Archaeological Research Delivery Group, Hadrian’s Wall Management Plan

Minutes of meeting: 7th October 2016,

Present: Richard Hingley, Rob Collins, Andrew , Jacqui Huntley, Rachel Newman, Sue Stallibrass, John Scott, Matthew Symonds

1. Apologies for absence David J. Breeze, Nick Hodgson, Tony Wilmott, Frances McIntosh

2. Matters arising

Hadrian’s Wall forum, newsletter, and networking meeting SS wondered if more notice of the HW forum date and programme could be given. She noted that if one of the research delivery mechanisms is an annual forum, then there needs to be close dialogue between the group and the forum. RC reported that David Mason was happy to continue running the forum. AB suggested that after the spring meeting the group could feed suggestions and offers of support through to David, and as soon as there was an event to market the group could help with that. MS said that the forum date could be promoted in Current . RC noted that C&W and SANT would also be obvious groups to disseminate this information to. RN reported that C&W were helping to subsidise publication of the Newsletter. It is also supported by AASDN. AB wondered if the Newsletter would be as effective if moved online and SS felt that the magazine would benefit from being more widely distributed. RH suggested that this would be worth raising at the Partnership Board, as it is also relevant to the Marketing Group. AB noted that there was strong demand for copies of the newsletter from people visiting Vindolanda. MS felt it was a shame that it could not be stocked in EH bookshops along the Wall too.

The mission statement RH expressed gratitude to Mike Collins for drafting a mission statement for the group. After dissemination via email a few changes were made and a new version circulated. Those present unanimously backed the new version of the statement.

3. Membership of the group

RH proposed that following the retirement of JH from HE, she should be invited to remain a member of the group as an independent specialist. This was warmly endorsed by the group.

RH also reported a proposal that Mark Douglas from the EH Trust should be invited to join the group. Given the number of properties managed by EH along the Wall it was agreed that it was important for the group to be kept abreast of activities and developments. The group agreed that RH should contact Mark Douglas and invite him to join.

JH questioned whether Pete Wilson, who has retired from HE and this group, should be replaced. SS felt that she and TW could represent HE.

JS wondered if Paul Frodsham, who is not a member of the group, would like to provide regular reports on Heritage at Risk when the project is up and running, following his earlier presentation on the subject. It was agreed that it would be appropriate for the group to invite individuals to attend a meeting when specific matters needed to be addressed.

RH suggested that David Mason might like to attend on a similar basis, given his role with the newsletter and annual conference, although it was felt that time pressures might preclude this. It was suggested that there could be corresponding members who would be copied into emails and attend if possible.

RH recommended inviting a community representative to join as well.

RH observed that it was not desirable for the group to grow too large, and that ideally numbers would be kept below 20.

Action: RH to invite Mark Douglas to join the group

4. The Research Framework

RH felt that there was not time to finalise this during the meeting. He opened discussion by observing that he would like more on two aspects in the updated framework. One is the local – that is the groups referred to as ‘indigenous’ in the original document – dynamic, and the other is the archaeological history and research tradition.

AB noted that certain areas needed updating, such as the emphasis on magnetometer surveys, which has largely been delivered. Our aspirations should reflect modern developments, and include more on LiDAR surveys and GPR. SS observed that although geophysical survey of the immediate vicinity of forts had mostly been achieved, the wider landscape with its attendant field systems has not received as much attention.

RN pointed out that while a lot of the requirements have been addressed in some way, many are ongoing and require further attention. For instance, there has been one transect across the Wall, but we need more.

It was felt that the definition of the Wall corridor should be revisited. RH suggested that the wider landscape ought to be included so that the Research Framework could look beyond the WHS. He also felt that it would be difficult to update the document without any dedicated resources. RN suggested that at least one open meeting was needed to discuss what should form the contents of any revised framework.

SS wondered why we were looking at this now – when there are no resources available – given that the NE, NW, and East of England are due to deliver updated frameworks in April 2018. Another RF on the built environment is underway, and there is a fifth project looking at a web platform for the NE and NW frameworks, incorporating a GIS and searchable database. RN pointed out that these frameworks were intended to be reviewed every 5 years, and we should assess what we have achieved to report back to partnership. In that regard it is a review, not a revision. RC felt that reviewing the current state of research would help the group to focus its role.

SS pointed out that such information could also be disseminated via the website. RN suggested a review of the current state of research, in a format comparable to the original HWRF meetings. RH noted that expanding the networking meeting by a day would provide an appropriate venue. JS reported that this year’s networking day was on 26th November at Hexham Mart. The following year – the anniversary of the inscription – would provide a good opportunity to assess what has happened. SS thought this would be a great time to give out the first research award. The group agreed that we should use and disseminate the knowledge that has come out of the recommendations in the HWRF.

RH felt we needed a new direction, and that we are seen as old fashioned by archaeologists, while archaeology is itself seen as old fashioned within universities. To change opinions we need to feedback what has been achieved through the HWRF, but also reach out beyond our own community. AB suggested a young archaeologists club for HW.

JS summed up by observing that we were talking about a Research Framework 1.1, rather than 2.0.

Action: Group members to undertake rapid assessment of where advances in knowledge have occurred since the last HWRF

5. Webspace for the Wall

JS talked the group through the website (www.hadrianswallcountry.co.uk), where there is an opportunity to share information among ourselves, and with the world. Traffic through the website is 35,000 a month. At present the group’s space is a flat page, so JS invited the group to consider what we want to put up there. AB stressed that putting the minutes online would show that we were an open and transparent organisation.

RC observed that it would be useful to include a simple listing of current research. This would be a list of projects and, if it is being undertaken by a student, the name of their supervisor. The PAS has done something similar. RH suggested that he and RC should put together a list of things that they know are underway and circulate it to the group. RN noted that this would also be a very convenient way to keep track of development control work. SS stressed that it would be particularly valuable to keep track of post-excavation work.

Contact details were discussed. AB suggested that individual projects would have their own contacted details. Once the minutes started being were posted, though, it was felt there needed to be a mechanism for people to contact the group. JS offered to let messages go through him. MS suggested that it should be specified that it would not always be possible to reply to enquiries.

RN suggested that a date should be given for when the minutes would go live. RC recommended that once approved at the following meeting, they should be posted.

JS stated that any of the group could upload material to the website, but that he was happy to post it for the group.

Action: MS to prepare the minutes to go online

6. Heritage at Risk

RC reported that on Wednesday he submitted an application with Paul Frodsham and Kerry Shaw to HLF to look at Heritage at Risk and also stone dispersal along the border. The project name is ‘Hadrian’s Wall Community Landscape Archaeology Project’. New posts attached to the project would help with capacity building.

SS wondered what the timescale for delivery for Paul’s HaR work was. JS said that he was asked to put together a report on HaR and that a draft had been delivered. MS said that he would recirculate the draft report to the group.

Action: MS to recirculate Paul Frodsham’s draft report to the group

7. Great Places Scheme

JS introduced this capacity building project.

8. Sustainability of research community

RH wanted to revisit this, as it is a concern shared by the Conservation Group as well. One proposal is to institute an annual award for research. RH invited comment on the phrasing used to describe eligibility for the award. Following discussion the following formula was adopted:

“An annual award in recognition of excellence of research on the Roman frontier (broadly defined) by an individual researcher, whether based in a contracting unit, or early career academic, or independent.”

The award would be CV building, it should come with an opportunity to present the findings, and ideally involve some form or presentation. Having such an award would help promote frontier archaeology.

SS noted the existence of several interlinked elements: the list of projects on the website, there is then an invite to submit a synopsis for the award, the synopses then goes up on the website. The winner could give a talk at the forum or networking event, and coverage of the project could be put in the Newsletter.

9. Update on events

MS reported on the CA HW conference at . Over 300 people attended, and the feedback was extremely positive.

RH described a successful workshop involving 60 people that was organised by Andrew Tibbs and directly preceded the CA HW event. He is also organising speakers for a series of lectures in honour of Eric Birley, which will run in Hatfield college through the autumn.

RH reported that the Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference will be taking place at Durham University in March.

SS asked about the progress of the public outreach suggestions that the group had been asked to put forwards for 2017. JS reported that the marketing group are taking that forwards. At present the concept is “30 for 30”, which will address 30 things everyone should do in the 30th anniversary year. Vindolanda and Housesteads have both offered themselves as venues. AB noted that has small grants that can be applied for to support events.

10. Any Other Business

RH wanted the group to be able to see the Vision Document created by the Partnership Board. JS confirmed that would be appropriate.

JS noted that the HW WHS was an anomaly in terms of local councils taking ownership of it, and as a consequence there was a disparity in funding, with HW only receiving modest support. SS stressed that the financial benefits that come from heritage are substantial and detailed in Heritage Counts, produced by HE. RH observed that this information comes through the Management Plan Committee.

SS reported that HE have an agreement with the AHRC for collaborative doctoral awards. The latest tranche has five topics advertised, of which three will be funded. One is coastal erosion of heritage sites, which includes Beckfoot. The deadline for applications is in November. RN reported that the 2006 Beckfoot evaluation should be published in C&W next year.

The date for the next meeting was agreed to be at 11am on Tuesday 24th January 2017. AB once again kindly offered Vindolanda as a venue, and the group gratefully accepted.