of the preceding phase. Residual medieval coarse wares occur in a similar range of sand-tempered fabrics to the Phase 3 assemblage, but are no longer dominated by the South Hertfordshire-type grey wares. High medieval fine wares are represented by single glazed body sherds from jugs in Brill-Boarstall ware and London ware. A single sherd of south-east Midlands reduced ware and eight contemporary oxidised sherds comprise the late medieval assemblage. Diagnostic forms are jugs with wide-slashed strap handles, square-rim jars and a cistern.
Seventeenth-century hard-fired, fine, glazed earthenwares (large shallow bowls and lid-seated jars) comprise the majority of the post-medieval assemblage (seventeen sherds), with smaller quantities of 17th- to early 18th-century tin-glazed earthenware. There are also single sherds of Cistercian ware and a black-ware tyg, respectively of 16th- and 17th- century date.
Mass-produced late 18th- to19th-century domestic wares are represented by seven sherds of cream ware, pearl ware, transfer-printed earthenware and Staffordshire white salt-glazed stoneware.

Ceramic building material
Jackie Wells
Phase 4 deposits produced 122 fragments of brick and tile, weighing 11.5kg, with the majority coming from the upper moat deposits G2.02 (Table 6). The material survives in good condition, although it is more fragmented than examples from the preceding phase, with an average fragment weight of only 94g. Most of the assemblage occurs in a hard-fired, oxidised, sand-tempered fabric. Two pieces of brick in a smooth, buff, gault fabric were also recovered, a type that is known to originate in the gault clay area running through east and south-west Bedfordshire, and neighbouring counties.
The majority of the building material comprises unglazed fragments of peg tile, likely to be of similar date to those of the preceding phase. Four unglazed ridge tiles (410g) and a piece of late medieval glazed roof tile (41g) were recovered. Bricks are represented by nine moulded, post-medieval fragments (1.4kg) and two pieces of modern engineering brick (19g). An abraded, sand-tempered Roman brick fragment (529g) derived from upper moat deposits G2.2.

Other artefacts
Holly Duncan
With the exception of a single flint flake from the topsoil, the entire assemblage was recovered from the final, deliberate infilling of moat G2. A selected catalogue is contained in Appendix 2.
An assemblage of vessel glass, in the main comprising wine bottle fragments, was recovered. Two bottle types could be identified, one of Noel Hume’s type 16 (1750–1765) and one of type 21 (1770–1800). Part of a foot-ring from a stemmed drinking vessel was also found, but this could not be closely dated. Also suggestive of ‘domestic’ activity was the bolster-tang knife, a form of hafting which is thought to have been introduced about the middle of the 16th century; by the 17th century it was in widespread use (Goodall 1993b, 130).
A rectangular iron staple, a small quantity of wall plaster (44.8g) and an off-cut of lead sheet could be associated with a building and its fittings, while the find of a ‘hot’ chisel indicates at least a degree of metalworking. None of these items can be closely dated nor, due to the nature of the deposits, is it clear whether they relate to activity within the investigation area or come from ‘imported’ soil used to level the ground.

Animal bone
Mark Maltby
Deposits associated with the deliberate backfilling and levelling of the moat produced 129 animal bones, of which eighty-eight were identified to species.
Ten cattle bones include three femora fragments (Table 1). The limited ageing evidence again indicates that the assemblage includes bones of young calves, older but still immature animals, and adult cattle. Cleaver marks were observed on a femur, humerus and pelvis.
Sheep/goat are slightly better represented than cattle; in contrast to the previous phase, no horn-cores nor indeed any other cranial elements were recovered. Nearly all the sheep/goat assemblage consists of limb bones, including six tibiae from at least three different bones. The bias towards good meat bones indicates that the bones largely represent secondary or tertiary butchery (cooking or table) waste. Butchery marks were observed on the shafts of two femora. One had been chopped through; the second, a very large specimen from an improved breed, had been sawn through. This is one of several bones of large sheep, whose presence confirms the late post-medieval/modern origin of this assemblage. Several of the limb bones have fused, indicating the presence mainly of adult animals and suggesting that mutton rather than lamb tended to be consumed, although the sample is very small.
Eleven pig bones include the maxilla of an immature sow and the canine of a domestic boar. Horse continues to be commonly found: ten of the fifteen bones consist of metapodials, with at least four different metatarsals and three metacarpals present. Most of the bones are from quite large, adult animals. No butchery marks were observed, but the uneven nature of the anatomical representation suggests that their carcasses were dismembered.
Dog was the most commonly identified species (twenty-six bones), partly because of the recovery of eleven bones from a single deposit, which were probably from the same adult animal. Based on the length of the tibia (127mm), it had a shoulder height of about 38cm. Four different dogs are represented by humeri, and three by radii and femora. Another complete tibia has an estimated shoulder height of 42.7cm and a radius one of 48.7cm. All the dog bones found in this phase are from adults.
Six cat bones (humerus, ulna, two femora, tibia and metacarpal) were recovered, with both immature and adult animals represented. The only bird bone consists of a complete tarsometatarsus from a domestic fowl; the absence of a spur indicates it belonged to a hen.

DISCUSSION
Location and Nature of the Castle
Paul Courtney and Wesley Keir
The large ditch revealed during excavation corresponds with the location of the north-western arm of the moat of Fulk de Breauté’s castle, which is alluded to in various historical documents. In 1221, the chronicle of Dunstable noted that Fulk had built castles in Luton and Eaton Bray, to the detriment of Dunstable and its vicinity (Luard 1864–9, iii, 66). By this time he was considered to be one of the most powerful men in England, being the keeper of numerous castles, the lord of various estates and the sheriff of six counties (Austin 1928). However, he was also one of the most despised, due in part to various misdemeanours against the Church. One such deed, alluding to the location of the castle, is related by Mathew Paris around 1221: he noted that de Breauté had built a pond at Luton whose outlet flooded the abbot’s corn and damaged a barn (Luard 1872–4, iii, 120). It seems de Breauté had dammed the river between the vicarage and the castle, presumably to aid the retention of water within the moat (Austin 1928, 101). The Church lands were flooded as a result, for which de Breauté is recorded as being completely unrepentant, to the extent that he wished that the corn had been completely destroyed.
Later documents and authors provide further evidence for the location of the castle and its moat. Glebe terriers of 1634 and 1635 describe the vicarage garden or orchard as being enclosed by a moat which extended along the garden’s east side (BRO Fac35/16). The glebe terrier of 1707 describes the orchard as ‘fenced in by a mote of water’ and the churchyard as ‘fenced by water part an … (damaged)’ (BRO P85/2/1/1).
Richard Gough (1783, 43 and 53) described the land on the south side of St. Mary’s Church as ‘Court Close’ and suggested that it was the former site of de Breauté’s castle. In the mid-19th century, the site of a square ‘moated mansion’ appears to have been clearly visible in the meadow to the south-east side of the churchyard (Davis 1855, 8). Davis further notes that the meadow was surrounded by ‘a very high bank of earth and deep ditch’. The area of the castle as described above is likely to correspond with plots 194 and 196 on the 1842 town map (Fig. 2), an area in which Austin (1928, 101) states that people could still remember there being ‘a raised mound of considerable extent, surrounded by a large ditch’. Pecked lines marked within plot 194 on the town map are likely to represent surviving parts of the bank.
In 1223, King Henry ordered the surrender of all royal castles (Austin 1928, 98). By 1224, de Breauté had surrendered his castle to the King and was exiled. Davis (1855) and Austin (1928) suggest that the castle was subsequently destroyed, prior to the construction of a ‘courthouse’ on the site. It is certainly possible that the backfilled deposits G2, recorded within the base of the moat, were associated with redevelopment of the area during the 13th century. It is also possible that the courthouse would have formed part of the 13th-century ‘castle’ buildings. This is perhaps hinted at by Leland in 1540 when, referring to the courthouse, he states ‘part of the old place standeth yet’ (Austin 1928, 102).
It is likely that the site of de Breauté’s castle was also the site of the royal manor of Luton, with a history extending back into the Saxon period. The abraded sherds of Saxo-Norman pottery found in deposits associated with building G1 are certainly testimony to activity that pre-dates the castle. Whether de Breauté’s work is worthy of the term ‘castle’ is unclear. It was only described contemporaneously as a castle by the monks of Dunstable, possibly as a result of monastic paranoia (Cathcart King 1988, 8–9 and fn. 16). Certainly, Eaton Bray (built by William Cantilupe), which is also described as a new castle by the same monastic reference, has long been regarded as a moated homestead rather than a castle. It had a wall, moat and two drawbridges documented in 1273 (Cathcart King 1988, 8; Dyer 1963, 8–9). In addition, one might note that it was Waudari’s short-lived, early 12th-century castle which gave its name to Castle Street. These things aside, it seems likely that de Breauté made some effort to strengthen the manor/castle’s defences, as with the bank and ditch, although these were also both common features on rural manorial sites.
Other than the courthouse, there are no historical references to specific buildings on the castle site, the 13th century it probably possessed a range of agricultural processing and storage buildings in addition to a chamber block, hall and stables. It is likely to have served as an occasional residence for the King or great lords, as an agricultural centre, and the hall would have served as the manorial court, collecting rents and fines from its tenants. Being only partially revealed, the function of timber building G1 is uncertain. However, building remains of a similar size and nature have been interpreted as halls, dwellings or even weaving sheds at Goltho medieval manor near Lincoln (Beresford 1987).

The Local Medieval Environment
Charlotte O’Brien
The plant macrofossil analysis indicates that the site lay within a predominantly open, agrarian landscape. Oats, hulled barley and cf. bread wheat were the main cereals being used in the vicinity; all were commonly cultivated during the medieval period in Britain. Archaeobotanical evidence from other sites in eastern England indicates that they were also the main field crops in this region: for example, bread wheat was the predominant crop identified from deposits at Ipswich, with rye, hulled barley and oats also common (Murphy 1987). Bread wheat and oats were also used at the medieval moated enclosure in Tempsford Park, Bedfordshire (Maull and Chapman 2005), while medieval deposits from Leicester Abbey yielded charred remains of bread wheat, oats and barley, in addition to peas and beans (Monkton 2004).
Other economic plant remains include a few flax and hop seeds. Flax is a versatile crop, which in addition to producing fibre for clothing, ropes or sacking, may have been used to make linseed oil for food, preservative or medicinal uses. The by-products of oil and fibre production could also have been used as fodder or fuel (Bond and Hunter 1987). Flax has frequently been recorded on medieval sites from eastern England, such as in the 11th-century latrine pits at St Martin-at-Palace Plain, Norwich (Murphy 1988). If flax was being cultivated for fibre production, there would have been an area for retting, i.e. soaking the plant stems in water to aid removal of the bast fibres for linen production (Geraghty 1996), and the moat may have been used for this purpose. Large numbers of seeds would not necessarily be present in residues where retting had taken place, as seed capsules were traditionally removed from the stems prior to retting, in a process called rippling. However, retting is a very polluting process, and for this reason it was usually undertaken away from the area of settlement (Gearey et al. 2005). The flax seeds may, therefore, have been deposited in the moat with a dump of domestic waste.
The hops may have been cultivated locally for the flavouring of beer, the production and sale of which was of increasing economic importance during the medieval and post-medieval periods. By 1474, Luton probably had as many as sixty malt-kilns (Dyer and Dony 1975, 83).
The presence of frequent grass seeds reflects the likely proximity of meadow or pasture, whilst the presence of charred sedge nutlets may indicate some cultivation of damp, heavy soils, and/or burnt peat, dung or hay. The waterlogged remains of the arable weeds fool’s parsley, stinking chamomile, sun spurge, black bindweed, fat-hen, fumitory and wild radish found in the moat may reflect the proximity of arable fields, or alternatively that crop-processing waste was periodically deposited in the moat.

Later Medieval and Post-Medieval Activity
Wesley Keir, Paul Courtney and Charlotte O’Brien
The later history of the manor/castle site is unclear. No features were identified that were conclusively in use during the later medieval period, although the larger of the two refuse pits in G5 may still have been open, and several late medieval pottery sherds and non-ceramic artefacts, including leather shoe parts, were found within the waterlogged fills of the moat G2.01. However, some evidence of later medieval activity on the castle site, in the form of two ditches and pits, was identified during excavation adjacent to Vicarage Street, 100m to the east (Archaeology South-East 2010). A late medieval / early post-medieval plough-soil was also present at the same site.
By the late 14th century it is likely that the manor/ castle site’s lands were farmed out and it lost its agricultural function. On many such sites the last function to survive was the holding of manorial courts, as suggested by the survival of the courthouse as a building into the early 17th century. However, any juridical function presumably ended with its sale in 1618, if not before.
The medieval moat fills within the excavated sections appear to have been largely removed during the post-medieval period. This can possibly be correlated with a reference in the particulars of the sale of the ‘castle’ land to Francis and Thomas Crawley in 1611 — Francis had the right to cast up mud out of the ditches belonging to the premises upon the adjoining waste grounds and carry ‘the same away’ (BRO Crawley C153; Austin 1911, 148–9). These quarry cuts subsequently infilled gradually through a mixture of natural silting and waste disposal.
Much of the castle site appears to have been used for meadow and pasture, at least during the later post-medieval period, as reflected by the presence of insects specific to grassland habitats found within the moat fills. The continued use of barley and cf. bread wheat was also evident. However, the most striking characteristic was the abundance of the remains of trees and shrubs, and plants which could be considered ‘garden’ plants (cf. Murphy and Scaife 1991). The remains included those of fruit trees, introduced species such as mulberry and fig, and herbaceous plants which may have been grown for ornamental or medicinal purposes. It is likely that many of these remains are associated with the garden depicted on the tithe map and town map within which most of the excavation site lies. An orchard associated with the vicarage is also referred to by the glebe terriers of 1634 and 1635 (BRO Fac35/16).
Documentary research has identified that the children’s graves form part of a burial ground established by the Society of Friends in John Brown’s garden in the late 18th century (Roger Sear pers. Comm.). It appears only to have been used for young children of the Brown family, who probably first settled in Luton c. 1700. A building located in the yard of 16 Park Street, owned by Daniel Brown, was used as the Meeting House during the 18th century. This did not have an attached burial ground, which is likely to provide at least a partial explanation of why the children were buried in John Brown’s garden. Believing that all ground should be considered as ‘holy’, it was not an uncommon practice for Friends’ family burial plots to be located within land owned by the family.
The presence of the two undated inhumations G6 revealed within the trial trench is more puzzling. Their location some distance away from the seemingly confined area of the Society of Friends burial ground suggests they are unlikely to have been associated with it. One possibility is that the churchyard shrank in size; its south-eastern boundary does appear to have shifted slightly to the north-west from the position depicted on the 1842 town map (Fig. 2). Alternatively, the site of the church may have moved. This latter explanation provides support for the theory that the existing church was rebuilt at a different, but nearby, location to the original 10th-century church. A similar possible shift has been postulated for the local minster church at nearby Flitton (Wardill forthcoming).
The well and pit (G7) to the south-west of the children’s cemetery are likely to have been associated with the backyards of properties that fronted onto Park Street, which during the medieval and post-medieval periods was Luton’s principal thoroughfare.
By the late 19th century the area of the castle had been levelled and the moat completely backfilled, making way for the terraced housing marked on the 1901 OS map.
[Acknowledgements, bibliography and appendix of artefact reports]

<11> Albion Archaeology, 2009, Land at the University of Bedfordshire, Park Square, Luton; Archaeological Trial Trenching, 2009/55 (Unpublished document). SBD11821.

The trenches contained two human burials and a considerable depth of post-medieval stratified archaeological deposits probably contained within a large pit or ditch. This may represent a quarry feature or the moat of de Breaute's castle. Its location in the approximate position of the moat's projected route and the dating evidence lend support to this hypothesis.

<12> The Bedfordshire Archaeological Council, 2017, Bedfordshire Archaeology, Volume 27, ‘Inside Fulk De Breaute’s 13th-Century Castle’ (Nuala C. Woodley and Joe Abrams), pp. 267-281 (Article in serial). SBD10809.

SUMMARY
An excavation by Headland Archaeology in 2011, prior to redevelopment of the University of Bedfordshire’s Park Square Campus in Luton, revealed evidence of the early 13th-century castle complex of Fulk de Breaute. It was the fifth in a series of investigations at the sites of both Fulk de Breaute and Robert de Waudari’s castles in Luton. Whilst the previous investigations had uncovered the castles’ defences, this excavation shed light on the day-to-day activity happening within de Breaute’s castle complex. It revealed an industrial area consisting of large pits, along with a series of parallel ditches and fences which would have separated work areas from walkways, guiding people around the castle complex. This report draws the results of the five investigations together and compares the information which is now known about these two castles.

INTRODUCTION
As part of a wider redevelopment of the University of Bedfordshire’s Park Square Campus, Luton Borough Council granted planning permission for the construction of a new Postgraduate and Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Centre. Given the site’s location in an archaeologically sensitive area within the historic core of Luton (Fig. 1), Luton Borough Council (acting on advice from Central Bedfordshire Council’s Archaeological Officer) required the University to commission a programme of archaeological work in order to gain information on any significant archaeological remains within the development area. A trial-trench evaluation was carried out in January 2011 (Albion Archaeology 2011), which recorded the presence of such remains dating to the early medieval period. These were considered to be part of the castle complex of Fulk de Breaute, remains of which had been found within previous investigations at neighbouring University development works (Albion Archaeology 2009; Archaeology South-East 2010).
The results of the evaluation led the Council to require an open-area archaeological excavation of the development area. The University of Bedfordshire commissioned Headland Archaeology (UK) Ltd to carry out this excavation (undertaken between 27th July and 2nd September 2011), the results of which are presented below.

SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The site is located between Park Street and Vicarage Street, within the historic core of Luton. It lies at an average height of 105m AOD on the south side of the River Lea valley, and is centred on grid reference TL 09597 21115.
Parts of the north and north-west area of the site had been almost entirely truncated during the demolition of former university buildings, one of which had a basement. The remainder of the site was relatively well protected beneath a series of buried soils and more recent dumping layers, the latter generated by the earlier demolition of 19th-century buildings.
The underlying geology of the area comprises chalk, overlain by fluvioglacial deposits of clay with patches of sand and gravel.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Luton is known to contain archaeological remains dating to all periods from the prehistoric onwards (Albion Archaeology 2003). Given the largely medieval date for significant remains investigated at this site, it is this period of the town’s history on which the text below focuses. Luton, meaning ‘settlement or estate on the River Lea’ (Watts 2010, 387), was the largest manor in Bedfordshire. It was exceptional as compared with most manors in the country, in that it had formed part of the private property of the Kings of England for 500 years before the Norman Conquest (Austin 1911, 5).
The Domesday Survey lists Luton as a royal manor (Domesday Book Online). It remained so until the 12th century, when King Stephen granted both the manor and the church at Luton to Robert de Waudari, a mercenary who fought for the King against Matilda. In 1139, de Waudari built an adulterine castle on the south-western approach to the town (Fig. 2), but it was demolished only fifteen years later when, following the 1153 Treaty of Winchester, it was agreed that all adulterine castles would be destroyed (Abrams and Shotliff 2010, 387–9).
In the early 13th century, Luton was held by William Marshall, the Earl of Pembroke and his wife, Alice. After Alice’s death at a young age, her husband retained the Manor of Luton for just a few months before handing it over in 1216, perhaps as demanded by King John, to Fulk de Breaute, a Norman of illegitimate birth who was a great favourite and supporter of the King (Dyer and Dony 1975, 46). De Breaute completed work on his castle at Luton in 1221, making it a multi-functional castle that was the focus of political, financial and legal decision-making in the town. By 1224, however, de Breaute had fallen out of favour with the King and had gone into exile in France. The castle is thought to have been demolished as soon as his fate had been decided (David 1855, 7), but no direct physical evidence for this has been revealed, and the precise nature of land use after 1224 is still a matter for consideration.
Prior to modern archaeological investigation, de Breaute’s castle was thought to have been situated on the south side of St Mary’s Church (Fig. 2). Following his exile, and the apparent demolition of his castle, a house called the ‘court house’ was erected (Austin 1928, 102). It is possible that the ‘court house’ formed part of the 13th-century range of buildings, and was hinted at by Leland in 1540 when, referring to the ‘court house’, he states ‘part of the old place standeth yet’ (Austin 1928, 102). Excavations here in 2010 revealed ditches dated to 1250– 1400 which may have been related to the moated ‘court house’ (Archaeology South-East 2010). The reference to a ‘court house’ suggests that certain legal functions were retained on the site, with it serving as an occasional residence for the King or great lords, as an agricultural centre and as the manorial court collecting rents and fines from its tenants (Keir, this volume).
Around the end of the Middle Ages, the site became pasture on the edge of the somewhat ‘shrunken’ town of Luton. The 1842 Tithe map and town both show the former castle as an enclosed field. The boundaries of the enclosure were thought to be the remains of the bank and moat of de Breaute’s castle, as Davis describes: ‘Fulk de Breaute’s castle was surrounded by a very high bank or mound of earth and a wide moat. There are still large portions of the mound remaining on the north and south-east sides’ (Davis 1874, 30–1). By the early 20th century, the site is shown on Ordnance Survey maps as being occupied by terraced housing fronting onto St Anne’s Road.
Until recently, little archaeological investigation had been conducted in the historic core of Luton. Since 2005, however, redevelopment works at one or other of Luton’s two castles have prompted a series of five investigations which have significantly advanced our understanding of these sites (Coles 2005; Abrams and Shotliff 2010; Archaeology South-East 2010; Keir, this volume). This series of investigations, the results of the fifth of which are described in this article, has helped to redress what has been described as a historical lack of appreciation of Luton’s heritage, manifested through the wholesale demolition of later buildings and the meagre extent of documentary records (Bunker 1999, 14).
The previous four investigations mostly revealed large ditches, namely the defensive, perimeter ditches which marked out the edges of the castle complexes. The structural remains of actual castles have not been revealed, although a relatively large timber structure was discovered immediately north-west of the Postgraduate and CPD site (Keir, this volume). The investigation described by this article, however, was located well inside the castle complex, presenting the opportunity to examine how land was divided up within the castle precinct, what activities took place, and whether the interior was crowded with structures or contained large open spaces for holding animals or growing crops.

RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATIONS
Phases 1 and 2: Enclosed industrial area within the medieval castle complex
Evidence was revealed of a series of land boundaries, with fences and ditches used to divide areas of activity. Phase 1 represents their construction and use, with their disuse in Phase 2. The features within these areas included relatively deep pits, suggesting that an industrial activity was taking place. Close study of the spatial arrangement of the boundaries allows for some recreation of how pedestrian traffic might have moved around this area, opening a window on life within the castle complex.

Pits (Fig. 3)
A cluster of four pits (G5) was identified, each of which was sub-rectangular in shape, with almost vertical sides and a flat base. The largest was 2.65m long, 2.10m wide and 0.55m deep. Three of the pits were arranged in a row on a NE–SW alignment, with a gully linking two of them. Two post-holes were situated on opposite sides of the southernmost pit and may have been associated with a temporary structure to cover the area.
A dark deposit of grey clay filled the base of three of the four pits in G5. This distinctive deposit is most likely to have been formed by activity broadly contemporary with the pits’ period of use, although the precise activity remains enigmatic. The clay’s stratigraphic position in the base of these features suggests that they were open at broadly the same time and became infilled by the same processes.
The material overlying this clay was very different and contained domestic material characteristic of hearth sweepings and kitchen waste, including pottery sherds, ceramic building material, metallic objects, animal/fish bone and marine shell. The pits produced a considerable quantity of 12th – early 13th-century pottery, dominated by Hertfordshire Grey-wares that may have been produced locally at manufacturing centres such as Hitchin and Toddington. The mixture of this material along with charred grain and wood charcoal is likely to have resulted from the deposition of household rubbish in the pits once they were no longer required for their original function. Along with that domestic rubbish were some pieces of what appeared to be a clay floor that had accidentally been fired, perhaps during the destruction of a building. It is unclear whether this resulted from the destruction of the castle, following de Breaute’s departure, or from a less historic event.

Fence lines (Fig. 3)
Six post-holes (G2), averaging 0.3–0.4m in diameter and sharing a similar morphology, were positioned in two rows on a NNW–SSE alignment. The distances between them varied; on average they were c. 4m apart. This series of post-holes is interpreted as a fence line. The uniformity of the deposits that formed in the post-holes once the posts had rotted, or been removed, suggests that they were infilled at broadly the same time. Two small sherds of residual 10th–11th century pottery were recovered from the post-holes’ backfill; such small quantities of residual pottery were also found on the adjacent sites (Keir, this volume; Archaeology South-East 2010), indicating earlier activity of an ill-defined nature in the vicinity. The fence line is likely to have been used to separate distinct activities within the castle complex.
Two shallow, circular post-holes (G4) were situated on the north side of pits G5, 1.5m apart. They contained similar deposits to those in G2 but produced no dating evidence. The post-holes may represent a further fence line which, along with G2, was part of a sequence of fences that enclosed the industrial activity area.

Boundary ditches (Fig. 3)
Three parallel ditches were recorded on a NNE–SSW alignment. G3 was the largest, measuring up to 2.2m wide and 0.35–0.45m deep; G1 and G6 were similar in depth but only c. 1–1.4m wide (Fig. 3: Sections A–C). Ditches G1 and G3 are both presumed to have terminated between the two excavation areas, since no trace of either was found in the other area.
The infill of the ditches contained two deposits that were quite distinct from each other. The pale yellow silty clay in G1, G6 and the south-west half of G3 was similar in character to that of the geological deposits into which the ditches were cut, suggesting that they became gradually infilled as a result of natural erosion. In contrast, the dark grey clay in the north-west half of G3 was of similar character to the deposit found at the base of pits G5, perhaps indicating that the waste from the pits was being tipped into these ditches.
The parallel alignment of the three ditches is typical of a system of contemporary, interconnected land boundaries. Along with the fence lines, the ditches may have been used to segregate the industrial area from the more domestic castle buildings, with the linear spaces between these ditches acting as passageways to and from this area without having to enter the work space where pits G5 were located.

Phase 3: Later additions to the castle complex and abandonment
Replacement of the ditched boundary with a fence line (Fig. 3)
A series of post-holes (G12) were cut into backfilled ditch G6. Their infill was very similar to that of the surrounding ditch fill, and the post-holes were only clearly visible in section. They varied in size, but mostly had a diameter of c. 0.35m and were up to 0.6m deep (Fig. 3: Section A). Two shallow post-holes G13 were also identified in ditch G3 (Fig. 3: Section B). The presence of post-holes in the backfilled ditches suggests the replacement of ditched boundaries with fences, which perhaps took place after the industrial area went out of use. Medieval pottery and building material was recovered from the post-holes, which were sealed by layer G10, suggesting that the change in type of boundary occurred within the medieval period.

Abandonment (Fig. 3: Section G)
The final fills of industrial pits G5 were very similar in character to the underlying geological deposits. This suggests that they were deliberately infilled at the end of their use, which is likely to have happened while the area was being levelled, perhaps after the castle complex was abandoned.
A uniform, 0.25m-thick layer of mid-brown silty clay (G10), c. 0.5–0.6m below the modern surface, sealed the medieval remains. This deposit would have formed once this part of the castle complex was converted to agricultural uses, and is characteristic of a rich agricultural soil, possibly enhanced by manuring either deliberately or as a result of its being used as pastureland.

Phase 4: Post-medieval to modern
A large pit on the western limit of excavation contained fragments of tile and modern brick, and is likely to have been associated with terraced houses fronting onto St Anne’s Road which are shown on the 1842 town map. Foundation ‘scars’ were also observed across the site, along with an L-shaped red brick foundation in the north-east corner; these are also likely to have been associated with the terraced houses.

THE FINDS
Medieval pottery
Paul Blinkhorn
Methodology
Pottery from each context was recorded on a database by number and weight of sherds per fabric type, with featureless body sherds of the same fabric counted, weighed and recorded as one database entry. Feature sherds such as rims, bases and lugs were individually recorded, with individual codes used for the various types. Decorated sherds were similarly treated. In the case of the rim sherds, the form, diameter (in mm) and the percentage remaining of the original complete circumference were all recorded. This figure was summed for each fabric type to obtain the estimated vessel equivalent (EVE).
The terminology used is that defined by the Medieval Pottery Research Group (MPRG 1998). Statistical analyses were carried out to the minimum standards suggested by Orton (1998–9, 135–7). Fabric codes and chronology follow the Bedfordshire Ceramic Type Series, as follows:
[Table 1: Codes and chronology of the Bedfordshire Ceramic Type Series]

Results
The pottery assemblage comprises 107 sherds with a total weight of 1.855kg. The estimated vessel equivalent (EVE), by summation of surviving rim sherd circumference, is 0.64.
The pottery occurrence by number and weight of sherds per phase and fabric is shown in Table 2. Each date should be regarded as a terminus post quem.

Phase 1
The entire assemblage from this site-phase comprises plain body-sherds, and includes the two sherds (4g) of probable Bronze Age pottery from G3.

Phase 2
The bulk of the pottery from the site comes from this phase, in particular from G5, which produced an assemblage of fifty-five sherds weighing 1,093g (EVE = 0.56). Most of the sherds came from two vessels, a jug and a jar; these are both in Hertfordshire Grey Ware (Figs 4 and 5), which also accounts for most of the remaining pottery from this phase-assemblage.
The Hertfordshire Grey Ware jug provides crucial typological information in the form of its handle, which has three lines of thumb impressions running along its length — a style known as ‘overall thumbing’, and typical of the period AD1200–1230 (Blackmore and Pearce 2010, 209). Given the paucity of pottery from the site other than in G5, it suggests that the main period of activity here dates to around that time.

Phase 3
Most of the pottery from this phase is very fragmented, and has the lowest mean sherd weight (7.2g), indicating that most is likely to be residual — certainly the two sherds of St. Neots Ware fall into this category, and only one small sherd of Hertfordshire Glazed Ware is likely to be contemporaneous. The pottery from this phase, which mainly came from the tops of features, therefore probably relates to clearance of the site, and is made up of material which was gathered up in soils used to backfill or level earlier features. The date for this phase therefore must be regarded as a terminus post quem.

Unphased
The large size of the sherds, all four of which are medieval, suggests that they were not residual, but that the fill of this pit in G9 is in fact contemporary with the Phase 2 deposits.

Discussion
The pottery from this site is fairly typical of assemblages in the region, and the fabric types are all well-known. The assemblage is dominated by Hertfordshire Grey Wares, as would perhaps be expected given that there were two manufacturing centres of such pottery near to Luton: at Bancroft, Hitchin (Blinkhorn 2005); and to the east of Toddington, at what is now Junction 12 of the M1 motorway (Blinkhorn forthcoming). It is a pottery type found throughout Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, and also at sites in Middlesex and the City of London (Turner-Rugg 1995, 48). It is worthy of note that none of the handles from the kiln at Bancroft, Hitchin had thumbed decoration, but such handles were noted amongst the Toddington waste, indicating that the latter is a more likely source of at least some of the Hertfordshire Grey Ware at this site.
The assemblage is generally fragmented and scattered, other than the pottery from G5, which appears to be a primary deposit. The overall impression is that this was either a very short-lived site or, more likely given the presence of the church and castle, was somewhat peripheral to the main areas of activity, with the nature of the Phase 3 pottery indicating a period of clearance and consolidation at some time around the mid-14th century.

Metalwork
Julie Franklin
All the metalwork came from features dated to Phases 1 and 2: seven items from pits G5, which are ceramically dated to the early 13th century; and an iron nail from ditch G6, the pottery from which suggests a late 12th-century date. None of the metalwork can provide tight typological dating, but all of it is consistent with the medieval dates suggested by the associated pottery.
The most striking of the objects is a copper alloy brooch pin from one of the pits in G5 (Fig. 6). It is a particularly large, ornate pin, 70mm long and cast in one piece, with an integral offset loop that has raised ridges and a flange at the back. This shaping may have been to allow easier manipulation of the pin during fastening and unfastening, or it may have been designed to copy decoration on the brooch ring itself to create overall symmetry. Its exceptionally good condition implies that it may not have been in use for long before being lost.
The brooch pin is the most unusual find from the whole finds assemblage. Medieval brooch pins are most commonly looped around the ring of the brooch after its construction, whereas pins such as this, cast with integral loops, would require the brooch frame to be fitted through the pin. Some such cast pins are known (e.g. Biddle and Hinton 1990, fig. 172:2029, 2030 and fig. 173:2033, 2038; Margeson 1993, fig. 7:55; Egan and Pritchard 1991, fig. 160:1310 and fig. 161, 1314; Cherry 1987, 485, nos 650–651), though generally fixed to 14th-century brooches (Biddle and Hinton 1990, 640). However, these are of a different form, with a loop set centrally to the pin and often with a collar between the shaft and loop. No parallels for pins of the particular design of the Luton example could be found.
Also exceptional is the size of the pin. Medieval brooches came in a range of sizes but the largest are generally 40–50mm across (e.g. Margeson 1993, fig. 7:61; Egan and Pritchard 1991, fig. 162:1318; Goodall 1984, fig. 190:56), with the pin typically a little shorter or longer than the width or diameter of the brooch. That said, a particularly large brooch pin of comparable size to the Luton one was discovered in Norwich (Margeson 1993, fig. 7:62). This was a much plainer example with no integral loop, but interestingly was also found in a late 12th- or 13th-century deposit.
The pin is clearly part of a large and ornate object, though conversely made of copper alloy, rather than silver or gold. Until any similar examples come to light, the pin remains a somewhat enigmatic item.
The only other metal finds are six small, iron wood-working nails and an iron rove plate. The nails presumably relate to the construction of, and repairs to, nearby structures. Rove plates were used in conjunction with nails to form clench bolts, to secure two or more thicknesses of wood together. The rove plate is a small rectangular or lozenge-shaped plate with a central hole, which fitted over the protruding tip of the nail on the reverse of the wood. The tip was then clenched over, securing it in place. They are particularly associated with the construction of boats and doors, the latter being more likely in this context.

Flint strike-a-light
Julie Lochrie and Julie Franklin
Over 500 flint artefacts were recovered, many of which show signs of reduction and some secondary modification, including cores (bipolar and platform), edge-retouched and notched pieces. A number are likely to be of prehistoric origin and are possibly contemporary with the Bronze Age pottery; however, none of the flints bear any diagnostic features which could identify the nature, date or location of any prehistoric activity in the area, and most are clearly residual. Only one find was examined in more detail, as there is some evidence to suggest that it was used during the medieval period for fire-lighting.
The find, part of a possible strike-a-light from one of the pits in G5, is an inner, hard-hammer flake of a dull green-brown to red-brown, lightly patinated flint (Fig. 7). There is a single break along the entire left lateral and multiple breaks to the right lateral. The retouch occurs in three locations: the right and left laterals at the proximal, with some nibbled retouch to the thin proximal end; and a short area to the left distal corner. All are gently con cave. The retouch to the left, proximal lateral is unusually positioned, beginning semi-abruptly at the proximal but changing to slightly larger acute removals from the edge of the dorsal surface only. These have been carried out after the break to the lateral edge. There are some other very small, acute flakes similarly struck from the same edge at the medial. The breaks to the right lateral edge have broken through the retouch and are thus later; they take the form of several steep, direct and inverse removals of varying size, some of which have fresher patination.
The use of flint and steel for starting fires has long been known. Flints were used to strike off a small spark from the steel onto a piece of tinder, which was then fanned and fed to create a fire. Before the invention of matches in the 19th century, this was the most common and convenient method in use, and the tools required were often stored or carried within a tinder box (Cave-Brown 1987). Firesteels (sometimes also called strike-a-lights) have been identified at a number of medieval and post-medieval sites (e.g. Egan 1998, 121–2; Egan 2005, 79–80; Goodall 1990, 981–3; Goodall 1993, 86), but any iron object could have served the purpose and it is likely that the backs of knife blades were commonly used in this way.
The stone component of this toolkit is little understood by comparison, with very few identified in medieval assemblages. Two categories can be identified: pebbles (typically of quartz or quartzite), with a score mark on one side where they appear to have been struck with a steel point to create the spark (e.g. Manning 2009, 87; Smith 1994, 202–3); and chipped flint tools where the sharp edge has been used against a steel edge (e.g. McCartan 2004, 535–6; Wickham-Jones 2004, 74). The problem with these edged stone tools is that there is no specific typology by which to identify them. Any sharp-edged stone of convenient hand-size would serve the purpose, whether it be a freshly struck flake or re-used prehistoric tool, and it is therefore likely that many have gone unrecognised.
The Luton flint cannot be definitively identified as a strike-a-light, but there is some evidence which points towards it as a strong possibility. It was a prehistoric tool: the retouch around the proximal end and distal corner implies a Neolithic to Bronze Age date, though being incomplete, its original function is unclear. Its deposition can be securely dated by associated pottery, however, to the early 13th century. Residual prehistoric lithics were clearly easy to acquire at the site during the medieval period, and others were found deposited in the same context. It is the alternating, steep flake scars to the right lateral edge which suggest its use as a strike-alight — the varying patination indicates that they were struck at a much later date than the piece was retouched. They bear no pattern and are very unlikely to represent a deliberately manufactured working edge. The edge has been struck hard with a glancing blow, removing thin flakes which are consistent with being struck against a firesteel (Cave-Browne 1987, 2). It seems likely that at some point it was so used.

Ceramic and stone building materials
Julie Franklin
The assemblage A small collection of ceramic and stone materials was recovered, but for the most part these appear to be residual, relating to earlier and later construction and conceivably to contemporary nearby structures.

Totternhoe Stone
Nearly 4kg of this greyish-white chalky limestone was recovered from Phase 2 ditches G3 and G6, with a particular concentration in the former. Some sherds have dressed faces with clearly visible chisel marks, indicating that these were used, or intended for use, in some kind of structure. The clarity of some of these marks suggests that the material is construction waste — if the stones had been used on the outside of a structure, the surface of the soft stone would have quickly weathered.
The stone is of a type quarried extensively at Totternhoe, about 7 miles to the west of Luton. It is particularly well suited to fine carving for intricate architectural detail, yet is also strong enough to be used for construction, though prone to weathering badly in an external setting. It can often be found used in a chequer pattern interspaced with harder flint, to give strength and a decorative aspect to church walls, such as those of the Church of St Mary, Luton, about 100m north-west of the site. This particular stone is unlikely to be connected with the timber-built castle, and may well be waste material from building works at St Mary’s.

Burnt Clay Floor
The only building material likely to be connected to the castle itself is a large collection (3.7kg) of pieces of what appeared to be a clay floor, burnt in situ and then redeposited within one of the Phase 2 pits in G5. The fabric is coarse and yellow, containing large pieces of limestone and other stone inclusions. The sherds are of variable thickness with unfinished undersides and no edge sherds and hence do not appear to be deliberately made tiles. However, the top surface is always smoothed flat and fired red to a thickness of about 8mm, making it likely that this was a simple beaten clay floor which was accidentally fired, implying an episode of destruction by fire shortly before its late 12th- or 13th-century deposition in this pit.

Other Ceramic Building Materials
Other examples of ceramic building material include a brick sherd and a fragment of combed box flue tile, both clearly Roman; residual Roman finds including bricks and box flue tiles have also been recovered from neighbouring excavations (Wells 2013; Porteus 2010). A large sherd of peg tile was also found, in a coarse orange fabric with large flint and calcareous inclusions, similar to the most common fabric type found at Vicarage St (Porteus 2010, 20: Fabric T1) where the tiles were dated to the 12th–16th century. This flat roof tile is 13mm thick, at least 184mm wide and has the remains of two round peg holes towards one edge.
Two large fragments of daub (total weight 571g), well fired to a brick-orange in a coarse sand and flint-tempered fabric, both show wattle impressions. The largest piece is about 50mm thick with a flattened surface, with three roughly parallel round wattle impressions in the back, c. 10–15mm in diameter. Like the fragments of clay floor, the high temperatures to which these daub fragments have been subjected suggests destruction by fire.

Discussion
The general lack of ceramic and stone building material from the site supports the idea that the castle was of timber construction. Most of the building materials recovered can be linked to other structures and periods. The burnt clay floor and perhaps the burnt daub are the only possible exceptions; neither appears to have been deliberately fired, resulting instead from an episode of destruction and rebuilding.

Charred plant remains
Abby Mynett
Methodology
Samples were processed in laboratory conditions using a standard floatation method (cf. Kenward et al. 1980). All plant macrofossil samples were analysed using a stereo-microscope at magnifications of x10, and up to x100 where necessary, to aid identification. Identifications were confirmed using modern reference material and seed atlases including Cappers et al. (2006).

Results
The charred plant assemblage is relatively rich and diverse (Table 3). The condition of preservation varied from poor to good, with a relatively large number of cereal grains found to be broken and abraded and thus classified as indeterminate grain (Cerealia indet.). Several species were identified across the nine samples, with bread/club wheat (Triticum aestivo-compactum) appearing to dominate. Wild taxa were also identified across the samples.

Discussion
Most of the charred grain came from Phase 2 ditch G3, although nearly half of this was indeterminate cereal that was too poorly preserved to be identified to species level. Bread/club wheat was the dominant cereal, with fewer numbers of barley and oat grains and a small amount of possible spelt wheat identified. Pits G5 produced a similar cereal assemblage, though with much smaller overall quantities of grain. The abundance of cereal and the species identified in these samples indicate that cereal cultivation and production were being carried out on site, perhaps on a relatively large scale. The cereal assemblage identified is similar to other medieval assemblages from Bedfordshire sites such as Stratton and Tempsford Moat (Robinson 1996, 120–1).
Wild taxa from Phase 2 included docks, peas, daisies, mayweed, sedges, fat hen seeds and a few fragments of hazelnut shells. The range of wild taxa is indicative of wet and waste lands, with many of them known as common cultivation weeds (fat hen, docks and daisies). Peas were common throughout the medieval period (Murphy 2007, 109), though field legumes would also have grown as wild species alongside cereals and may have been gathered with the crop. The two blackthorn stones and blackthorn charcoal from pits G5 could have become mixed into the fuel wood that was gathered. These, along with rush remains, grow in wooded and scrub landscapes.
Noticeably fewer charred cereal remains were recovered from Phase 3 features, though a moderate assemblage from one of the G2 pits (Sample 4) showed a similar dominance in bread/club wheat to the cereal assemblages in Phase 2. The small amounts of charred plant material from ditch G1 and the other features in G2 are likely to be from household rubbish, given the amount of waste material recovered from these deposits. This reduction in charred cereals could indicate a change in diet and agricultural practices over time, but the overall assemblage is too small to draw firm conclusions.
Pits G2 also contained the largest number of wild taxa on site, including sixty sedge nutlets — a common wetland plant —and small numbers of scentless mayweed, peas, violets, docks and buttercup remains.

Charcoal
Laura Bailey
Methodology
Eighty charcoal fragments were analysed from four samples in order to provide an overview of the arboreal taxa they contained, and to look for any evidence of woodland management. Forty fragments were selected from Samples 5 and 6 from pits G5 in the Phase 2 activity area, and forty from Samples 3 and 4 (G2) in the Phase 3 abandonment of the activity area. The samples were chosen from those observed during assessment which had the greatest potential to contain fragments of a size suitable for identification. The charcoal was broken or fractured to view three sectional surfaces (transverse (TS), tangential (TLS) and radial (RLS)) necessary for microscopic wood identification. The charcoal fragments were then mounted on a slide and examined using an incident light microscope at magnifications of 100x, 200x and 400x, where applicable. Identifications were made using wood keys by Schweingruber (1978; 1990) and Wheeler et al. (1989).
As part of the identification process, the morphology of the charcoal fragments was also noted as to whether they could be identified as roundwoods. The number of rings was counted for each fragment and the presence of very narrow or extremely wide rings was noted. Due to the fragmentary nature of charcoal and the shrinkage it undergoes during the burning process, it is unlikely that all fragments can be associated exactly with the type of wood being used for fuel (e.g. branch wood as opposed to large timbers). However, it was hoped that examination of the rings and their curvature would give an estimate of the size of timbers used. Ring curvature has been measured using the key by Marguerie and Hunot (2007, 1421), where weak curvature is thought to denote large timbers; medium curvature, medium sized timbers; and strong curvature, small timbers. Where curvature could not be viewed they are noted as indeterminate.
The charcoal was also examined for evidence of biological degradation in the form of fungal hyphae. The presence of fungal hyphae in wood is revealed by colour changes, of physical-mechanical characteristics and of the hyphae themselves (Schweingruber 1978, 194).
[Table 3: Composition of charred plant remains]

Results
The charcoal is summarised in Table 4. [Table 4: Results of charcoal analysis]

Charcoal analysis of Samples 5 and 7 from Phase 2 pits G5 showed that ash (Fraxinus excelsior) was the dominant taxon, although it should be noted that it was only present in one of the two samples (Table 5). Beech (Fagus silvatica) was also well represented. Growth-ring curvature showed that most fragments of ash and beech derived from medium-sized branches, although some of the ash fragments came from larger branch wood. Thyllae were observed on ten of the ash fragments, indicating the burning of heartwood (Wheeler et al. 1989, 259; Marguerie and Hunot 2007, 1419). Fungal hyphae were present in many of the fragments, suggesting that dead or decaying wood was used for fuel, or perhaps that the wood was stockpiled (Schweingruber, 1990; Marguerie and Hunot, 2007). Most of the beech and oak fragments displayed normal (1–2mm) growth rings, with a few showing narrow-banded (less than 1mm) rings; this suggests that growth conditions were generally good for these trees, whereas the wide growth rings observed on fragments of ash — some up to 5.39 mm apart — indicate that environmental conditions were optimal for its growth.
Ash is a light-demanding taxon and therefore probably formed part of the fairly open canopy in deciduous woodland, although it is sometimes found growing on damp soils, in marginal forests and on stream banks (Stuijts 2005, 140–1). Ash responds well to coppicing and makes excellent fire wood (Grogan 2007, 30); its dominance suggests that it was readily available nearby and was possibly preferred due to its excellent burning qualities. Beech prefers drier soils, such as chalk, but is found on a wide variety of free draining soils.
Beech was the dominant taxon in Samples 3 and 4 from Phase 3 features G2, with ash no longer represented (Table 5). All of the beech fragments represented former medium-sized timbers such as medium-sized branches, while small apple-type (Maloideae sp.) and hazel (Corylus avellana) branches were also used for fuel. Growth-ring patterns on the beech fragments contained evidence of narrow growth sequences (less than 1mm) either following or preceding normal growth rings, which indicates that environmental stresses were placed on some of the trees during growth, and perhaps also provides tentative evidence for activities such as pollarding or coppicing (e.g. Wheeler 2011, 19). Fungal hyphae were present in six of the beech fragments.

Discussion
Analysis of the charcoal present in the four samples from Phases 2 and 3 indicates that dryland deciduous woodland was exploited for fuel wood in the medieval period, while the presence of species such as ash and blackthorn suggests that the canopy was fairly light and open. The presence of fungal hyphae in most fragments suggests that the charcoal represents the collection of deadwood for fuel.
Beech was dominant in three of the four analysed samples, suggesting that it was deliberately selected for use on site, either for fuel or construction purposes. Beech seems to have been a timber tree in some wood pasture, but in many places it was pollarded (Rackham 2003, 323); pollarding or coppicing may have been undertaken in order to manage the trees’ growth for supplying wood suitable for construction (e.g. straight timbers with few branches) or to ensure a constant supply of fuel wood on site. The presence here of wide growth rings sandwiched between narrow rings in the beech charcoal from Phase 3 suggests that woodland management was taking place. It is probable that other taxa such as oak and hazel were also being managed, but the fragmentary nature of the charcoal made identification of such management impossible.

DISCUSSION
There are no detailed historical references describing the design and layout of either Fulk de Breaute’s castle or its ancillary buildings. This lack of information makes it difficult to envisage the exact layout of the complex, making the results of archaeological work particularly useful in painting a fuller picture of the activities which may have taken place. Whilst previous investigations and historical mapping (Fig. 8) have revealed the castle’s defences, giving limited information on how the area may have reverted to open land after the castle was demolished, these investigations have thrown light on everyday activities within the complex. They support historical sources which indicate that the castle was more than just military in function, with evidence for other activities such as industry and agriculture.

Fulk De Breaute’s castle
By combining the results of this investigation and the other two recent ones at de Breaute’s castle (Archaeology South-East 2010; Keir, this volume), it is possible for us to visualise a castle complex defined by a large moat which measured up to 12m wide and 3m deep, enclosing an area of c. 2.5ha (Fig. 8). A reconstructive depiction (see cover illustration) combines the results of these investigations with knowledge from similar castles, as an aid in visualising how de Breaute’s castle complex may have looked in the early medieval period.
Excavations in the south-western half of the castle complex have shown that this area did not contain the castle itself or stables, but a large, rectangular building instead (Keir, this volume). This impressive structure would have been notable within early medieval Luton, and may have functioned as a dwelling. An industrial area was located in the central part of the complex; this contained several large pits, which were delimited, and kept separate from other parts of the complex, by a series of fences and parallel ditches.
The finds that were recovered from this excavation suggest that the castle was in use during the early medieval period, with a complete clearance and consolidation of the complex happening around the mid-14th century, around a century after the demise of Fulk de Breaute. A small quantity of Anglo-Saxon material suggests earlier activity in this area which predates the castle, although on a much smaller scale. It seems feasible that these artefacts are contemporary with the foundations of the nearby Church of St Mary, with similarly dated material recovered from the previous investigations.
Artefacts recovered from the land surrounding the industrial pits — principally sherds from a Hertfordshire Grey-ware jug and jar, a possible flint strike-a-light, and sherds from a burnt clay floor — are indicative of nearby domestic activity. This is supported by faunal remains recovered from the same pits which are representative of a general waste assemblage originating from domestic activities, along with small amounts of charred plant material, charcoal, shells and nutshells. A brooch pin that was found in one of the pits is a relatively high-status object, and is likely to have been dropped in there accidentally.
Crop-processing was also being carried out at the castle — the limited evidence available tentatively suggests that this was happening on a relatively large scale, in view of the abundance and species identified across the site. Initial processing of the crops would have taken place at a nearby production site, before the crops were brought to the town as loose grain, perhaps only requiring a final clean before food processing related to baking and brewing took place.
Analysis of charcoal fragments that were recovered from the excavations has shown that the residents in the castle and surrounding area were exploiting dry-land deciduous woodland for fuel wood. The right to take timber from mature trees belonged to the local lord, or in forests, to the king; in areas of wood pasture, the local community was allowed to take wood for repairing houses, fences and ploughs, deadwood for fuel, and to lop young branches for winter fodder (Given-Wilson 1996). The authority Fulk de Breaute held in Luton would have allowed the castle to consume and utilise the surrounding woodlands for the timber that was needed for construction and firewood; the abundance of beech charcoal suggests that this species was deliberately selected for use in this case.
Now that much of the south-western half of the castle complex has been investigated, it appears that the castle’s elusive domestic buildings lay in the north-eastern half, which has not yet been examined. The town map of 1842 (Fig. 8) shows a boundary separating the north-eastern field from the south-western one; this could have been a boundary that originated at the time of the early medieval castle, perhaps segregating the residential, manorial area in the north from the southern area of industrial activity. Only investigation of the north-western area can test this hypothesis.

Similarities and differences between Luton’s medieval castles Situated south of the River Lea on a geology of clay, sands and gravels, only 500m apart, the two castles of Fulk de Breaute and Robert de Waudari shared a similar geographical location. Their function appears to have been different, however: de Waudari’s 1139 castle was purely short-term and military in nature, whereas de Breaute’s 1221 castle represented a defensive residence and manorial centre with close access to the surrounding medieval roads. De Breaute’s castle was also significantly larger, enclosing 2.5ha of land within the core of medieval Luton; de Waudari’s castle enclosed only 1ha on the outskirts of Luton.
As well as being smaller, de Waudari’s castle also had a much shorter lifespan, lasting for only fifteen years. The castle was designed to overlook the landscape, with clear defensible vistas, while its strategic position on the London to Bedford road enabled it to control the southern approaches to Luton. Once the castle had served its purpose, the site slipped back into relative obscurity and was probably re-incorporated into the extensive tracts of pasture in that part of the town (Abrams and Shotliff 2010, 401–2). In contrast, even though Fulk de Breaute himself only occupied his castle for a short time (1221 to 1224), the site remained in use as an important political centre for a much longer period after his exile.
The lack of archaeological investigation into the domestic areas of either castle — indeed, the precise location of these areas is still uncertain — precludes any comparison between their structural design or organisational layout. The sites of the two castles do seem to have shared a common end, however: just as the land on which de Waudari’s castle was built probably returned to pasture, the site of de Breaute’s castle also seems to have been used for agriculture by the late 14th century. A 0.25m-deep abandonment layer of buried soil was observed at both castle sites; this is likely to have been formed by livestock grazing in the area, which consequently would have ‘enriched’ the soil, helping this layer to form. Since the soil was fairly homogenous and lacking any sign of human activity, its presence helps to confirm that the site of Fulk de Breaute’s castle eventually fell into obscurity in the pasture lands of Luton, just as de Waudari’s castle did.


After the castle
It is presumed that after King Henry ordered the surrender of all royal castles in 1223 (Austin 1928, 98) and Fulk de Breaute subsequently went into exile, his castle at Luton was destroyed. The precise nature of this ‘destruction’ is unclear, as the site of the castle building itself has not yet been revealed. Pieces of burnt clay floor recovered from pits G5 are broadly contemporary with the castle, and their presence in these pits suggests that the event in which they became burnt coincided with the levelling of pits G5. It is possible that this relates to the destruction of de Breaute’s castle, but there are also many more mundane scenarios which could explain the presence of the burnt clay.
The remainder of the castle complex was retained and utilised. Davis (1855) and Austin (1928) suggest that after the castle was ‘destroyed’, a ‘court house’ was built on the site; this presumably is what Leland was referring to in 1540 when he states ‘parts of the old place standeth yet’ (Austin 1928). The two ditches and pit identified during the excavations to the south-east of the site (Archaeology South-East 2010) were thought to be related to the ‘court house’ as they dated to the late 13th– 14th century. It was perhaps the case that this area of the castle complex was expanded during the later occupation of the site, with the ditches situated on the same alignment as the other boundaries and the moat, though the ditches could alternatively have been long-lived boundaries within the castle complex that were utilized into the 14th century.
The exact nature of the transitional period between the end of de Breaute’s castle and the erection of the ‘court house’ is not known, but changes presumably took place as the industrial area (G5) went out of use in the late 13th– early 14th century, and boundary ditch G6 seems to have been replaced by a fence line with post-holes cut into the backfilled ditch. It seems that these non-domestic areas of the complex were utilised for a longer period of time, only going out of use gradually after de Breaute’s exile.

CONCLUSIONS
Despite widespread disturbance due to development from the 18th century onwards, significant remains of Fulk de Breaute’s castle were still discovered at the University of Bedfordshire site. Previous archaeological investigations had revealed defensive ditches demarcating the limits of the castle complex and a timber structure in the south-west corner; in contrast, this investigation has revealed something of the everyday functions taking place in the south-west half of the complex. The land was not densely covered in buildings; instead, there were areas of open land and occasional timber buildings, with ditches and fences dividing up the land and industrial activity taking place. Crops were stored, processed, consumed and discarded within the complex, while livestock may also have been kept there to provide the meat that was being consumed and discarded. The main buildings of the castle itself were probably located to the north; a ditch depicted on a 19th-century map (Fig. 8) is undated, but perhaps divided the ‘high status’ from the ‘everyday’ within the medieval complex. The relevance of this ditch and the location of the ‘castle’ structure remain enigmatic for now.

[Acknowledgements]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abrams, J. and Shotliff, D. 2010: ‘The remains of Robert de Waudari’s adulterine castle, Castle Street, Luton’, in Bedfordshire Archaeology 26, 387–404
Albion Archaeology 2003: Extensive Urban Survey for Bedfordshire: Luton Archaeological Assessment (unpublished report 2000/71)
Albion Archaeology 2009: Land at the University of Bedfordshire, Park Square, Luton. Assessment of Potential and Updated Project Design (unpublished report 2009/105)
Albion Archaeology 2011: Land at the University of Bedfordshire, Vicarage Street (Phase 2a), Luton (unpublished report 2011/12)
Archaeology South-East 2010: Land at Vicarage Street, Luton, Bedfordshire, Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design (unpublished report 221053)
Austin, W. 1911: The History of a Bedfordshire Family; being a History of the Crawleys of Nether Crawley, Stockwood, Thurleigh and Yelden in the County of Bedford (London)
Austin, W. 1928: History of Luton and its hamlets (Newport) Biddle, M. (ed.) 1990: Object and Economy in Medieval Winchester (Oxford)
Biddle, M. and Hinton, D.A. 1990: ‘Annular and Other Brooches’, in Biddle 1990, 639–43 Blackmore, L. and Pearce, J. 2010: A dated type-series of London medieval pottery: part 5. Shelly-sandy ware and the greyware industries, Museum of London Archaeology Monograph 49 (London)
Blinkhorn, P. 2005: ‘Pottery from a Hertfordshire Greyware kiln, Bancroft, Hitchin’, in D. Kaye and H. Ashworth, Bancroft. Assessment and Updated Project Design (Heritage Network unpublished report 294)
Blinkhorn, P. forthcoming: Pottery from the M1 J12 Widening Scheme, Luton, Bedfordshire (unpublished report for Northamptonshire Archaeology)
Bunker, S. 1999: Strawopolis: Luton Transformed 1840–1876, Bedfordshire Historical Record Society 78 (Bedford)
Cappers R.T.J., Bekker, R.M. and Jans, J.E.A. 2006: Digital seed atlas of the Netherlands (Groningen)
Cave-Browne, P. 1987: Fire-Making: A Survival Skill from the past (Oxford)
Cherry, J. 1987: ‘Jewellery’, in J. Alexander and P. Binski (eds), Age of Chivalry: Art in Plantagenet England 1200–1400 (London), 176–8
Coles, S. 2005: ‘Excavation at Castle Street, Luton: The site of Robert de Waudari’s Castle?’, Bedfordshire Archaeology 25, 201–7
David, F. 1855: The history of Luton with its hamlets, etc. (Luton) Davis, F. 1874: Luton past and present: history and antiquities (Luton)
Domesday Book Online: www.domesdaybook.co.uk, accessed 30.03.12
Dyer, J. and Dony, J.G. 1975: The Story of Luton (Luton)
Egan, G. and Pritchard, F. 1991: Dress Accessories 1150–1450, Medieval Finds from Excavations in London 3 (London)
Egan, G. 1998: The Medieval Household: Daily Living c.1150–c.1450, Medieval Finds from Excavations in London 6 (London)
Egan, G. 2005: Material culture in London in an age of transition (London)
Given-Wilson, C. (ed.) 1996: An illustrated history of Late Medieval England (Manchester) Goodall, A.R. 1984: ‘Objects of Non-Ferrous Metal’, in J.P. Allan, Medieval and Post-Medieval Finds from Exeter, 1971–1980, Exeter Archaeological Reports 3 (Exeter), 337–48
Goodall, I.H. 1990: ‘Iron fittings for lights’, in Biddle 1990 (ed.), 981–3
Goodall, I.H. 1993: ‘Iron strike-a-lights’, in Margeson 1993, 86
Grogan, E., O’Donnell, L. and Johnston, P. 2007: The Bronze Age Landscapes Of The Pipeline To The West. An integrated archaeological and environmental assessment (Bray)
Kenward, H.K., Hall, A.R. and Jones, A.K.G. 1980: ‘A tested set of techniques for the extraction of plant and animal macrofossils from waterlogged archaeological deposits’, Science and Archaeology 22, 3–15
Manning, C. 2009: The History and Archaeology of Glanworth Castle, Co. Cork: Excavations 1982–4 (Dublin) Margeson, S. 1993: Norwich Households: Medieval and Post-medieval Finds from Norwich Survey Excavations 1971–1978, East Anglian Archaeology 58 (Norwich)
Marguerie, D. and Hunout, J.Y. 2007: ‘Charcoal analysis and dendrochronology: data from archaeological sites in north-western France’, Journal of Archaeological Science 34, 1417–33 McCartan, S.B. 2004: ‘Stone artefacts’, in E. FitzPatrick, M. O’Brien and P. Walsh (eds), Archaeological investigations in Galway City, 1987–1998 (Bray), 530–41 MPRG 1998: Guide to the Classification of Medieval Ceramic Forms MPRG Occasional Paper 1
Murphy, P. 2007: ‘Environment and Economy’ in M. Oake, M. Luke, M. Dawson, M. Edgeworth and P. Murphy (eds), Bedfordshire Archaeology. Research and Archaeology: Resource Assessment, Research Agenda and Strategy, Bedfordshire Archaeology Monograph 9 (Bedford), 109–12 Orton, C. 1998–99: ‘Minimum Standards in Statistics and Sampling’, Medieval Ceramics 22–3, 135–8 Porteus, S. 2010: ‘The Ceramic Building Material’, in C. Harward, Land at Vicarage Street, Luton, Bedfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design (unpublished report 2010051 for Archaeology South-East)
Rackham, O. 2003: Ancient woodland its history, vegetation and uses in England (London) Robinson M. 1996: ‘Macroscopic plant and invertebrate remains’ in D. Shotliff, ‘A moated site in Temspford Park, Tempsford’, Bedforshire Archaeology 22 120–1 Smith, B.B. 1994: Howe: Four Millennia of Orkney Prehistory, Excavations 1978–1982, Society of Antiquaries of Edinburgh Monograph 9 (Edinburgh)
Schweingruber, F.H. 1978: Microscopic wood anatomy (Birmensdorf) Schweingruber, F.H. 1990: Microscopic Wood Anatomy, 3rd edition (Stuttgart)
Stuijts, I. 2005: ‘Wood and charcoal identification’, in M. Gowen, J. O’Neill and M. Philips (eds), The Lisheen Mine Archaeological Project 1996–8 (Bray), 137–86
Turner-Rugg, A. 1993: ‘Medieval Pottery in Hertfordshire: a gazetteer of the principal collections’, Hertfordshire Archaeology 11, 30–53
Watts, V. 2010: The Cambridge dictionary of English Place-Names (Cambridge) Wells, J. 2013: ‘Ceramic Building Material’, in W. Keir, this volume Wickham-Jones, C. 2004: ‘Lithics’, in M. Brann, Excavations at Caerlaverock Old Castle, Dumfries and Galloway, 1998–9 (Dumfries), 73–4 E.A.
Wheeler, P. Bass and P.E. Gasson (eds) 1989: ‘IAWA List of Microscopic Features for Hardwood Identification’, IAWA Bulletin (new series) 10(3), 219–332
Wheeler J. 2011: ‘Charcoal analysis of industrial fuelwood from medieval and early modern iron-working sites in Bilsdale and Rievaulx, North Yorkshire, UK: evidence for species selection and woodland management’, Environmental Archaeology 16(1), 15–35

<13> NMR/AMIE, HE NRHE Monument Inventory, 359708 (Index). SBD12367.

The site of the Court House, Luton, a large square moated mansion documented by Leland, is also the probable site of a castle built in 1221 by Faulke de Brent.

<14> Albion Archaeology, 2011, 4 Lea Road, Luton; Heritage statement, p. 5 (Archaeological Report). SBD13866.

The most significant heritage assets in the vicinity of the PDA relate to medieval Luton and, in particular, the early 13th-century castle which lay immediately to the south-east of the parish church of St Mary. Recent archaeological investigations within the immediate vicinity of the PDA have identified sub-surface, medieval archaeological remains (some of which relate to the castle) on previously redeveloped land. There is less surviving evidence for the pre-medieval period, largely because of the relative absence of archaeological investigation during the redevelopment of central Luton from the late 1960s onwards. Map evidence suggests that for much of the post-medieval period the PDA was open ground on the outskirts of Luton until it was developed for housing in the late 19th century. There are no above ground heritage assets within the PDA. It has been redeveloped in the past, most recently in 2008 when an ambulance station was demolished and groundworks for a previously approved scheme were begun. Notwithstanding its previous history, the PDA does have variable potential to preserve sub-surface archaeological deposits, some of which could be of regional significance.

<15> Albion Archaeology, 2011, Land at the University of Bedfordshire, Vicarage Street (Phase 2A); Archaeological Trial Trenching (Archaeological Report). SBD13867.

The archaeological potential of the current development was evaluated by two trenches. Trench 1 contained a number of archaeological features including three ditches and six post-holes of early medieval date, sealed beneath a buried former soil layer. Trench 2 contained one post-hole and a similar buried soil layer. All archaeological remains were found beneath a considerable depth of modern overburden.

<16> Headland Archaeology, 2011, Archaeological Investigation, Recording, Analysis & Publication at the University of Bedfordshire, Park Street, Luton (Phase2a); UPD & Assessment of Results (Archaeological Report). SBD11888.

Excavation of the site revealed further evidence of Fulk De Breaute's castle. This comprised a series of medieval boundaries (post fences as well as ditches) demarcating pieces of land. One of these demarcated pieces of land contained large pits typical of industrial activity. Datable material recovered from the disuse phase of these pits suggests they were in use, and became infilled during the early medieval period. Such remains are particularly valuable for the insight they may provide into life within the castle complex. The remains of 19th and 20th century occupation were also evident across the site.

Summary of Contextual data results:

Medieval (AD 1066-AD 1500)

Phase 1: Creation of boundaries and Industrial activity area

G1: Ditch
A portion of Ditch G1 measuring 6.30m in length, 1.40m wide and 0.32m in depth,aligned NNE-SSW, was revealed within the southern excavation area. Clearly, this ditch continued beyond the edges of the excavation. However, the north-eastern terminus of this ditch must lie just beyond the limit of the excavation as it did not continue into the northern excavation area.

G2: Post-hole boundary
Six post-holes, averaging a diameter of between 0.3m and 0.4m, formed a double linear boundary orientated NW-SE. The layout of the post-holes is typical of a fence line. This may have been re-instated which may have been re-orientated by moving the two post holes on the south-western side ([018], [022/024]), during construction; this resulting in the two post holes having fairly shallow cuts.

G3: Ditch boundary
A ditch, on the same orientation of NNE-SSW as G1, measured 32m in length, 1.65m (on average) in width and had a depth of 0.35-0.45m. Only a single fragment of building material was recovered from the primary fill of the ditch (SG3). As with G1, no terminus was revealed but the ditch was thought to terminate below the baulk area as it did not appear in the excavations on the south of the site.

G4: A further boundary
Two shallow post holes situated on the NW edge of the site may suggest a further boundary orientated NE-SW.

G5: Industrial pits
Four pits were identified in the centre of the excavation towards the east, two of which were joined by a gully ([045] and [049]). Each of the pits had a sub-rectangular, regular cut with the largest being 2.65m long, 2.1m wide and 0.55m deep. Whilst three of the pits seem connected ([045], [049] and [054]), the fourth ([037]) was slightly separated, but was associated with the others by comparison. Two post holes were situated to the NE and SW of pit [045] and may have been associated with a temporary structure to cover the area.

G6: Boundary ditch
A smaller, further ditch running parallel to G3 represented a long-lived boundary which, along with G3, may have segregated off the area containing G5 [see G6.1 for description of continued use].

Phase 2: Industrial activity area in use

G3.1: Towards the NE end of the ditch, the backfill suggested waste material from G5, whilst the fill on the SW side suggested a 'cleaner' silting up over time. Only a small amount of building material and a single sherd of pottery were recovered from the fill, as well as animal bone.

G5.1: The lower fills of the pits in G5 contained a large amount of pottery and lithics, and also contained evidence of metalwork and building material. The greatest concentration of pottery came from (052) within pit [049]. These lower fills may suggest dumping of rubbish within the pits once they had gone out of use.

G6.1: The fill within the ditch was relatively sterile, containing only two sherds of pottery and evidence of metalwork. This was similar to the backfill G3.1.

Phase 3: Later additions and abandonment

G1.1: The single fill of the ditch suggested a silting up over time and contained a small amount of molluscs.

G2.1: The fills of the post holes [018] and [022/024] suggest a rapid backfill whilst the remaining suggest a longer lived use, with gradual silting over time.

G4.1: No artefacts were recovered from the post holes to give any solid dating information, but by comparison it is suggested they were contemporary with the surrounding features.

G5.2: The upper fills of the pits in G5 also contained medieval pottery although considerably less than that in G5.1. The greatest concentration of pottery came from (046) within pit [045]. The final fills of pits [037] and [045] appear to be a re-deposited glacial deposit which has been used to complete the backfilling of the pits. These fills suggest a deliberate infilling at the end of their use, perhaps before a change of use of the land at the site.

G6.2: A series of post holes were cut into the backfilled ditch (G6/6.1) and varied in size and depth, suggesting a replacement of the ditch boundary with a fence line.

G6.3: Medieval pottery and building material was contained in the backfill of the post-holes (G6.2), suggesting that even though this was a long-lived boundary, its lifespan was likely contained to the Medieval period.

G10: Buried soil
Below the modern surface, at c. 0.5-0.6m, a layer of mid brown silt clay with a depth of 0.25m was observed across the site and sealed the early medieval remains. The formation of this deposit seems to represent the abandonment of the industrial activity area and suggests a change of use of the land within the castle complex; perhaps to an area of agriculture which was used for keeping livestock etc.


The site also had evidence of undated and modern activity - see report.

<17> Albion Archaeology, 2012, 4 Lea Road, Luton, Bedfordshire; Archaeological Excavation, Recording, Analysis and Publication (Archaeological Report). SBD13868.

The excavation confirmed the location of the south-west arm of the moat of Fulk de Breaute's 13th-century castle. It was revealed to be similar in character to the north-west arm of the moat excavated in 2009 - appearing to be largely filled with deposits that had accumulated during the post-medieval and later periods.

The Castle Moat
A large, WNW-ESE aligned ditch was partially revealed in the southern end of the site. It corresponds to the postulated southern-most arm of the moat belonging to Fulk de Breaute's 13th-century castle.

Initially, a small segment [107] was excavated by hand to confirm its nature. Due to its excessive depth and with the agreement of the CBCA, a larger section [117] was then excavated by machine, which identified that the moat was at least 3m deep and at least 5m wide. Its full width continued beyond the southern limits of the site.

The moat was filled with four distinct deposits, similar in character to those excavated during the 2009 excavation of the moat to the north-west (ref.). The primary deposit (118) was a loose mid grey sandy silt with frequent stones likely to be derived from weathering and slumping of the sides of the moat. The secondary deposit (119) was a black, humic clay silt, up to 0.9m thick, which is likely to have accumulated over a considerable length of time. It contained two fragments of post-medieval peg tile (25g). This deposit was similar to waterlogged deposits sampled in the moat sections excavated in 2009. These contained a considerable amount of medieval and post-medieval artefacts and were thought to be derived through a mixture of natural silting and waste disposal during the post-medieval period.

The upper two deposits (120 and 121) of mid-grey and light orange-brown clay silt probably represent deliberate back-filling of the moat. They contained five pieces of post-medieval roof tile (234g), and three base and lower body sherds (45g) from a black-glazed earthenware mug or butter pot (fabric code P03). These deposits are likely to be associated with the levelling and development of the area for terraced housing in the late 19th century, as shown on the 1901 OS map.

Modern features - see report.

<18> Headland Archaeology, 2015, Archaeological Investigation, Recording, Assessment, Analysis, Publication and Archiving at Fairview House; Updated Project Design & Assessment of Results (Archaeological Report). SBD12533.

Excavation of the site revealed further evidence of Fulk de Breaute's castle. This comprised a section of the moat, which showed a sequence of initial excavation, followed by an accumulation of occupation material relating to Fulk's Castle, followed by demolition material relating to Fulk's abandonment of the Castle. We interpret these physical remains as the manifestation of a recorded historical event - the destruction of Fulk's castle in 1224. The demolition is followed by thetrestle bridge, affording access to the interior of the castle complex. A phase of recutting follows the demolition of the trestle bridge, after which a dead hedge designed to stop animal and human access to the moat was inserted. Ultimately, the moat became infilled, un-maintained and was abandoned and levelled.
A regionally significant asemblage of structural timbers and structural masonry were recovered, both show clear evidence of Anglo-Norman design as would be expected in Fulk's Castle. Datable material was recovered from the entire stratigraphic sequence.

<19> Council for British Archaeology, 2012, South Midlands Archaeology, Volume 42, Vol. 42, 2012, p.3 (Serial). SBD14155.

Archaeological trial trenching was undertaken in January 2011 on behalf of the University of Bedfordshire. The Phase 2a site is located approximately halfway along the north side of Vicarage Street and forms part of a wider redevelopment of the University of Bedfordshire's Park Square Campus in Luton. The two trenches contained a number of early medieval archaeological features, sealed beneath a buried former soil. The features probably represent a large structure of early medieval date, contemporary with the castle of Fulk de Breauté.

<20> Council for British Archaeology, 2005, South Midlands Archaeology, Volume 35, Vol. 35, 2005, p.11 (Serial). SBD14148.

Four evaluation trenches failed to reveal any archaeology.

<21> Headland Archaeology, Headland Archaeology Annual Statement, p.22 (Article in serial). SBD12995.

Headland has been working closely with the University of Bedfordshire on the construction of a new library at Park Street, Luton. This was the site of a castle belonging to a powerful Anglo-Norman called Fulk de Breauté, one of King John's favourite knights. Fulk was of obscure Norman parentage and there are a number of colourful stories about his life. He was mentioned as being a ruffian, responsbile for illegally holding castles and upsetting the peace of the realm, his acts even coming to the attention the peace of the realm, his acts even coming to the attention of Pope Honorius III.
Built between 1216 and 1221, the castle is described in historic documents as being surrounded by a rectangular moat and an earthen bank. Our investigation found that the upper section of the moat had been removed during post-Medieval development on the site, but its lower levels had survived 2m below the current ground level, together with a number of timbers preserved for 800 years in the peaty soil. These timbers included the remains of the original drawbridge which showed signs of French carpentry. Large fragments of carved stone, cut to Norman dimensions, have been recovered from the site, typical of masonry we would expect from a castle. Other finds recovered from the moat include a French jeton (coin).
History tells us that when the very moat we have been excavating was first filled in the early 13th century, Fulk overfilled it damaging the local Abbot's barn and stock of corn. True to form, he was unrepentant.
The findings go beyond the site itself. The discovery of a drawbridge at this location is very significant for our understanding of both the castle and the layout of roads into and out of medieval Luton. The bridge is located adjacent to present-day Park Street, still the main street into Luton and on the south-west edge of the castle precinct. This entrance faces towards the main road into the town and away from the contemporary Church of St Mary to its immediate northwest. Our graphics and illustration team used the results of the excavation to prepare an artist's impression of what the castle may have looked like.

<22> Archaeological services University of Durham, 2010, Land at the University of Bedfordshire, Park Square, Luton. Palaeoenvironmental Analysis., p. 1 (Archaeological Report). SBD13344.

The results of the plant macrofossil analysis indicated that oats, hulled barley and cf. bread wheat were the main cereals used during the medieval occupation of the site, with other economic plants including flax and hops. Barley and what continued to be important crops during the post-medieval use of the site, with evidence that hemp was also cultivated. The moat held standing water in both the medieval and post-medieval periods, although there appeared to have been episodes of drying-out, possibly as a result of silting up of the feature. The local palaeoenvironment was relatively open during the medieval period, but abundant remains of trees and shrubs were recorded in the post-medieval moat fill. The remains included those of fruit trees, introduced species such as mulberry and fig, and herbaceous plants which may have been planted for ornamental or medicinal purposes.
The insect remains in the medieval moat fill indicated the presence of standing water, with emergent vegetation and elevated nutrient levels, but the small medieval moat re-cut fill contained a diverse insect fauna. This comprised three main elements: wood (probably ash), dung (probably cattle or sheep) and calcareous grassland.
The mollusc assemblages from the moat fills comprised a small collection of terrestrial and freshwater species; predominantly terrestrial from context (509) and predominantly freshwater from context (526). Although the numbers of remains recovered were rather few for interpretation, there is a suggestion from both samples that the moat was subject to drying out.

<23> Luton Museum, Accession Register, 2008/63; 2009/13 (Unpublished document). SBD10775.

2008/63 - Land at Vicarage Street, Luton. Site Code VSL'08. TL 096 211. Evluation of site of Fulk De Breaute Castle, 13th century.
2009/13 - Material from an evaluation and excavation of Land at the University of Bedfordshire, Park Square, Luton. Site code: UB1500. TL 0952 2111. Material expected medieval.

<24> Archaeology South-East, 2010, Land at Vicarage Street, Luton; Post-excavation assessment and updated project design report, pp 29 - 30 (Archaeological Report). SBD13956.

The main results of the excavation relate to the High Medieval period between AD 1250 - 1400 and appear to represent a single, short-lived, phase of use of the site. The features are too late in date to be associated with the short-lived castle of Falkes de Breaute (1221 - 1224/5), yet may be associated with the later moated 'court house' built on the site and which still stood in 1540 (SMR 185, TL0960 2104). A closer inspection of the documentary sources may help disentangle the history of occupation in the area and the exact sequence of dismantling as the moat and mound were apparently in existence in the early 20th century.

The site lies within the projected site of the castle of Flakes de Breaute which was built c AD 1221 and is thought to have been demolished in AD 1224/5. Recent excavations by Albion Archaeology to the south at St Mary's church have revealed the northern line of the castle moat: a 10m wide ditch. The projected line of the southern moat is along Park Viaduct, immediately to the south of the site. The site therefore lies within the site of Falkes' castle.

The two excavated ditches are enigmatic as they are too short to be landscape boundaries, yet clearly respect each other or a third, unknown, feature. Their function is unclear: they do not divert water anywhere although they may have drained the immediate locality, they are too small to be part of a moat, and the natural clay and gravels they are dug through are of little value so they are unlikely (and the wrong shape) to be quarries. Why they were dug as two discontinuous sections separated by a very narrow causeway is unclear - are they even strictly contemporary: the narrow width of the causeway between the two ditches suggests they are not, although they are both dug along exactly the same alignment? There is no indication of what landscape feature they were respecting, with no remains of any posts or walls.

The problem of the excavated ditches is compounded by the 1976 excavations and the difficulties in locating where exactly those trenches lay. It appears that there were at least two additional ditches excavated in 1976, although the surviving documentation is unclear as to their location, orientation or size. It may be that further searches through the Luton Museum stores indicate further pieces of the 1976 archive, however the information we have at present is too uncertain to allow any reconstruction of trench locations. All we can say os that there appear to have been further ditches in the immediate vicinity which appear to have been of similar date and filled in a similar manner and that they are most likely to have been underneath the present foundations.

Artefacts and ecofacts from all four medieval features appear to indicate the site lay fairly close to a source of domestic refuse, although the level of household waste was low. The presene of fish and oyster indicated some level of the diet, however the assemblage is small, and the animal bone assemblage both small and generally uninformative. It may be that these are outlying features relating to the moated 'court house', although that building is believed to have stood until at least 1540 whereas the material we have is from a fairly tight date range in the High Medieval period.

The presence of large quantities of possibly unused building material is intriguing, and its disposal in the rapidly backfilled ditches was originally interpreted as being association with the dismantling of Flakes de Breaute's castle. The features however post-date the known dates of the castle by some years and it would seem clear that they do not relate to it. The features may relate to the later moated 'court house' built on the site, although there is little evidence for this structure beyond documentary sources. The materials disoposed into the ditches may indicate the construction techniques of nearby structures.

<25> Archaeology South-East, 2008, Land at Vicarage Street, Luton; An Archaeological Evaluation, p11 (Archaeological Report). SBD14072.

The archaeological horizon was truncated, in most areas, by modern services. Overlying the natural were undated and post medieval layers. Cutting the layers were 19th century wall footings. These structural remains almost certainly relate to the buildings shown on Ordnance Survey plans 1901 and 1938 (Meager 2008).
No significant archaeological features or deposits were encountered on the site.

<26> Cotswold Archaeology, 2017, Power Court Site, Luton; Archaeological Watching Brief, p. 25; 7.4 (Archaeological Report). SBD14518.

Whilst no medieval deposits were identified, many of the deposits remained undated including the organic-rich silt sediments.

Protected Status: None recorded

Monument Type(s):

• BRIDGE (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• GULLY (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• PIT (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• PIT? (Medieval to Post Medieval - 1066 AD to 1900 AD)
• POST HOLE (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• BUILDING (12th Century to 13th Century - 1100 AD to 1299 AD)
• CASTLE (13th Century to 16th Century - 1221 AD to 1539 AD?)
• MOAT (13th Century to Post Medieval - 1221 AD to 1900 AD)
• DITCH (13th Century to 15th Century - 1250 AD to 1400 AD)
• MANOR (14th Century to 16th Century - 1300 AD? to 1599 AD)
• FLOOR (19th Century to 20th Century - 1800 AD to 1999 AD)
• WALL (19th Century - 1800 AD to 1899 AD)

Associated Finds

• FBD14570 - ANIMAL REMAINS (Unknown date)
• FBD12054 - FISH REMAINS (Unknown date)
• FBD12055 - NON MARINE MOLLUSCA REMAINS (Unknown date)
• FBD12053 - PLANT MACRO REMAINS (Unknown date)
• FBD14558 - WINDOW GLASS (Unknown date)
• FBD14560 - FLAKE (Prehistoric - 500000 BC to 42 AD)
• FBD12600 - WORKED OBJECT (Bronze Age - 2350 BC? to 701 BC?)
• FBD12187 - SHERD (Late Iron Age - 100 BC to 42 AD)
• FBD18439 - SHERD (Late Iron Age to 6th Century - 100 BC to 599 AD)
• FBD18437 - SHERD (Late Iron Age to Roman/Romano-British - 100 BC to 409 AD)
• FBD12594 - BOWL (1st Century - 10 AD to 11 AD)
• FBD12595 - JAR (1st Century - 12 AD to 13 AD)
• FBD12188 - BRICK (Roman/Romano-British - 43 AD to 409 AD)
• FBD18444 - BRICK (Roman/Romano-British - 43 AD to 409 AD)
• FBD18442 - FLUE TILE (Roman/Romano-British - 43 AD to 409 AD)
• FBD18443 - TEGULA (Roman/Romano-British - 43 AD to 409 AD)
• FBD12185 - SHERD (9th Century to 12th Century - 850 AD to 1150 AD)
• FBD14551 - PIN (11th Century to 12th Century - 1000 AD to 1199 AD)
• FBD12189 - SHOEING NAIL (11th Century to 13th Century - 1000 AD to 1299 AD)
• FBD12192 - ANIMAL REMAINS (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• FBD12604 - ANIMAL REMAINS (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• FBD18448 - ANIMAL REMAINS (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• FBD12208 - BRICK (Medieval to Post Medieval - 1066 AD to 1900 AD)
• FBD12596 - BROOCH PIN (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• FBD12601 - DAUB (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• FBD18451 - DAUB (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• FBD12052 - DAUB (Medieval to Post Medieval - 1066 AD to 1900 AD)
• FBD18458 - FISH REMAINS (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• FBD12602 - FLOOR (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• FBD14563 - FLOOR TILE (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• FBD12207 - FLOOR TILE (Medieval to Post Medieval - 1066 AD to 1900 AD)
• FBD18454 - HORSESHOE (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• FBD12194 - INSECT REMAINS (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• FBD16366 - INSECT REMAINS (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• FBD18457 - MARINE MOLLUSCA REMAINS (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• FBD12598 - NAIL (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• FBD14553 - NAIL (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• FBD18450 - NAIL (Medieval - 1066 AD? to 1539 AD?)
• FBD12195 - NON MARINE MOLLUSCA REMAINS (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• FBD16367 - NON MARINE MOLLUSCA REMAINS (Medieval to Post Medieval - 1066 AD to 1900 AD)
• FBD18456 - OYSTER SHELL (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• FBD12603 - PEG TILE (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• FBD12205 - PEG TILE (Medieval to Post Medieval - 1066 AD to 1900 AD)
• FBD12193 - PLANT MACRO REMAINS (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• FBD12605 - PLANT MACRO REMAINS (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• FBD16365 - PLANT MACRO REMAINS (Medieval to Post Medieval - 1066 AD to 1900 AD)
• FBD18455 - PLANT REMAINS (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• FBD18446 - RIDGE TILE (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• FBD14562 - ROOF TILE (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• FBD12597 - ROVE (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• FBD14566 - SHERD (Medieval to Post Medieval - 1066 AD to 1900 AD)
• FBD18449 - SLAG (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• FBD14556 - SPINDLE WHORL (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• FBD14555 - STRAP (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• FBD12599 - STRIKE A LIGHT (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
• FBD14561 - ARCHITECTURAL FRAGMENT (12th Century - 1100 AD to 1199 AD)
• FBD18447 - FLOOR TILE (12th Century to 15th Century - 1100 AD to 1499 AD)
• FBD18445 - PEG TILE (12th Century to 16th Century - 1100 AD to 1599 AD)
• FBD12186 - SHERD (12th Century to 13th Century - 1100 AD to 1299 AD)
• FBD18440 - SHERD (12th Century to 13th Century - 1100 AD to 1299 AD)
• FBD14549 - SHERD (12th Century to 15th Century - 1100 AD to 1499 AD)
• FBD12593 - JUG (13th Century - 1200 AD to 1230 AD)
• FBD12190 - LACE TAG (13th Century to 14th Century - 1200 AD to 1399 AD)
• FBD12191 - MORTAR (VESSEL) (13th Century to 16th Century - 1200 AD to 1539 AD)
• FBD12048 - SHERD (13th Century to 14th Century - 1200 AD to 1399 AD)
• FBD14554 - SOLE (13th Century - 1200 AD to 1299 AD)
• FBD12049 - TILE (13th Century to 14th Century - 1200 AD to 1399 AD)
• FBD18441 - SHERD (13th Century to 14th Century - 1250 AD to 1375 AD)
• FBD12203 - SHERD (14th Century to 15th Century - 1300 AD to 1499 AD)
• FBD12200 - SHOE (14th Century to 15th Century - 1300 AD to 1499 AD)
• FBD12209 - SKILLET (14th Century - 1300 AD to 1399 AD)
• FBD14552 - JETTON (15th Century - 1400 AD to 1499 AD)
• FBD14557 - CLAY PIPE (SMOKING) (16th Century to 20th Century - 1500 AD to 1999 AD)
• FBD12206 - RIDGE TILE (16th Century to 17th Century - 1500 AD to 1699 AD)
• FBD14550 - SHERD (16th Century to 18th Century - 1500 AD to 1799 AD)
• FBD14568 - CLAY PIPE (SMOKING) (Post Medieval - 1540 AD to 1900 AD)
• FBD12354 - INSECT REMAINS (Post Medieval - 1540 AD to 1900 AD)
• FBD12355 - NON MARINE MOLLUSCA REMAINS (Post Medieval - 1540 AD to 1900 AD)
• FBD12353 - PLANT MACRO REMAINS (Post Medieval - 1540 AD to 1900 AD)
• FBD14567 - ROOF TILE (Post Medieval - 1540 AD to 1900 AD)
• FBD12357 - KNIFE (16th Century to 17th Century - 1550 AD to 1699 AD)
• FBD12204 - SHERD (17th Century to 18th Century - 1600 AD to 1750 AD)
• FBD18453 - WINDOW GLASS (17th Century to 18th Century - 1600 AD to 1799 AD)
• FBD14559 - BOTTLE (18th Century to 19th Century - 1700 AD to 1899 AD)
• FBD18452 - BOTTLE (18th Century to 19th Century - 1700 AD to 1899 AD)
• FBD12202 - SHERD (18th Century - 1700 AD to 1799 AD)
• FBD14565 - TILE (18th Century - 1700 AD to 1799 AD)
• FBD12356 - SHERD (18th Century to 19th Century - 1750 AD to 1800 AD)
• FBD14569 - SHERD (18th Century to 19th Century - 1770 AD to 1800 AD)
• FBD12358 - ANIMAL REMAINS (19th Century to Mid 20th Century - 1800 AD? to 1950 AD?)
• FBD12050 - BRICK (19th Century to 20th Century - 1800 AD to 1999 AD)
• FBD12051 - FLOOR TILE (19th Century to 20th Century - 1800 AD to 1999 AD)

Associated Events

• EBD1026 - Archaeological investigations on the western edge of the site of Faulk de Breaute's castle, Park Square, Luton
• EBD615 - Youth House, St Mary's Road, Luton; An Archaeological Evaluation (Ref: 04/114)
• EBD997 - An Archaeological Evaluation on land at Vicarage Street, Luton; Site A (Ref: 2008/200)
• EBD1110 - Archaeological Investigation, Recording, Analysis and Publication at the University of Bedfordshire, Park Street, Luton (Phase 2a): UPD & Assessment (Ref: BULC11)
• EBD1145 - Land at the University of Bedfordshire, Vicarage Street (Phase 2a), Luton (Ref: 2011/12)
• EBD1277 - Fairview House, University of Bedfordshire, Park Street, Luton (Phase 3 - Library and Learning Resources Centre) - UPD
• EBD1438 - Trial Excavations south of Vicarage Street
• EBD1077 - Land at the University of Bedfordshire, Park Square, Luton; Archaeological trial Trenching (Ref: 2009/55)
• EBD1150 - 4 Lea Road, Luton; Heritage Statement (Ref: 2011/23)
• EBD1907 - Land at the University of Bedfordshire, Park Square, Luton. Palaeoenvironmental Analysis. (Ref: 2428)
• EBD1892 - Land at Vicarage Street, Luton; Post-excavation assessment and updated project design report (Ref: 2010051)
• EBD2393 - Land at Vicarage Street, Luton; An Archaeological Evaluation (Ref: 2008201)
• EBD2518 - Power Court Site, Luton; Archaeological Watching Brief (Ref: 17086)

Sources and Further Reading

Search results generated by the HBSMR Gateway from exeGesIS SDM Ltd.