NHER 52095 (Cropmark and Earthwork record) - Possible ring ditch and curvilinear enclosures

May 2009. Norfolk NMP.
Cropmarks of a possible ring ditch and several curvilinear ditch features were visible on aerial photographs (S1)-(S2), centred at TG 2781 0945.

The possible ring ditch feature may represent an oval or sub-rectangular enclosure, perhaps a Neolithic oval barrow or small mortuary enclosure. It occupies a position on a southeast facing slope, overlooking a paleochannel, which is situated roughly 450m to the south east. The possible ring ditch feature measured 10m in diameter, and was centred at TG 2787 0931. It is roughly oval in plan, bounded by an irregular ditch that measures up to 2.4m in width, and may exhibit a possible causeway or entrance of 7m in width, on the north-western side. Its plan, which is halfway between being oval and oblong, and is perhaps even slightly trapeziform, is reminiscent of Neolithic long barrows and elongated enclosures seen elsewhere in Norfolk and the East of England (e.g. S3, fig. 2). If it is of archaeological origin, it may therefore represent a Neolithic to Bronze Age funerary monument. However, this feature is really only visible on one set of photographs (S2), and may represent underlying geological features rather than archaeology. It may, however, be related to the group of Bronze Age barrows (NHER 9619) reportedly situated to the north-west.

The same may be true of the other features recorded here, in particular a semi-circular curvilinear ditch, centred on TG 2792 0948. This ditch may represent an irregular enclosure, measuring between 1.6 and 3.6m in width, up to 21m in internal diameter, but it is unclear whether it represents an archaeological feature, or whether it has been caused by the underlying geology.

A series of possible curvilinear ditches were also visible, just over 80m to the west, centred at TG 2779 0950. A possible oval enclosure may be visible, measuring approximately 31m by 49m, centred at TG 2779 0953. Again, these features are blurred and rather unconvincing as archaeology, and may indeed represent geological features.
E. Bales (NMP), 5 May 2009.