National Heritage Protection Plan

NHPP 2D1.104 Project brief for: Owmby-by-Spital, Tender for assessment

Project No: 4908 (CAS Pr 552)

Date of Issue: December 2013

Project Summary English Heritage wishes to commission a project to revise and complete the Assessment of the Owmby-by-Spital archaeological project, work carried out by the Central Archaeology Service of English Heritage (now incorporated within the Intervention and Analysis team) between 1995 and 1999. This project focused on the threats to a Scheduled Ancient Monument, a Romano-British roadside settlement from ploughing and illicit metal-detecting, but in the course of the work much new information about the settlement was recovered. While most of the work is to be carried out by specialists engaged by the successful tenderer, some tasks are to be carried out by named English Heritage in-house specialists.

Further background material, including assessments, plan information, archive quantification and digital files will be provided to organisations asked to tender. Tenderers will also be able to visit Fort Cumberland to inspect the archive for themselves.

Where there are named contacts with e-mail addresses in the brief, they can be contacted directly by prospective tenderers. Queries on the archive can be directed to Claire Tsang ([email protected]), on finds to Nicola Hembrey ([email protected]) and on environmental archaeology in general to Gill Campbell ([email protected]). Any general queries can be directed to Brian Kerr ([email protected]).

It is anticipated that the successful tenderer will also carry out any further analysis and dissemination as justified by the assessment, but this will be conditional on the production of a satisfactory assessment and on the acceptance, following appraisal by English Heritage, of a satisfactory updated project design.

2. Background The research project was initiated by the-then Central Archaeology Service (CAS) of English Heritage (later the Centre for Archaeology, now part of Intervention and Analysis) and fieldwork was carried out between 1995 and 1999. The project director was Fachtna McAvoy, who no longer works for English Heritage. This background section and other parts of this document are taken from the assessment report compiled by Mr McAvoy, whose contribution to this project we gratefully acknowledge.

Finds work during and immediately after fieldwork was coordinated by Jan Summerfield; she no longer works for Intervention and Analysis team, but has indicated that she would be happy to answer any queries about finds collection strategies and processing ([email protected]). The completion of the finds assessments was coordinated by Nicola Hembrey of Intervention and Analysis team, and she would be happy to answer any queries relating to that work ([email protected]).

The work was primarily intended to examine the effects of arable farming and illegal metal detecting on the survival of the archaeological resource within and beneath the ploughsoil. In so doing the project also examined the potential of artefacts and materials in the ploughsoil and the usefulness and cost-effectiveness of differing techniques and methods and sampling strategies for identifying and determining the potential of the resource.

In undertaking this research the project gathered large amounts of new information on the archaeology and history of settlement and occupation at Owmby. In addition the large datasets gathered offered an opportunity to test and develop digital data collection, processing analysis and dissemination.

Data from this project were made available to the Nighthawking survey (http://www.helm.org.uk/upload/pdf/NIGHTHAWKS2.pdf?1347456802) and the English Heritage and DEFRA funded COSMIC project.

Following completion of fieldwork, site archive completion and assessment work was initiated. Some individual assessments were completed, and the draft collation is appended to this document, but there are gaps: there is no stratigraphic assessment, no overall statement of potential, and no revised aims and objectives. The project design for analysis was not drafted. Further assessment work was done on the pottery (by Ed McSloy) and on the CBM (by Wessex Archaeology). These documents are also appended. A distinction is made in the table below between those assessments that may need to be substantially revised, and those which will need to be reviewed in light of the revised aims and objectives of the project (3.1).

Table 1: status of Assessment reports

AssessmentAssessment to be Analysis (if carried out (C), required) to be revised (R) or carried out by reviewed (Rev) by Structure & stratigraphy N Contractor C Contractor Finds Lithics Y Contractor Rev Contractor Later prehistoric and Roman Y Ed McSloy pottery Ed McSloy Rev Post-Roman Pottery Y Contractor Rev N/A Ceramic Building Material Y Contractor Rev Contractor Small finds Y Contractor Rev Contractor Coinage Y Contractor Rev Contractor Glass Y Contractor Rev Contractor Stone (architect + objects) Y Contractor Rev Contractor Industrial and burnt material N Contractor C Contractor Clay Tobacco Pipe Y? Contractor C/R Contractor Conservation Y Contractor R Contractor Environmental Evidence

All periods Human bone Y Simon Mays R Simon Mays Animal bone Y Fay Worley R Fay Worley Molluscs Y? Contractor C/R Contractor Plant macrofossils Y Ruth Pelling R Ruth Pelling Pollen Y N/A N/A

Quite a lot of work was done on the digital data for this project, with a view to creating a project GIS. This is well-documented, and there are reviews of the project data and of the project GIS by Paul Cripps (2002) which can be made available.

3. Aims and Objectives

The main aims for this brief are to:

3.1 Rapidly re-assess the project data against current English Heritage priorities and current regional, thematic and period-specific research frameworks, with a clear focus on the project’s potential contribution to Iron Age and Romano-British settlement studies. As part of this, the aims and objectives will need to be revised and expanded to include questions relating to Iron Age and Romano-British settlements studies, derived from national, material-based and regional research frameworks.

3.2 Discuss the emerging assessment results with the Activity Leads for NHPP Activities 2D1 and 4G2 (see section 8, below) with the aim of reaching a decision on whether this archive does or does not have the potential to provide any further useful information that might address the needs of these activities.

3.3 Produce a summary statement of potential, and a costed Updated Project Design for analysis, dissemination and archive deposition.

3.4 Check and complete (where necessary) the site archive. It will eventually be deposited with the City and County Museum, Lincoln.

3.5 The following represent the aims and objectives of the original project, as set out in the draft assessment. Aims 2-5 have been at least partially achieved through the transfer of project data to the COSMIC pilot project and Nighthawking Survey.

Aim 1: To understand the archaeological resource and determine its continued historical significance:

• To establish the nature and extent of the resource; • To characterise the resource; • To establish the condition of the resource.

Aim 2: To identify and understand the threats:

• To determine the nature of the threats to the resource; • To determine the impact of the threats upon the resource; • To determine site specific factors that may result in vulnerability.

Aim 3: To identify the means of change:

• To implement solutions that may be immediately required for resource protection; • To determine the effectiveness of the current system for management and protection; • To develop and test methods to improve the system for management and protection; • To identify a range of solutions to the management problems.

Aim 4: To develop and assess the effectiveness of techniques and methods:

• To determine the effectiveness of non-destructive and non-intrusive methodologies, individually and collectively, in evaluating the significance of the resource;

• To determine the benefits of an integrated electronic system of data capture, management and interrogation, spatial mapping and presentation for the collection, assessment, analysis, archiving and dissemination of large datasets.

Aim 5: To use the baseline studies of the resource and the integrated information systems for predictive modelling of the effectiveness of the various sampling strategies.

4. Business Case The National Heritage Protection Plan (NHPP) sets out how English Heritage, with help from partners in the sector, will prioritise and deliver heritage protection for the four years 2011-2015. It will make best use of our resources so that 's vulnerable historic environment is safeguarded in the most cost-effective way at a time of massive social, environmental, economic and technological change.

The heart of delivery of the NHPP is the Action Plan. This is divided into 8 themes (called Measures). These are further sub-divided into a series of Topics and Activities comprising over 400 projects. The Activities address specific areas of work (e.g. places of worship, historic ports, strategic designation) that have been identified as priorities for the Plan.

This project falls within Activity 8A5: Offsetting loss through knowledge dividend. Where protection is simply not practically possible, we can offer funding of last resort to ensure that such loss is offset for the public benefit by increased understanding. English Heritage will, as far as we are able, continue to support investigation occasioned by unforeseen nationally significant archaeological discoveries made as part of responsible planning-conditioned development, and investigation of nationally significant monuments threatened by unavoidable loss unrelated to planning-based change.

This particular project falls within 8A5.2: Emergency investigation assistance for threatened heritage outside the planning process, which aims to offset imminent and unavoidable loss of exceptional sites of national significance through emergency investigation, interpretation and resultant knowledge dividend for management and public access. In this case, all fieldwork has been completed, and we are seeking to have the assessment of potential completed, to determine whether a programme of analysis is justified.

5. Methods and Scope 5.1 The methods statements will be prepared in line with the guidance available in MoRPHE (http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/morphe-project-managers- guide/) and Project Planning Note 3 for archaeological excavations (http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/morphe-project-planning-note-3/)

5.2 The project will comprise the revision and completion of the assessment, the completion of a summary statement of potential, and, if further work is justified by the assessment, the production of a costed Updated Project Design for appropriate analysis, dissemination and archive deposition. Some components of the assessment have been undertaken by English Heritage staff – see section 7, below. These individuals should responsible for any revision of their assessments, in liaison with members of the project team.

6. Products The contractor will be expected to produce: • An amended Project Design for Assessment within one month of offer, taking comments from English Heritage into consideration • An assessment report text containing an overall summary statement of potential with illustrations to be submitted to English Heritage for appraisal. • A stable, ordered and indexed archive to agreed standards (www.archaeologyuk.org/archives/Archives_Best_Practice.pdf). • If justified by the assessment, an Updated Project Design for analysis, dissemination and archive deposition.

7. Tasks The task list will be compiled by the tenderer in the usual way (cf MoRPHE guidance and MoRPHE PPN 3), but should include the following which involve named English Heritage staff. Where work is to be carried out by English Heritage staff, this will be at no cost to the project.

7.1 Liaison with English Heritage archaeological archives staff over the collection of the archive and associated data from Fort Cumberland. The key contacts are Duncan Brown ([email protected]) and Claire Tsang ([email protected]).

7.2 Whilst a conservation assessment was undertaken, this assessment and its recommendations need to be reappraised in light of the current condition of the material and NHPP research priorities (www.english- heritage.org.uk/publications/investigative-conservation/). Also, the conservation assessment does not appear to have integrated the finds specialist recommendations e.g. conservation work to enable illustration/photography. Tenderers should include costs for revising the conservation assessment, in liaison with members of the English Heritage Archaeological Conservation and Technology Team. English Heritage conservators are available to liaise and advise but the tenderer will need to appoint to the project team an appropriately qualified Archaeological Conservator to undertake the practical reappraisal work (see The Institute of Conservation (ICON) Conservation Register www.conservationregister.com). Their main contact for this project is Karla Graham ([email protected]).

7.2.1 It is unlikely that archaeological conservation could contribute any further to the NHPP aspect of agricultural impacts due to the time that has elapsed and the subsequent post-ex deterioration. There is some investigative conservation work (which needs to be re-appraised) but the majority of the work for conservation would be the completion of site archive (X-ray? see below), re-assessment of condition and preparation of the archive for deposition (remedial conservation to produce a stable archive).

Since this project will involve a reappraisal of the potential of the material and potentially significant changes to the scope of the conservation work, English Heritage Archaeological Conservation and Technology team would of course be available to take part in these discussions and for advice.

7.2.2 Archaeological Conservation and Technology have also drawn attention to the following issues that will need to be considered and addressed.

7.2.2.1 Coins The assessment notes that the coin condition assessment requires completion. If this is in relation to the effects of the burial environment then the contractor needs to re-assess the value of it, given the time that has elapsed.

7.2.2.2 Iron nails Only 10% of the nails were X-rayed as a pilot study (this 10% constituted 407 lab numbers & 719 objects). The decision to undertake a pilot study was made with the finds specialists, and based on the sheer number of nails, and to assess the method and the information return on the pilot work.

The 10% x-rayed nails were repacked into controlled microenvironments but the remaining 90% remained in their original cardboard boxes. The assessment needs to include proposals for this group of material and consider the following factors a) What their information value is in light of their current condition b) How they will contribute to the research aims c) What the repository is willing to accept. Are they willing to accept un X-rayed ferrous material and/or iron in a poor condition i.e. without any information value. Many repositories stipulate that all ferrous material must be X-rayed, as indeed our guidelines do www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/x-radiography- of-archaeological-metalwork/

Given these factors, it would be advisable to include a task to revisit the disposal policy for the site with reference to the repository guidelines.

7.2.2.3 Transfer of archive to contractor Assuming that the successful tenderer will undertake the work on their own or a sub-contractor’s premises, the tender needs to also include a task / costing for preparing the archive to be moved to mitigate against damage. This task should not be underestimated due to the current type of packaging and condition of the material.

7.3 Assessment of the Human Skeletal Remains was undertaken by Dr Simon Mays ([email protected]), and he would carry out the analysis. He has yet to assess the bone from the putative cremation pyre; this will take him two days.

7.4 The animal bones were assessed by Dr Jaco Weinstock, who no longer works for English Heritage. The re-assessment of this material will be carried out by Dr Fay Worley ([email protected])of English Heritage; it will take her four days to do this work, and it should take place after Dr Mays has assessed the putative pyre deposit (7.3, above) as that may produce more animal bone. Dr Worley would also undertake analysis of this material.

7.5 The plant remains were assessed by Dr Peter Murphy. We suggest that re- assessment be carried out by Dr Ruth Pelling ([email protected]) who would also carry out the analysis. It is estimated that it will take her four days to review and revise the assessment.

7.6 Geophysical survey was collected by the AML who hold digital data for the 1996/7 surveys. Dr Neil Linford ([email protected]) will assist with the provision of the geophysical data and results in the form of an English Heritage Research Report Series report. This will take him ten days.

7.7 In addition to the named English Heritage specialists, the revision and any subsequent analysis of the Iron Age and Romano-British pottery should be carried out by Ed McSloy of Cotswold Archaeology. He carried out the original assessment, and is familiar with the project and the ceramic assemblage. It is estimated that a revision of his assessment will cost c. £1,300. The contact at Cotswold Archaeology for his work is Mary Alexander ([email protected]).

8. Interfaces The most significant interface is with the COSMIC National Roll-out Project (2D1.101, RaSMIS 6144). Consultation with that project will determine whether the Owmby data have any further contribution to make to that project. The contact for this activity is Amanda Chadburn ([email protected]).

There is also a potential interface with 4G2.103, Finds from the Ploughzone (National Review), RaSMIS 6398. The contact for that activity is Magnus Alexander ([email protected]).

The contractor should discuss the emerging assessment results with these named individuals with the aim of reaching a decision on whether this archive does or does not have the potential to provide any further useful information that might address the needs of these activities.

9. Timetable Project Design Tenders and Form of Tender returns should be submitted by the end of January 2014; tenderers are likely to wish to visit Fort Cumberland to inspect the archive during January. It is expected that any changes to the winning tender Project Design will be completed by the end of February 2014 with the aim of getting the project signed up by the beginning of March.

The assessment should be completed by the end of September 2014.

10. Budget English Heritage has a budget of £10,000 - £15,000 excluding VAT for this project.

11. Form of tender submission – MoRPHE style project design The tender submission should refer to the National Heritage Protection Commissions Programme Guidance for Tendered Projects

The Project Design should also include:

• a document-control grid with contact details (see MoRPHE p42) • costs calculated according to the Guidance for Tendered Projects and set out per financial year • a task list which includes days per person, per task (see Guidance for Tendered Projects) • a risk log; • a Gantt chart and/or timetable.

The structure of a Project Design can be found on pp 44-47 of the MoRPHE project managers’ guide which can be downloaded at: http://www.english- heritage.org.uk/MoRPHE and the Guidance for Tendered Projects can be downloaded at: www.english-heritage.org.uk/nhpcp For any questions about the project please contact brian.kerr@english- heritage.org.uk.

12. Copyright The hard copy and digital documentation produced under this project will be the copyright of English Heritage. Copyright on all reports submitted will reside with English Heritage, although a third-party in-perpetuity licence will automatically be given for reproduction of the works by the originator, subject to agreement in writing from English Heritage.

13. Selection process The Form of Tender pack will be assessed at the opening of a formal tender board comprised of three or more appropriate English Heritage officers.

Project Design Tenders from Organisations accepted on the basis of contract examples provided in the Form of Tender will be scored in accordance with the English Heritage Procurement Regulations. English Heritage may consult externally as well as internally when appraising the tenders. Successful and unsuccessful tenders will be notified of the results of the tender board in writing usually within a week.

Tenders will be judged against the following criteria:

Appreciation of Brief/English Heritage requirements Methodology Relevant experience of project team Organisational capability/quality assurance

Due to the complexity of the project, refinements to the winning tender PD may be required after the award of the project. English Heritage, however, does not expect these refinements to involve an increase in cost. Contractors should take care to estimate budgets realistically in submitted project design tenders.

14. Management, monitoring and reporting arrangements The project will be administered through the National Heritage Protection Commissions Programme (NHPCP); for guidance see http://www.english- heritage.org.uk/professional/funding/grants/grants-available/nhpcp/.

English Heritage Project Assurance and routine monitoring of standards and progress will be undertaken by an NHPC Project Assurance Officer.

The Project Executive and project team member responsible for internal Project Assurance should be specified in the Project Design (please note these roles can be undertaken by one person, but Project Assurance should not be part of the Project Manager’s role; see MoRPHE pp.16-18).

The Commissioned Organisation’s Project Manager will be responsible for liaison with the English Heritage Project Assurance Officer, and expected to produce highlight reports (see MoRPHE Project Managers Guide p. 48) at appropriate points throughout the project. Submit an end-of-project report (see MoRPHE Project Managers Guide p. 49) and complete an OASIS form for the project.

For advice and support completing OASIS forms please email oasis@english- heritage.org.uk

15. Published Work

Cox, D and Graham, K 2001 Owmby Nails Pilot Study: Owmby, Owmby-by-Spital, Lincolnshire, CfA Report 26/2001 This report is available online at http://research.english-heritage.org.uk/report/?7214

Cox, D, and Graham, K, 2004 Can the process of investigative conservation elucidate information relating to preservation in situ:: Owmby-by-Spital (Lincolnshire), a case study, in Nixon, T (ed) Preserving archaeological remains in situ? Proceedings of the 2nd conference 12-14 September 2001. pp26-31 Museum of Archaeology Service: London

Linford, NT 2004 Magnetic ghosts:: mineral magnetic measurements on Roman and Anglo-Saxon graves, Archaeological Prospection 11 (3), pp 167-180

Summerfield, J, 1996 Archaeological Watching Brief at Owmby Cliff Farm, Owmby-by-Spital, Lincolnshire (SK9720 8702) Central Archaeology Service Report (available as a PDF)