NHER 43551 (Cropmark and Earthwork record) - Cropmarks of a Bronze Age round barrow group at Gorleston on Sea

1977. Aerial Photograph Interpretation.
On (S2):
At TG 5142 0263 is a possible ring ditch, though this is dubious.
E. Rose (NAU), 12 September 1977. Information from (S8).
Previously recorded under NHER 12780.
This possible ring-ditch is noted on (S5) and in (S6).
Amended by P. Watkins (HES), 21 February 2017.

July 1995.
Area of ?ring ditch said to be "low and damp" and thus a possible pond barrow.
Previously recorded under NHER 12780.
D. Gurney (NLA), 11 July 1995. Information from (S8).
Amended by P. Watkins (HES), 21 February 2017.

April 2006. Norfolk NMP.
The cropmarks of a small Bronze Age round barrow group are visible on aerial photographs on either side of Woodfarm Lane, Gorleston on Sea (S1-S2). One of these barrows was formerly recorded under NHER 12780. It is possible that this group represents a small barrow cemetery. The site is centred on TG 5146 0261. Other ring ditches and round barrow sites are located nearby (NHER 43552-4).

The largest of the group is located TG 5142 0263 and was previously recorded under 12780. In 1951 a light coloured circular soilmark is visible at this location measuring 20m in diameter (S1). In 1976 an irregular, penannular ring ditch is visible, 14m across (S2). This is smaller than the size of the mound suggested by the earlier soilmark, although this is likely to be material spread by the plough. The barrow soilmark is also slightly off-centre from the ring ditch, again this could be due dragging of the material or alternatively differences in location created through the rectification process.

The other three ring ditches are less convincing and cannot be seen clearly as the road has cut them and are therefore on the very edge of the arable area. No signs of former barrow mounds were visible. At TG 5149 0259 is an irregularly shaped ring ditch, up to 15m across. To the immediate north of this is a 10m wide incomplete ring ditch. The close proximity to the line of the road with both of these features could suggest that the cropmarks are the result of disturbance along the line of the road. These three ring ditches have all been mapped in the past as part of an aerial photograph assessment (S3) for the South Gorleston Development Area, see NHER 11788 for details. A fourth possible ring ditch was also tentatively identified on the eastern side of the road at TG 5152 0259. Although the positioning of this feature could indicate that it is a turning circle.

The line of a probable prehistoric trackway (NHER 43529) runs through or at least alongside this group of Bronze Age barrows. It is possible that the trackway was created in relation to the earlier monuments. Another trackway 1.6km to the west (NHER 43544) also appears to run in-between a major barrow group (NHER 17225).
S. Massey (NMP), 11 April 2006.

June-July 2016. Trial Trenching.
Evaluation of proposed development site to west of Woodfarm Lane.
This work saw a trench excavated across the largest possible barrow at TG 5142 0263. These cropmarks were shown to actually correspond with a large 20th-century rubbish pit, which clearly accounts for the somewhat irregular nature of the features visible on the aerial photographs. It is therefore possible that the other circular cropmarks are of a similar origin, particularly as these were regarded as less convincing as possible barrows.
See report (S7) and NHER 62738 for further details.
P. Watkins (HES), 10 May 2018.

April-May 2024. Trial Trenching.
Evaluation of land east of Woodfarm Lane.
This work saw a trench dug across the easternmost of the possible ring-ditches in this group. Although one of the ditches recorded in this trench appears to have coincided with the north-west side of the ring-ditch this was probably coincidental as the feature was very shallow. There was no trace of any surviving remains associated with the opposite side of the ring-ditch. Overall this would seem to confirm the initial suggestion that this particular cropmark was not necessarily archaeological in origin.
Information from draft report.
See report (S9) and NHER 68434 for further details.
P. Watkins (HES), 9 August 2024.