Archaeological Research Delivery Group, Hadrian’s Wall Management Plan
Minutes of meeting: 24th January 2017, Vindolanda
Present: Richard Hingley (RH), Rob Collins (RC), Andrew Birley (AB), Jacqui Huntley (JH), Rachel Newman (RN), Nick Hodgson (NH), Sue Stallibrass (SS), John Scott (JS), Frances McIntosh (FM), David Mason (DM), Matthew Symonds (MS)
1. Apologies for absence
David J. Breeze, Mark Douglas, Tony Wilmott
2. Matters arising
RH thanked AB for once again welcoming the group to Vindolanda, and both AB and MS for providing food and refreshments.
RH reported that there is a Partnership Group made up of funders such as councils and Natural England, and five delivery groups. The Partnership Group is looking for us to coordinate some of the events and publications that occur along Hadrian’s Wall, in particular the Forum, Newsletter, and the Networking meeting. He noted that the Networking meeting is much broader than the Forum, as it deals with multiple community elements and a whole range of issues that come out of the management plan. FM asked who would be organising and running the networking meeting going forward, and JS reported that WallTogether is interested in helping and has some capacity. He felt that a Community Partnership would be an ideal solution.
RH noted that the Archaeological Forum is more explicitly archaeological, although the networking meeting has also featured archaeological talks. RH welcomed DM, who has been instrumental to the Forum and Newsletter. Although the Network meeting and Forum do not clash, RH was concerned that if more archaeology was introduced to the Networking meeting, it could impact on the Forum. He noted that this year a two-day event geared to revising the HWRF was being considered, one day for specialists and one day for the public. This would probably take place in November. RH wanted communication with DM about the Networking meetings to remain strong.
DM reported that the next Forum is provisionally scheduled for Oct 21st in Hexham and explained that the date was selected to be early enough in the year that it did not clash with Arbeia in November, but at the same time was late enough to include projects underway over the summer.RN noted that the Forum was an outcome from the HWRF, and therefore the updating of the Agenda should be intimately associated with it. The group thanked David for the effort he had put into establishing and then sustaining the Forum over the years.
MS asked the group whether they were happy for the minutes from the last meeting to be posted online. The group was happy. JS requested that a final version clearly labelled as the one to go online should be sent to him.
Action: MS to send JS final version of minutes.
RN reported that the 2006 Beckfootevaluation will be published this year in the Transactions coming out in July.
RN noted that the previous minutes had stated that the group could see the Vision Document and asked whether that was still the case. JS confirmed it was. RH felt that members of the group would be interested, and welcomed comments.
Action: JS to send link to Vision Document
SS reported that the AHRC proposal for coastal erosion has not gone through, butIAPETUS has, and is advertising for students. Three sites are recommended for inclusion: Beckfoot, Birdoswald, and Corbridge. It will be based at Newcastle and Durham Universities, but not in the archaeology departments.
Action: SS to send around link
3. The Research Framework
SS asked what the purpose of the exercise was, and what the product would be. RH believed that resources were not available to take this forward as a more integrated and substantial project, and therefore updating the Research Framework was the responsibility of this group. RN observed that the website would be an obvious place to publish a review into what had been achieved, and where further progress was still needed. A meeting with the wider community could feed into that process. This was widely accepted.Apoint-by-point discussion of progress towards delivering the items in the 2009 HWRF action plan followed.
It was noted by NH, and agreed by the group, that the development of knowledge is cumulative, and in many of the areas outlined by the HWRF this is happening. RH felt that we should narrow the focus for the next version to try and find a way we can measure progress definitively. Equally, some of the areas where serious concerns exist can be traced back to sustainability (see below). The framework also needs to be widened out to include the post-Roman, antiquarian / archaeological history of the Wall. SS felt we should separate out research projects that could be tackled by an individual from those that would be large and expensive endeavours. JS wanted research and management issues to be separated.RN noted that we should distinguish between those cases where data have been collected and more is needed, and where data have been collected, but not synthesised.
The group agreed that we would try to pull this together in time for the Networking Meeting. It was agreed that it was important to try and engage with the research community and community groups as widely as possible. DM invited a statement about the Research Framework at the Forum.
Action: MS and RC to summarise discussion and circulate
4. Webspace for the Wall
JS reported that there is a holding space for the group. He requested confirmation that members of the group are happy to be identified on the page. JS also asked for the final version of the mission statement, which had been adopted by the group. ‘current excavations’ will be retitled ‘current research’, as the group’s shop window for putting material into the public realm. JS encouraged links to documents, webpages, publications, and blogs to be sent to him, with a brief description. AB noted it would be a great way to show how lively the research community is, while RN felt it would be invaluable to have a resource keeping track of new publications. AB suggested expanding the existing bibliography, RC reported that he and MS would be doing that for the next Pilgrimage handbook.RH felt it would be worth JS meeting with Chiara Bonacchi, who is collaborating with RH on the Iron Age and Roman Heritage project and is a blogging specialist.
Action: MS to send JS the final version of the mission statement, and to check with the group that they are happy to be identified on the website.
Group to send links to JS
JS to meet with Chiara Bonacchi
5. Heritage at Risk
RC reported that unfortunately the HLF application did not succeed, but he was still awaiting feedback as to why. He hopes that they will be invited to reapply. JS thanked RC and the team for putting it together. The group was dismayed that the application was unsuccessful. AB suggested one way forward would be to strip it down to its component parts. RC hoped to reapply in March.
6. Great Places Scheme
JS reported that this initiative – which was a partnership between the HLF and Arts Council – had also been rejected. There will be a meeting to follow up and the proposal will be broken down into smaller component parts.
JS also reported that a third bid went in to ‘kick the dust’,which was an education scheme by HLF. A small scale HLF bid had been worked on for a while by the education group. When ‘kick the dust’ became available, a group of Northumberland organisations came together as a consortium, and HW backed it, because HW does not currently have capacity to write bids. It was oversubscribed, so the bid will go in as a submission to HLF.
7. Sustainability
RH felt that this was particularly apt, following on from the disappointing results of the funding applications in the previous two items. RH outlined concerns that Roman frontier archaeology is marginalised in many UK universities. He added that the problem was the lack of jobs for archaeology students and that succession planning is a real crisis. Finds specialists and those involved on the curatorial side are also under pressure.
RChoped that an anthology of fiction relating to the Wall that he is working on could produce funding that could work as a stimulus for further research.
AB suggested that if we are failing to get traction on HW projects, perhaps the HW community should lead on projects embracing the entirety of Roman Britain.
SS reported that Langwood are doing a survey on those involved in the Historic Environment, trying to understand where the capacity is lacking. FM and JH noted that the questions were targeted towards specialists themselves. SS felt that the subject fitted directly into the HWRF, and that what is already a serious problem will get much worse over the next 5 years.
RH suggested that sustainability should be incorporated into the Networking Meeting, and undertook to push it at the Partnership Group. He felt, though, that updating the HWRF should be the priority for the next year.
RH invited suggestions about how to implement the awards initiative.
RC felt that we should launch as soon as possible, and that once there is a link on a website with the information this group can disseminate the information.
AB asked DM how he would feel about the winning candidate giving a talk at the Forum, DM confirmed that he would be supportive of this. AB recommended that 2 or 3 members of the group should take on responsibility as the panel on a rotating basis. It was felt that preparation was still needed in terms of criteria and marketing. SS suggested that it should be promoted at this year’s Networking meeting and Forum, to flag up that it will start next year. RC, MS, and FM volunteered to draft some criteria and report back.
Action: RC, MS, and FM to draft criteria
8. Update on events for 2017
JS reported on 30 for 30 events, and will circulate a list to the group. There is also a jpeg ‘badge’ that can be used at the bottom of emails, which he will also send out. JS also reported that following the closure of the community champions project he has taken on overseeing Wall watch, which is a Wall monitoring initiative set up by them. He is working with NGI to find a better way for people to report.
Action: JS to circulate list. Group to suggest additional events
9. AOB
RH paid tribute to how much work JS puts in, and how vital he is. RH stressed he was concerned that the post is properly supported going forwards and that without such support, this committee would not be viable. JS thanked the group.
RN noted that there will no longer be a specific National Trail officer and the post will be amalgamated with other duties. As insufficient resources ensuring the sustainability of the archaeological resource could place this group’s remit at risk, the situation was discussed. FM reported that the trail will get 1.5 days of time a week. RN stated that they had lost the Wall-wide capability to carry out maintenance and some areas are deteriorating badly. Without fulltime attention this can be expected to get worse. Both RN and FM felt the situation was now unsustainable. JS reported that Humphrey Welfare had written on behalf of the Partnership Group to the Minister for Heritage expressing concern that the Hadrian’s Wall National Trail is not like the other national trails because people are walking on live archaeology. The Minister for Heritage has acknowledged this. RN regretted the loss of knowledge and experience following the early retirement of the previous officer, and the lack of ongoing archaeological advice. The group were concerned that deterioration of the archaeological resource would have a clear impact on future research.It is also worrying that there is no designated recipient for the substantial trail archive.
Viewing the situation from a research perspective, the group wished to stress that there is a virtuous circle between good research and good management. At present, the group felt there were several areas for concern:
- The condition of the Trail
- The future of the Trail
- The impact on the archaeology
- The loss of knowledge and experience
- The lack of dedicated management time
- The lack of certainty concerning curating the archive
- The impact of staging ever larger events on the Wall against a backdrop of shrinking resources.
Action: RH to relay concerns to the Partnership Group
Next meeting
Provisionally scheduled for Monday 10th July 11am at Durham University