Monument record BRK 104 - Gallows Hill, Barking, (Prehistoric).

1990: DBA, fieldwalking, metal detecting and geophysical surveys - see (S3).

2002: Evaluation. The earliest prehistoric activity was represented by stratified and unstratified Mesolithic worked flint. Three concentrations of Neolithic flint, and three features were recorded, the latter containing Ebbsfleet-Mortlake pottery suggesting a Late Neolithic date. The ring ditch (BRK 005) was positively identified as being of Bronze Age date, while no conclusive dating evidence was recovered for the complex BRK 016.

2013: Excavation recorded Prehistoric to Post medieval features. The Early Bronze Age was represented by a small number of pits in the extreme southern corner of the site. Two of these pits contained Early Bronze Age pottery. Two more, although conatining no finds, have been tentatively assigned this date due to their similarity of form and proximity. The Iron Age was represented by a single Pit which contained a sherd of Iron Age pottery (S4).

Also see Undated, Roman, Saxon & Medieval records for further details relating to these periods.

Whilst the flintwork was identified as Mesolithic or Neolithic at evalution stage, the character of the entire assemblage and the nature of specific types in (S4) suggests an Early Neolithic age for the earliest flintwork, (S6). It was also not mentioned in (S5).

2018: Archaeological investigations have been carried out on the site since 1990 when an initial phase of aerial photo assessment fieldwalking, metal-detecting and geophysical survey was undertaken. More recently the aerial photographic survey was updated and a full trial trench evaluation has been conducted . Excavation has revealed multi-period occupation of this small part of the Gipping valley. The data recovered during excavation provides the basis for a detailed study of the way that this riverine landscape was utilised over a prolonged period. The earliest evidence for human occupation of the area consisted of possible Mesolithic struck flint mainly present as residual or unstratified material. More significant evidence of human utilisation of this landscape occurred in the early Neolithic, in the form of a small group of cut features. A small number of late Neolithic and early Bronze Age features attest to continued occupation of this landscape, albeit on a possibly seasonal or episodic basis. Only a single feature of Iron Age date was identified during excavation. Evidence for Roman activity was limited to features which indicated that the site formed part of the undeveloped, possibly agricultural, hinterland of the Roman settlement of Combretovium. Evidence from Excavation Phases 1 and 2 appeared to consist of activity at the periphery of the Roman settlement. Extensive dispersed Anglo-Saxon activity was recorded with eight SFBs, complemented by a further 4 recorded during the previous excavation phases, several associated features and an unusual figure-of-eight ditch arrangement. Several undated posthole structures may be associated with this activity. Subsequently, there appeared to be a decline in activity at this location in the Saxo-Norman and medieval periods (S7).

Excavation between 2011 and 2020 revealed multi-period occupation, related to prolonged utilisation of the riverine landscape of the site. Prehistoric remains included Mesolithic struck flint, which was mainly present as residual or unstratified material, a small group of Early Neolithic cut features, a small number of Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age features which may attest to seasonal or episodic occupation, and a single Iron Age feature. The site appears to have formed part of the undeveloped, possibly agricultural, hinterland of the Roman settlement of Combretovium. Extensive dispersed Anglo-Saxon activity was recorded with eight sunken featured buildings, complemented by a further four recorded during the previous excavation phases, several associated features and an unusual figure-of-eight ditch arrangement (Fig. 8). Several undated posthole structures may be associated with this activity. Subsequently, there appeared to be a decline in activity at this location in the Saxo-Norman and medieval periods (S8).