NHER 27211 (Monument record) - Earthworks of possible undated saltern mounds and pits

January 2003. Norfolk NMP.
The possible mounds are visible as undulations (S1) although it is not clear whether they are geologically natural features or the result of an anthropogenic action such as salt production. The largest mound (TF 5816 2455) is sub-horseshoe shaped with an east to west length of 110m and a width of 68m. There is a line of six sub-rectangular pits (TF 5814 2458 to TF 5815 2456) cut into the northern side of the possible mound (S1). The individual pits have an average length of 2.2m and a width 1.2m, and the group has a total length of 17m. To the west are a further four possible irregular to sub-rounded mounds, (TF 5808 2456, TF 5810 2454, TF 5813 2452 and TF 5813 2450) with an average size of 22m X 9m. These features are not clearly defined and may not be archaeological features at all. To the south is a possible rectilinear enclosure (centre TF 5810 2445) possibly formed by low earthworks. The possible enclosure is aligned with its long axis in a north to south direction and has a length of 75m and width of 29m. There is a possible break in the bank in the north-eastern corner.
The pits appear to be well defined in 1946, and are presumably relatively fresh at that time. These may simply relate to localised extraction or an agricultural activity, but may also have a military purpose. The mounds and the enclosure are more problematic. The larger of the mounds is morphologically similar to other saltern mounds within the general area, but is isolated and much further north than others in the parish. This location is on the northern tip of land reclaimed in the Post-medieval period and would have been tidal during the great saltern era of the medieval. It may be post medieval in date but it is curious that there are not more in the locality. The enclosure is similarly dubious and while it appears to be an anthropogenic feature, possibly a stock enclosure, a natural or modern agricultural origin cannot be ruled out. It is entirely possible (and probable) that these are not archaeological features at all. A field visit should certainly be undertaken before any form of development-led fieldwork is postulated by their presence on the NHER.
M. Brennand (NMP), 21 January 2003.