NHER 50981 (Monument record) - Fragmentary cropmarks of uncertain date and origin

May 2008. Norfolk NMP.
The cropmarks of a dispersed and fragmentary group of rectilinear enclosures and field boundaries are visible on aerial photographs within the southern part of Hopton-on-Sea parish (S1-S10). Although undated, it is possible that some or all of these fragmentary cropmarks date to enclosures and fields of late prehistoric to Roman date. Significant amounts of prehistoric flints and finds have been found across area of cropmarks. Late Iron Age and Roman date pottery was recovered from excavations within NHER 16167-8. A Roman coin was also recovered from within the area of the site NHER 22928.

The presence of rectilinear geological features visible as cropmarks on the aerial photographs covering this site could suggest that some of linear features mapped as ‘ditches’ are in fact natural features. Excavations within NHER 16167 revealed glacial gullies and channels similar in form to ditches but of seemingly natural origin. The evaluations within NHER 16167-8 allowed for an initial assessment of the archaeological nature of some of the cropmarks to be made, although further archaeological evaluation would be required before an manmade origin is assigned for large parts of this site.

The cropmarks in the area of NHER 16167 for example are extremely ephemeral and represent fragmentary features mapped from a number of aerial photographs (S1, S6, S9). It is therefore possible that many of these some to underlying geological features, although this is not certain. Unfortunately the location of many of the evaluation trenches dug in 2000 (S11) did not coincide with the cropmarks mapped, so a full analysis of the validity of some of the more uncertain cropmarks was not entirely possible. A linear anomaly encountered within trench 8, running in approximately the same direction as ditch visible on (S9), was felt upon excavation to be of natural origin (S11). In the area of trench 9 a couple of faint linear cropmarks were detected on (S1), however these were not identified within the excavations and therefore their presence or archaeological significance is uncertain. It must be noted however that three sherds of Roman date pottery were recovered from this trench. These results suggest that a reasonably high level of caution should be applied to the NMP mapping in this area. Additionally the evaluation excavations undertaken within the areas of NHER 16167-8 revealed archaeological features and ditches not apparent on the aerial photographs, see NHER 50980 for discussion. In one instance this was in part due to being obscured by geological cropmarks, such as the substantial ditch recorded in trench 3 of NHER 16167 (S11).
Some of the cropmarks however did appear to match up with excavated features. The disturbed and irregular ‘semi-linear’ gully located within trench 14 may correspond with the ditch following a roughly comparable direction on the aerial photographs (S6). The two ditches in the centre of trench 15 correspond broadly to the location of the cropmark ditch (S9), but the overall orientation does not match, the excavated section could feasibly represent a minor fluctuation in the main alignment of the boundary. The position and alignment of the elongated ovate pit excavated in trench 17 may be broadly consistent with one of linear features mapped from the aerial photographs (S6). It is possible that this pit, of probable Late Iron Age date, with a post-hole at one end, may have formed part of a linear boundary feature or line of stakes. Although equally it may be that that two features are unrelated and the possible linear features apparent on the aerial photographs were not detectable in the trench. The ditch running through the central section of the trench is likely to relate to the angled section of ditch visible on the aerial photographs (S6). This feature was undated by the excavations. Further to the south within trench 17 were another two pits, one of which was elongated or ovate. Late Iron Age material was recovered from one of these pits. The general positioning of pits is consistent with the line of a possible linear feature visible on aerial photographs. It is therefore possible that these pits represent part of an intermittent linear feature, although the difference in fills between the two pits would suggest that they are the product of different silting sequences. It is therefore possible that the linear marks visible on the aerial photographs are the product of a combination of natural gullies and channels, and where present, pits of Late Iron Age date, rather than actual ditches.
Given the quite widely spread presence of these rectilinear cropmarks of non-archaeological origin across the extent of this site, a level of uncertainty over the validity of the NMP mapping remains. Further archaeological investigation is required across much of the site to establish the origin of some of the more ephemeral cropmarks. More convincing archaeological cropmark complexes to the north (such as NHER 43494-5 for example) and to the south (mapped by Suffolk Coastal NMP) reveal the potentially dense and palimpsest nature of the archaeological landscape in this area. The excavations within the northern part of NHER 16168 also revealed a complex series of intercutting ditches and pits of unknown date (S12), indicating the possible presence of similarly complex stratigraphic sequences. It is therefore possible that similar features exist across other parts of this site, but it remains to be seen how many of the cropmarks visible on the aerial photographs are definitely archaeological in origin. For this reason any possible cropmarks of archaeological origin have been mapped, despite the potentially high risk that they are in fact the result of rectilinear enclosure geological, pedological or agricultural cropmarks. Some of these cropmarks were extremely ephemeral and located within areas with a relatively high level of background geological cropmark ‘noise’, combined with the fact that some of the cropmarks were only visible on one set of aerial photographs, a degree of caution must be applied to some elements of the site when considering the archaeological significance of some features. Further archaeological evaluation and excavation would be required to establish the origins of many components of this site.
The cropmarks consist of a large area of fragmentary ditches and possible enclosures, covering an area approximately 1.3km by 1.4km. The majority of the cropmarks appear to represent the remains of fragmentary field boundaries and, where double ditched, trackways. Although see above for the high potential of some of these features being of natural origin. Within this wider area of possible fields are a number of rectilinear enclosures. To the southeast of the site is trapezoidal enclosure, measuring approximately 75m by 50m, is located at TF 5335 9935 (S4). The enclosure appears to have possible internal subdivisions and a ring ditch, slightly oval in shape and 10.5m in diameter, is visible within one of the internally subdivided areas. It is possible that this ring ditch represent the remains of the eavesdrip gully of a late prehistoric to Roman date roundhouse.
Another possible enclosure may be visible at TF 5243 9954 (S6), although this part of the site is also quite heavily covered by geological cropmarks, some of which are quite rectilinear in form. It is therefore possible that some or all of the components of this possible enclosure are non-archaeological in origin. A fragmentary double ditched trackway-like feature mapped to the north of this, centred on TF 5235 9980 (S6) may also be geological in origin as the line of the ‘ditches’ potentially follow the a natural ridge of possible gravel ridge. Within the area of NHER 16167 a possible square or sub-rectangular enclosure may be visible at TF 5271 9984, 30m across (S6), although as with other cropmarks within this area a geological or agricultural origin must be considered. A possible intermittent double ditched or trackway-like feature may also be located alongside this enclosure to the east. At TF 5227 9989, to the west of the area excavated as NHER 16168, is a possible double ditched rectangular enclosure (S6), measuring at least 60m by 80m. Although given the positioning of these ditches next to the valley it is feasible that they relate to relatively late drainage ditches, rather than having a boundary function.
S. Massey (NMP), 28 May 2008.

August 2016. Geophysical Survey.
Magnetometer survey of proposed development site to east of Lowestoft Road and north of Longfulans Lane.
This survey identified no evidence for sub-surface remains associated with the various fragmentary linear cropmarks recorded in this field.
See report (S13) and NHER 62747 for further details.
P. Watkins (HES), 10 May 2018.

January 2017. Trial Trenching.
Evaluation of proposed development site to east of Lowestoft Road and north of Longfulans Lane.
Although the excavated trenches coincided with a number of the cropmarks in this group none were found to have associated sub-surface remains.
See report (S14) and NHER 62747 for further details.
P. Watkins (HES), 10 May 2018.

March 2023. Assessment of the Character and Significance of East Anglian Field Systems project.
The site described above was included in the dataset analysed for the Historic England-funded Assessment of East Anglian Field Systems project. See the project report (S15) for further details.
S. Tremlett (Norfolk County Council Environment Team), 22 March 2023.