Site J was dominated by the discovery of a new part of the late Iron Age Berechurch Dyke, referred to as the ‘Hyderabad Sector’, that appears to have defined the north-east side of the Camulodunum territorial oppidum. The Hyderabad Sector extends the Berechurch Dyke (MCC2116) by c.1.0km north of its previously known extent at Colchester Cemetery.

In terms of dating, the report (pp.93-94) states:

'Close dating of the pottery from the lower ditch fill within the Late Iron Age period is difficult. The grog-tempered wares and the Italian amphora spike suggest a possible date of late 1st century BC-early 1st century AD. The absence from the lower fill of any Gaulish imports, which appear in Britain from the late 1st century BC, or local Gallo-Belgic copies, may also support an early date. It can be noted that a rim sherd from a Dressel 1B amphora, from the mid fill JL5(27) (pot 61) and a second probable Dressel 1 sherd JL4(19), if not from later secondary use of these amphorae, could also indicate activity here in the late 1st century BC. However, the quantity of pottery from the lower fill is much less than from the mid & upper fills, where small numbers of Gaulish imports are present, with small quantities of Roman pottery. This suggests that Gaulish imports may not have been particularly common on this site in the Late Iron Age (in comparison with Sheepen which has large numbers of them). As such, their absence, along with that of local Gallo-Belgic copies, may not be particularly significant in terms of dating these layers. Overall, a broad dating of late 1st century BC to early-mid 1st century AD may be appropriate.
The pottery from the mid-fill of the ditch is mostly of Late Iron Age type, with only a very small quantity of definite post-conquest (Roman) pottery, although Roman pottery is present in the lowest part of this deposit. Overall, Grog-tempered wares account for 78% by count and 63% by weight of the total Late Iron Age and Roman pottery assemblage from the ditch. Combined with grog-tempered storage jars this rises to 82% by both count and weight. The presence of Gaulish imports makes the overall composition of the assemblage more similar to that from Sheepen than that from the lower fill and the Late Iron Age coarse wares and Gaulish imports can be broadly date to the period of the late 1st century BC-mid/late 1st century AD. The Roman sherds can be dated to the period of the mid-late 1st/early 2nd century. The very small quantity of definite Roman (post-conquest) pottery suggests that this might represent an intrusive element, especially in the lower fill. In this respect the recovery of two whole pots associated with a mid-late 3rd century coin hoard may be significant. These were recovered from Sx1 (JL5) but had been cut into this fill from an unknown level higher in the ditch.
Overall the pottery assemblage from the upper ditch fill is similar to that from the mid fill, ie of Late Iron Age and Early Roman date; although the latest closely-dated pottery from the upper fill is 2nd century, consisting of two sherds of Central Gaulish samian. The topmost (surface) fill of the ditch in both sections includes a small quantity of medieval and post-medieval pottery indicating that the ditch probably remained an open earthwork, feature into the medieval and post-medieval periods.
Overall, apart from a small quantity of medieval and later dated sherds from the topmost (surface) fill, the absence of Late Roman (3rd-4th century) pottery suggests that most of the ditch fill dates to the mid 1st-2nd century. Given the significant quantity of late Iron Age pottery from the mid-upper fill it appears possible this dates to after the abandonment of the Late Iron Age settlement here as there is little indication from the pottery that [the settlement] continued in any significant form into the Roman period (certainly not beyond the mid 1st century AD).'

The dyke-sized ditch (JF2) was 2.7m deep and 7-9m wide, aligned north-east-east/ south-south-west for over 60m from the direction of the River Colne to the east, before turning a c.125 degree corner at its western extent, and continuing south-south-west for over 25m towards the southern boundary of the former Hyderabad Barracks. There was no physical evidence for the dyke bank. Two sections hand excavated through the dyke revealed finds supportive of the conclusion that the ditch was probably a late Iron Age, rather than an early Roman, creation. The ditch then gradually silted up from the early Roman period up to and including the medieval period. An interesting finding is that some of the fill seems to have been dumped from an adjacent occupation site on the southern side of the dyke. This material may imply the abandonment, or deliberate removal, of this settlement, with clearance debris tipped into the adjacent ditch. Inserted into the Roman period central fills was a hoard of 1244 antoniniani, the latest being an antoninianus of Tetricus I, AD 271-274 (MCC10094).<1>

There was no physical evidence for the dyke bank. It is assumed that it must have been on the northern side of the ditch, from a defensive point of view; also, further south, the Berechurch Dyke (MCC2116, of which this is assumed to be a continuation) has a ditch on its equivalent (eastern) side.<2>

The quantity of Late Iron Age pottery recovered from the ditch suggests it is associated with a settlement of that period, and the presence of a spindle-whorl (SF243) from JL5 suggests a domestic context. The settlement appears to have been contemporary with the Late Iron Age phase at Sheepen, which is thought to begin c.AD 5.<3> However, 'The apparent absence of any significant remains of Late Iron Age date or of residual finds dated to that period from the excavated sites on this area to the north indicate the postulated settlement was probably located to the south of the ditch
[and outside the defences]. Overall, in contrast to Sheepen, the relatively small quantity of Roman pottery recovered indicates that there was no Early Roman (c.AD 43-60) phase for this settlement, nor any significant occupation later in the Roman period' (p.95).