NHER 49204 (Cropmark and Earthwork record) - Cropmarks of Roman vicus associated with Burgh Castle

November 2006. Norfolk NMP.
The cropmarks of the Roman vicus associated with Burgh Castle Roman Fort are visible on aerial photographs to the immediate east and south of the fort walls (S1-S15). The site is centred on TG 4776 0459. These cropmarks are likely to represent evidence for contemporary settlement, industry and trade. All cropmarks identified within the fort walls are recorded under NHER 10471. An additional and undated phase of cropmark enclosures and trackways, which either pre-date or post-date the vicus, have also been identified on the aerial photographs (NHER 49205). An overall parent record has been created for all undated and unphased cropmarks (NHER 49203). Some of these cropmarks have previously been recorded under NHER 10486, 11605, 13227 and 17261.

The main focus of the cropmarks is located to the immediate east of the fort, although not in the area immediate outside of the fort. This field revealed very few cropmarks when compared with the areas to the east and south. It is therefore possible that the main focus of the vicus was set back from the fort. Although it must be noted that the field immediately in front of the fort often unresponsive in terms of cropmarks, often due to a different agricultural regime than the surrounding fields. The only cropmarks recorded for this area were visible during June 1976 (S5) and from an extremely grainy and oblique aerial photograph from July 1933 (S1). Due to the poor quality and the obliqueness of the 1933 image any cropmarks mapped must be treated with caution. However once rectified (to remove the distortion created by the oblique angle) the cropmarks do appear reasonably convincing. The 1976 photography suggested an elongated ditched feature immediately outside of the eastern gate (S5). This may have been part of a track or route way, although two angular pit-like features are also visible within the turns of this ditched boundary. It is possibly that this feature had some sort of above ground structure associated. Also visible in 1976 (S5-S6) is a double ditched trackway running parallel to the eastern wall of the fort. This appears to open out into an enclosed area (S1), with a series of perpendicular boundaries to the east. A much less substantial trackway appears to run from this point towards the northeastern corner turret of the fort. Some of these features divert slightly from the more E-W or N-S alignment of the vicus, however they do seem to represent a related phase. It is possible that they are later development, possibly continuing into the Saxon period.

The majority of the vicus appears to be in the eastern field (previously recorded under NHER 17261). This part of the site consists of a series of rectangular enclosures that broadly follow the same alignment as the fort itself, strongly suggesting that they are contemporary, i.e. 3rd-4th century. A possible trackway or boundary runs along a projected line from the main gate to the fort (S8). To the immediate north of this is a rectangular enclosure, approximately 90m by 45m, which is subdivided into a number of smaller rectangular enclosed areas, between 12-18m across. A number of pits are visible within this area, although these could be of a different date. Some of the pits appear to relate to post-built structures. One of these appears to represent a large rectangular post-built structure, approximately 25m by 12m (NHER 49210). It is not immediately clear which phase of the site this feature is related to, although it is possible that a ditch, seemingly of the same phase as the vicus cropmarks, either overlies it or is overlain by it. The relationship is hard to establish from the aerial photographs. The structure is probably associated with the cropmarks to the immediate east, recorded under NHER 49205, which are of unknown date, although a Saxon date is possible. A much smaller structure is visible at TG 4774 0451, suggested by 6 pits and measuring 4.5m by 3m. The extent of the pits is broadly defined by another double ditched boundary or trackway to the north, perhaps suggesting that a particular type of activity or industry was taking place within this area. Other pits to the east of this area have been recorded under NHER 49203, as they are not as associated with any obvious parts of the vicus.

The northern part of the vicus also consists of rectilinear enclosed areas, clearly of more than one phase, as some components follow a slightly different alignment. A number of the enclosures are possibly bordered by trackway, which appears to join with a boundary or track that runs across the western edge of the main vicus area. Some cropmarks are visible to the west and north of this, but they are much more fragmentary. Although excavation to the south of the church may indicate that this is possibly due to lack of cropmark response rather than lack of subsurface features. A compact area of enclosure ditches and field boundaries, following a broadly E-W and N-S direction, were excavated to the immediate south of the Church (NHER 13227) and these were dated to the Roman period (S15). The same alignment persisted throughout the Roman period, although alterations and recutting of the features occurred. All of the features that were assigned securely to the Roman period, dated to the 3rd-4th century AD. This date suggests that they are all contemporary with the establishment of the fort. Most of the ditches appear to define land parcels and enclosures. The continual recutting and reorganisation of the layout was taken to indicate change of land usage rather than land ownership, which appeared to happen relatively rapidly. The general trend appeared to be from large enclosures to smaller, less well-defined plots. The plots contained little evidence for domestic activity and were likely to be removed from the settlement and were of agricultural use. The aerial photographs reveal a rectangular enclosure following this alignment to the immediate south of the excavation area, measuring 30m by 21m (S4).

The only other excavation to have taken place outside of the walls was located to the southeast of the fort (NHER 11605). This small excavation revealed a ditch, aligned slightly off from N-S, with Roman pottery of 3rd-4th century date and brick and roof tile fragments. The alignment of this ditch mirrors that exhibited by the cropmarks recorded to the west (previously recorded under NHER 10486). This dense area of cropmarks, centred on TG 4762 0432, consists of three sets of multi-ditched linear features, presumably trackways, which join together leaving a triangular enclosed area of land in the centre. The northwestern trackway appears to lead up to the fort. The northeastern trackway would appear to link up with the slightly curving boundary or track to the north, although this relationship is only inferred as the two linears cannot to seen to actually meet on the aerial photographs. The southern trackways appear to lead off to the direction of the estuary and this may indicate further elements of the vicus and fort landscape that has since been lost through the construction of the boat yard and brickworks to the south. The area within and immediately around the intersection of the trackways is characterised by a series of pits and closely-set ditch segments, creating a highly subdivided area (S7, S11). It is possible that this is a palimpsest of features. Some of the enclosed areas are rectangular and quite regular, whilst others, in particular those within the central area are more irregular and curving. The ‘haphazard layout’ layout of these features has led some to suggest a medieval date for this part of the site, perhaps associated with the motte and bailey, see NHER 10486 for. However, given the relationship with these cropmarks with other features thought to be Roman and the massive amounts of Roman finds coming from this area, a Roman date seems most likely. Although it is possible that some the ditches and pits also date to post-Roman activity on the site.
S. Massey (NMP), 30 November 2006.


EARLY IDENTIFICATION OF CROPMARKS IN THIS AREA
Prior to reassessment by the Norfolk Aerial Investigation Team, cropmarks in this area were disucussed under several HER Records. Early related observations have now been amalgamated under this number. Some of these observations may refer to cropmarks now recorded under NHER49203 (parent record for undated elements) and NHER49205 (undated enclosures and field boundaries).

A. Field immediately to the southeast of Burgh Castle, centered approximately TG 4763 0432 (formerly recorded under NHER 10486).

Before 1977. Air Photo Interpretation.
RAF aerial photography dated 16 April 1946 shows rectangular cropmark.
Information from Norwich Castle Museum Record Card (S19) and HER Record Card (S21).
Amended H. Hamilton (HES), 15 November 2024.

August 1977. Air photo interpretation.
Cropmarks were observed to the southeast of Burgh Castle (NHER 10471), on photogaphy taken by the Norfolk Ait Photo Unit (TG 4704/N and P; ACK-ACS; ACX-ACY; ABK-ABR; ABV). Centered at TG 476 043, the cropmarks were described as covering an area of about 4 hectares. They indicate the presence of roadways arranged around a north-south axis with small plots or enclosures at right angles. Identified by A. Horne (S22) as a likely extra-mural settlement. Alternative interpretation as medieval tracks leading to the medieval castle (S21) as they point towards the northwest corner of the field.
Cropmarks recorded on an overlay.
Ordnance Survey Record Card (S20) indicates these imagess appear in RAF photogaphs 540/465 3013-3014 dated 20 April 1951.
See published article (S22).
Recorded on Ordnance Survey Record Card (S20) and HER Record Card (S21).
Amended H. Hamilton (HES), 15 November 2024.

B. Field directly east of the above, centered approximately TG 4790 0433 (formerly recorded under NHER 11605)

Before 1977. Air photo interpretation.
In field southeast of fort (NHER 10471) scheduled area and west of bent in road: several amorphous cropmarks, including rectangular areas.
Observed in images by St Joseph (CQ 046-047), accessioned in Norfolk Air Photo Library as TG 4704/C-D (S24).
Information from HER Record Card (S23).
Amended H. Hamilton (HES), 15 November 2024.

C. Field to the east of Burgh Castle, centered approximately TG 4786 0469 (formerly recorded under NHER 17261).

1976. Air Photo Interpretation.
Cropmarks of large rectangles of equal north-south dimensions but unequal east-west. Easternmost appears to underlie modern Road.
NAU air photography TG4704/C-D, AD-AU (S24).
Formerly recorded under NHER 11606. Formerly recorded under NHER 17261.
Information from HER Record Card (S25) and HER Notes (S26).
Amended H. Hamilton (HES), 15 November 2024.

1977. Air photo interpretation.
Further cropmarks of rectangular enclosures all over field.
NAU air photography TG4704/ACV- (S24). See overlay.
Information from HER Record Card (S25) and HER Notes (S26).
Amended H. Hamilton (HES), 15 November 2024.

D. Field immediately north of Burgh Castle, centered approximately TG 4759 0479 (formerly recorded under NHER 13227).



POST-2006 OBSERVATIONS

September 2008.
Plans for proposed development of 38 static caravans on the site were withdrawn due to the potential visual and archaeological impact.
See (S16) for further details.
H. White (NLA), 9 October 2009.

December 2009-January 2010. Trial Trenching.
Evaluation of site of proposed static caravan park redevelopment.
Although one of the trenches coincided with an east-to-west aligned cropmark mapped at TG 4782 0443 no corresponding sub-surface remains were identified.
This work did however expose a range of linear and discrete features with no associated cropmarks, the majority of which were of probable Roman date.
See report (S17) and NHER 61102 for further information.
S. Howard (NLA), 20 September 2010. Amended by P. Watkins (HES), 28 August 2019.

March 2023. Assessment of the Character and Significance of East Anglian Field Systems project.
The site described above was included in the dataset analysed for the Historic England-funded Assessment of East Anglian Field Systems project. See the project report (S18) for further details.
S. Tremlett (Norfolk County Council Environment Team), 22 March 2023.