NHER 61655 (Monument record) - ?Roman, post-medieval and undated features and multi-period finds

April-May 2012. Geophysical Survey.
Magnetometer survey of northern half of proposed development site.
This survey revealed no anomalies of obvious archaeological interest.
Although numerous discrete anomalies were identified there was difficult to interpret and it is probable that most, if not all, were of natural origin. Bands of magnetic disturbance around the margins of the field and scattered discrete small ferrous anomalies were also deemed to have no archaeological significance.
See report (S1) for further details.
P. Watkins (HES), 6 April 2021.

March 2013. Geophysical Survey.
Magnetometer survey of proposed development site.
This survey identified a number of linear anomalies in the southern half of the site that, whilst somewhat vague, appear to correspond with previously identified cropmark features. These include a number of roughly north-east to south-west and north-west to south-east aligned linear anomalies that correspond with cropmarks believed to represent an earlier, potentially Iron Age or Roman field system (NHER 50714). The potentially related features identified by the geophysical survey include what appears to be the corners of two adjacent fields or enclosures and a pair of broadly parallel linear feature to the north-east. Elements of all three groups of features had been identified as cropmarks. There was however no trace of the cropmark ring ditch that had been identified in this part of the site (NHER 50713).
The survey also identified an east-to-west aligned linear anomaly that corresponds with a cropmark believed to be associated with a later, medieval or post-medieval field system (NHER 32239). It should however be noted that this anomaly was interpreted as being of likely agricultural origin.
The various other anomalies detected by the survey are thought to be of little archaeological significance, the majority being of either geological origin or the result of the current agricultural regime. Isolated dipolar anomalies are likely to have been caused by the presence of ferrous material in the soil.
It is noted that the weak nature of the archaeologically-significant anomalies means that there may well be other, undetected features in the southern part of the site.
See report (S2) for further details.
P. Watkins (HES), 12 October 2016.

July 2013. Desk-based Assessment.
Assessment of proposed development site.
Based on the available HER data this study concluded that the site has a medium potential to contain remains dating to the Bronze Age, Iron Age, Roman and medieval periods.
There is no evidence for significant previous ground disturbance.
No features of archaeological or historical significance were noted during a brief site visit.
See report (S3) for further details.
P. Watkins (HES), 6 April 2021.

August 2013. Trial Trenching.
Evaluation of proposed development site.
The twenty-two trenches excavated revealed a range of linear and discrete features. These were fairly widely distributed, with most trenches revealing at least one archaeologically-significant feature, but only one containing a notable concentration of remains (which weren’t necessarily of any great interest). Dating evidence was fairly scarce and as a result many of the excavated features are of uncertain date. The finds recovered do though provide evidence for prehistoric, Roman, Late Saxon and medieval to post-medieval phases of activity.
Prehistoric activity was represented by a small assemblage of Early Neolithic, Neolithic and undiagnostic Late Prehistoric worked flints and small quantities of Bronze Age, Iron Age and undatable prehistoric pottery. Most of this material was though either unstratified or likely to have been residual in later features. One possible exception was a single Bronze Age sherd recovered from a large, otherwise undated pit or natural feature in the central part of the site.
Small amounts of Roman pottery was also recovered from a pit and a ditch in the middle of the site (one and two sherds respectively), both of which were otherwise undated. The pit was a deep feature that also produced a single fragment of iron tap slag. Fragments of tap slag were also recovered from two trenches in the north-east corner of the site.
The potentially Roman ditch was a north-east to south-west aligned feature, which is consistent with the suggested date for various similarly-aligned and perpendicular cropmarks recorded in the southern half of the site and the field beyond (NHER 50714). Although several trenches in the southern part of the site coincided with cropmarks in this group most were found to have no corresponding sub-surface remains. The two exceptions were north-west to south-east and north-east to south-west aligned cropmarks at the western edge of the site that appear to represent two sides of an enclosure. Both were found to be associated with surviving ditches, although finds were limited to a small number of prehistoric worked flints (including some of probable Early Neolithic date).
Although small quantities of Late Saxon, medieval and late medieval/early post-medieval pottery were recovered, no features could be even tentatively associated with these phases of activity – the sherds all being recovered from either unstratified contexts or demonstrably later features.
Features of more recent date included a north-to-south aligned ditch at the southern end of the site that produced post-medieval pottery sherds and bottle glass. A possible continuation of this feature (which produced late post-medieval/modern pottery) corresponds with a cropmark that is part of a group regarded as probably medieval to post-medieval in date (NHER 32239). A perpendicular, east-to-west aligned cropmark at the southern end of the site that is part of the same group was also investigated and found to be associated with a surviving ditch. This feature produced a single fragment of Roman tile and several fragments of animal bone (the survival of the latter possibly indicating that the tile is most likely residual?).
It is likely that a series of other, narrow north-to-south aligned linear features were also of relatively recent date. These had presumably not been identified by the geophysical surveys as they were parallel to numerous linear cultivation trends.
Other features of probable recent date included a post-hole that contained a clay pipe stem, a pit that produced fragments of post-medieval tile and two large probable quarry pits in the north-western part of the site, one of which produced a possible fragment of post-medieval brick.
Samples taken from potentially Roman and post-medieval features produced only very sparse assemblages of charred plant macrofossils likely to present only scattered debris. These results, coupled with the scarcity of artefactual material, suggest that this site is unlikely to have seen particularly significant or sustained past activity.
Although a trench was placed across the cropmark ring-ditch recorded at TG 2975 1654 (NHER 50713) no associated sub-surface remains were identified.
The various unstratified finds recovered during this work included prehistoric worked flints; medieval pottery; fragments of medieval and post-medieval ceramic building material; metal-working debris (including an unusual fragment that is possibly either blast furnace slag or a crucible fragment); post-medieval coins and tokens and a small number of other medieval to post-medieval and undated metal objects. These metal finds included a medieval/post-medieval suspension ring; a post-medieval decorated lead strip and an undatable copper alloy sheet fragment and pieces of lead waste.
See report (S4) for further details.
The archive associated with this work has been deposited with the Norwich Castle Museum (NWHCM : 2017.203).
P. Watkins (HES), 6 April 2021.