NHER 9544 (Monument record) - Neolithic and Romano-British settlement sites, Eaton Heath

1971. Excavation by G. J. Wainwright (Dept of Environment) of ritual shafts and settlement site.
Plain Neolithic ware and East Anglian Beaker.
Upper layers produced Roman enclosures, subrectangular ditched areas - in these some Aylesford-Swarling sherds. Handmade Iron Age sherds in subrectangular enclosure.
Definitive publication (S1) (see also (S2)).
Information from NCM cards and publication.
E. Rose (NAU).

1982. Geophysical Survey.
Magnetometer Survey on Eaton Heath.
Wide scatter of iron litter, few archaeological anomalies.
One possible shaft identified although small diameter (just 1m) makes judgement uncertain.
See report (S3) for further details.
T. Sunley (NLA) 8 November 2007.

July, 1985. Visit by J. J. Wymer (NAU).
House building in progress over site.
Top of some excavated shafts found; also other shafts capped in concrete - 19th century chalk mines? No finds in trenches not even a single flint flake. Presumably shows thoroughness of Wainright excavation.
J. J. Wymer and E. Rose (NAU) 29 July 1985.

E. B. Green (NCM) says Wainwright shafts were capped in concrete.
See (S4) for discussion of shafts. (NB see NHER 9549: similar shafts under barrow).
E. Rose (NAU).

It is possible that the so-called 'ritual shafts' were in fact natural solution features, into which cultural material had been deposited or weathered, although it is of course also possible that natural features such as these were also viewed as being of ritual significance.
D. Gurney (NLA), 7 February 2007.

Originally recorded in the parish of Eaton, now part of Norwich.

December 2009. Norfolk NMP.
NMR TG 20 NW 173 and the published excavation report (S1, p 1) record that the investigation at the site was prompted by the identification of a possible penannular cropmark visible on an aerial photograph (S5). Thought to resemble Arminghall Henge (NHER 6100), the excavation failed to identify any trace of a ditch corresponding with the mark, and it was concluded that the mark was of natural origin (S1, p4).
No features of archaeological significance were recognised on the aerial photographs consulted by the NMP survey. While crop- and vegetation marks are visible in the area of the excavations on some aerial photographs ((S6)-(S7), for example), none appears to relate to an excavated feature, and none were identified that could not be dismissed as the product of recent agricultural activity or drainage (there is some evidence of under-drainage in adjacent fields). The apparent invisibility of the excavated features on aerial photographs may reflect their shallowness, and geophysical survey proved similarly unproductive (see above). It is possible, however, that some of the undated linear ditches recorded from aerial photographs in the adjacent field to the east (NHER 53272) represent a continuation of some of the features excavated at this site.
S. Tremlett (NMP), 31 December 2009.