NHER 2478 (Monument record) - Possible Roman settlement, human remains and pottery sherds

1956 to 1957, 1976 to 1980. Cropmarks of Roman settlement? discovered.
29 May 1975 cropmarks (S3).
1973. Skeleton found
1978. Roman sherds found.
1988. Roman sherds and bone found.
See full details in secondary file.
E. Rose (NLA), 22 November 1990.

For full details of wares, flint types etc see Fenland Folders (S1).

22 July 1996. NLA aerial photography.
Previously recorded cropmarks visible.
Further linear features and enclosures can be seen in the southern part of the site (between Greenend Lodge and Toll Bar Cottage).
H. Clare (NLA), 4 January 2002.

July 2012.
Cropmarks on Google Earth reported (S2) of a double-ditched enclosure with rounded corners, internal subdivisons and field systems interpreted (by S2) as a possible Roman fort site and/or the Roman settlement of Duroviguto (Ravenna Cosmography).
D. Gurney (HES), 26 June 2013.

8 March 2013. FenArch fieldwalking [1].
Hundreds of Roman sherds from a 100m x 40m grid including a couple of pieces of decorated samian ware and a pierced sherd from a colander or cheese press. Quite a few pieces of bone (some burnt), oyster shells and plenty of Nene Valley Ware. Also a range of medieval and post-medieval pottery sherds that may show a preponderance to the south. A gravel spread to the east where the Fen Causeway passes through, and where it is hit by the plough according to the farmer.
More information to follow.
D. Gurney (HES), 11 March 2013.

Summary (April 2014)
Air photo coverage and preliminary cropmark interpretation (by Sophie Tremlett, Senior Air Photo Interpretation Officer, Norfolk Historic Environment Service)

Description
The Google Earth 2006 layer shows three sides of a double-ditched, sub-rectangular or trapezoidal enclosure. The approximate external measurements of the enclosure are c. 185m along its short, roughly east-west axis, and at least c. 215m along its longer, roughly north-south axis; the southern side of the enclosure is unclear. Some of the oblique photographs of the site suggest a bank between the two enclosing ditches; this may have been substantial, as the distance between the ditches is more than 5m in places. The ditches themselves also appear to be relatively wide, particularly around the northern end of the enclosure.
Within the enclosure various internal subdivisions are apparent, along with a possible internal sub-rectangular enclosure joined to the internal eastern ditch at its southern end. A very well-defined and straight light-coloured mark is visible crossing the western side of the enclosure from the adjacent field to the west. This has been interpreted as part of the Fen Causeway Roman road (NHER 2796), although the earliest (northern) course of the Fen Causeway is thought to be buried under later silts at this location, so shouldn’t be visible, and the feature could perhaps instead be of relatively recent origin (James Albone, NCC, pers. comm.). Certainly, there is no clear evidence of the road exiting from the eastern side of the enclosure (although the cropmarks here are admittedly less clear). However, the Google Earth 2006 cropmarks appear to show the line of the road being cut by the western enclosure ditches – i.e. the ditches are visible crossing the road rather than being hidden by it – suggesting that it cannot be a modern feature. At the same time, the cropmarks of the western enclosure ditches on the north side of the road are relatively broad, abruptly narrowing where they cross the road and remaining narrow to the south of it. The overall impression is that the road was in use at the same time as the enclosure ditches to its north (although it may have originated at an earlier date), and that it later went out of use and was cut through by the enclosure ditches that continue to its south. However, such relationships deduced from cropmarks can often prove more complex upon excavation, and the exact processes at work are unclear. Therefore, until further corroborative evidence is found, the interpretations made above should be treated with a high degree of caution.
Around the enclosure, and both within and outside of the site polygon for NHER 2478, large numbers of single and double-ditched linear and curvilinear features are apparent. These may represent further enclosures and trackways, some of which join to or have a clear physical relationship with the enclosure. Many of the features may be of natural origin – creeks and roddons – or drainage features of varying dates.

Interpretation
The relationship of the enclosure with the supposed line of the Fen Causeway Roman road and the recovery of quantities of pottery and other material of Roman date would suggest a broadly Roman date for the enclosure. It has been suggested as the site of a fort or camp; there is, at present, little evidence to support this, beyond the basic morphology of the enclosure – its size, shape and rounded corners. The form of the enclosure is rather irregular compared with camps and forts mapped from air photos elsewhere in Norfolk (at least in the experience of this author), and there is no evidence for a diagnostic defended entrance (for a camp) or standard arrangement of gates (for a fort). This does not preclude the possibility of a camp or fort existing here before the enclosure, or being the earliest element of the enclosure, with the palimpsest nature of the cropmarks hiding earlier diagnostic military features.
More probably, the cropmarks represent an enclosed settlement, relatively substantial but smaller than a ‘small town’. Similar settlements have been mapped from cropmarks elsewhere in Norfolk (see those illustrated in Albone et al. 2007, fig. 7.3, for example) and further afield (in Lincolnshire, for example; Bewley 1998). Where dating evidence or diagnostic features are absent, such settlements are often interpreted as being of broadly Iron Age to Roman date.

Fieldwalking (by FenArch)

Two areas were gridded and fieldwalked by FenArch in March 2013. Each area comprised ten 20m by 20m squares, labelled A1-2, B1-2 etc to E1-2. The area to the north is CHRPOU centred on TL 5039 9850 and the area to the south is HALFPEN centred on TL 5040 9831. The pottery and small finds recovered have been reported upon by Oxford Archaeology East.
CHRPOU: A small quantity of pottery was recovered during field walking, primarily consisting of post-medieval pottery dating to the 17th to 20th centuries. A small amount of Roman pottery was recovered, similar in character to the material from HALFPEN. There were no small finds of note.
HALFPEN: 1296 sherds (5435g) of pottery were recovered, including post-medieval and later wares. The material is heavily abraded (average weight 4g) and fairly evenly distributed across the ten grid squares, with the greatest density in A1 (north-east corner).
The Roman pottery assemblage is dominated by products of the Lower Nene Valley, the majority of which are Nene Valley Colour-Coated Wares typical of the late third to fourth centuries AD. Also present are Nene Valley Grey Wares and oxidised wares (mortaria), disc flagons (late 2nd to 3rd centuries), a plain rimmed beaker (late 2nd to mid-3rd C) and a decorated scale beaker (mid-to late 3rd C). Local coarse grey wares are present in some quantity, mainly jars, bowls and flanged dishes not closely datable. A pierced sherd from a colander or cheese press is reported.
Other fabrics represented are Colchester colour-coated, Oxford and Hadham red wares of later third and fourth century date, Horningsea storage jars and grey wares, shell-tempered wares and a small quantity of samian (26 sherds), mostly from Lezoux and a few possibly East Gaulish. One Form 37 bowl has a maker’s stamp (Pugnus ii (AD 135-165) of Lezoux).
Overall the assemblage dates from the 2nd to the 4th century and appears to be predominantly local, utilitarian and domestic in character.
Small finds include a sheep metatarsal which has been modified for use as a handle, a fragment of a bone comb, one certain fragment of a glass prismatic bottle and two possible fragments. Metal finds include a knife, hobnails and masonry nails, all undated.
The field walking produced a sizeable assemblage of heavily abraded tile/brick fragments weighing 11,486g. 57% of the overall assemblage is considered to be of Roman date. The material was fairly evenly spread across the area, although there was a notable concentration in the far southeast corner in Grid E2, two thirds of which is considered to be Roman and including some large fragments.
Oyster shells have been reported.

October 2013. Geophysical Survey.
Northamptonshire Archaeology was commissioned by Mr Greg Owen to carry out a magnetometer survey in the field to the north in which CHRPOU is located. The results were dominated by geological anomalies indicating a former network of creeks. Only a few disjointed anomalies could be related to the cropmarks, and little new archaeological information was obtained. The disappointing nature of these results is probably due to the unfavourable magnetic properties of the local soils.
See report (S4) for further details.
David Gurney (HES), 14 April 2014.