NHER 65552 (Monument record) - Early Iron Age and other, multi-period and undated remains

August 2012. Geophysical Survey.
Magnetometer survey of large proposed development area.
This survey revealed various linear anomalies, a number of which clearly correspond with former field boundaries depicted on the Wymondham tithe map (S1). Other, more fragmentary linear anomalies may represent ditches associated with earlier phases of activity, particularly those which are not parallel or perpendicular to the 19th-century boundaries. There is however no clear correlation between these anomalies and the fragmentary cropmarks recorded at this location, which are thought to potentially represent features of later prehistoric or Roman date (see NHER 57368). Various discrete positive anomalies may also represent archaeologically-significant remains, although they could well be of either modern or natural origin. A large ovoid area of magnetic debris at the southern end of the site corresponds with a former pond (potentially originally a quarry pit) shown of the Ordnance Survey First Edition Six Inch map (S2). Large areas of similar magnetic debris were also recorded in the north-east corner of the site, similar to that recorded during the survey of the field to the north (see NHER 58506).
See report (S3) for further details.
Previously recorded under NHER 58506.
Amended by P. Watkins (HES), April 2022.

August-October 2015. Trial Trenching.
Evaluation of proposed development site (Trenches 4-8, 10 and 12-123).
The 118 trenches excavated at this location revealed a range of features, including pits, post-holes and ditches. Although many of these features were poorly dated there was clear evidence for prehistoric activity on the site with more than 300 handmade pottery sherds recovered, the bulk of which are of probable Early Iron Age date. A small assemblage of worked flints was also recovered although this is of a more uncertain date due to the absence of any truly diagnostic pieces. Whilst some small groups were potentially associated with Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age activity, much of the material consists of relatively crude flakes of probable Middle Bronze Age or later date (and therefore potentially contemporary with the pottery recovered). Features of possible Early Iron Age date were encountered across a wide area, although the two most notable both lay in the southern part of the site. These included a substantial pit that produced a large assemblage of pottery which came primary from three vessels and represents the most diagnostic group – being entirely consistent with the ‘Early’ decorated wares of the Post Deverel-Rimbury tradition (800-500 BC). Most of the pottery was recovered from a dark, charcoal-rich fill that was also found to contain an antler awl and a small quantity of waste from antler working. A sample from this deposit produced a single barley grain but little else in the way of charred plant macrofossils. Elsewhere, a much smaller pit contained the truncated lower portion a single vessel of probable Early Iron Age date that appeared to have been buried complete, in an upright position.
A range of other pits, post-holes and ditches also produced pottery of probable Early Iron Age date, albeit in much smaller quantities. Although individually these could not be regarded as securely datable it is notable that in several locations a number lay in close proximity, suggesting that many probably were indeed associated with Early Iron Age activity. There was certainly also little clear evidence for sustained subsequent activity on the site, which increases the likelihood that the various undated pits and post-holes were associated with this prehistoric phase of activity.
Although a small assemblage of Roman pottery was recovered this came entirely from a single pit close to the southern edge of the site and an unstratified context in the same trench. Post-Roman material was limited to finds of post-medieval to modern date.
The ditches recorded displayed a variety of alignments and were therefore likely to have been associated with multiple phases of activity. The most recent were a number of features aligned either north-to-south or east-to-west that clearly corresponded with former field boundaries depicted on the Wymondham tithe map (S1). These features produced finds of post-medieval to modern date and similar material was also recovered from a number of similarly-aligned ditches that were presumably also post-medieval in date. Although two east-to-west aligned ditches in the south-west corner of the site produced small quantities of Early Iron Age pottery, the ditches most likely to be associated with early activity were those with orientations that were clearly at odds with those of the field system present by the 19th century. These included a fairly extensive north-east to south-west aligned feature and a perpendicular feature to the south. The alignments of these ditches were broadly similar to those of a group of fragmentary cropmarks previously recorded in this area which are thought to represent remains of later prehistoric or Roman date (NHER 57368). However, although the excavated trenches coincided with a number of these cropmarks, no corresponding sub-surface remains were identified. This may suggest that any associated features had been removed by ploughing since the cropmarks were photographed, although it is noted that the cropmarks were faint and in some cases it was difficult to ascertain whether they were archaeological in nature.
As expected the discrete area of magnetic debris identified by the geophysical survey in the south-west corner of the site was found to correspond with a large infilled feature. Trenches excavated in the north-east part of the site where similar magnetic noise had been recorded revealed evidence for extensive truncation, with made ground deposits infilling what were presumably areas of former quarrying.
Information from report uploaded to OASIS. HER copy awaited.
P. Watkins (HES), 20 April 2022.

April-May 2016. Excavation.
This final phase of archaeological mitigation saw the excavation of a three relatively small areas, two of which (Areas 1 and 2) targeted the pits that had produced the bulk of the Early Iron Age pottery and the third a group of ditches and discrete features that had all produced small quantities of Early Iron Age pottery (Area 3).
This work revealed clearer evidence for at least limited earlier activity, with a elongated curvilinear feature found to contained more than 60 sherds of Early Neolithic pottery and a small assemblage of potentially contemporary worked flints. This was probably a natural tree-throw hollow and lay close to another, undated feature of very similar form.
As expected the bulk of the additional features recorded were regarded as probable Early Iron Age date. These included several diffuse clusters of small pits and possible post-holes in the vicinity of the pit that had contained the complete pot base (Area 1), although the majority produced little or no dating evidence. A small quantity of Early Iron Age pottery was recovered from the previously identified extensive north-east to south-west aligned ditch at this location, providing further evidence that this was indeed a prehistoric feature. A number of Early Iron Age pottery sherds were also recovered from a large nearby pit of uncertain function.
The excavation area centred on the pit that had produced the largest assemblage of Iron Age pottery (Area 2) did however reveal no additional features other than the two ditches of relatively recent date that had been previously recorded at this location. Further excavation of the pit itself did though allow the recovery of more than 300 additional Early Iron Age pottery sherds. Further samples taken from the fills of this feature produced charcoal and a barley grain but little else in the way of charred plant macrofossils. A small quantity of burnt was also present.
The excavation area targeting the cluster of potentially Early Iron Age features to the west revealed numerous additional discrete features, all of which are thought to have been associated with this prehistoric phase of activity. One of the more notable features was a shallow pit containing a mounded heap of fire-cracked flint cobbles and 20 sherds of Early Iron Age pottery. This is tentatively interpreted as a hearth, although there was little evidence for in situ burning and a sample from its fill produced only small quantities of charcoal. This feature was adjacent to a group of 17 small post-holes, the majority of which also produced Early Iron Age pottery. Six of these appeared to form a reasonably straight line but the others lying in a more diffuse, irregular band to the south. Samples taken from these features and the possible hearth produced occasional cereal grains but charred plant macrofossils were generally fairly scarce. Several were though also found to contain fragments of burnt bone, at least some of which is identifiable as animal and therefore likely to represent culinary waste. Small quantities of Early Iron Age pottery were also recovered from a cluster of pits immediately to the east of the post-holes. These various features were all clustered to the north of two east-to-west aligned ditches that had been identified as potentially prehistoric during the preceding work. These was again no evidence for these being later features, with finds limited to a small quantity of Early Iron Age pottery and a number of worked flints. A perpendicular ditch extending southwards from the northernmost of the two was probably a broadly contemporary feature, suggesting the area between them may have been divided up into small enclosures. The various additional possible pits and post-holes that lay between and to the south of these ditches were also regarded as potentially Early Iron Age, although only a single sherd of pottery was recovered from these features.
As during the earlier work there was little evidence for subsequent activity on the site, with later features limited to a small number of post-medieval ditches. One find of note was a sherd of Late Iron Age/early Roman grog-tempered pottery, but this was residual in a later ditch.
See report (S4) for further details.
P. Watkins (HES), 22 April 2022.