Roman Maryport Brief Final 12 April 2013
SPECIFICATION FOR PROGRAMME OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL WORKS,
ASSOCIATED REPORTING AND PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
1.0
Site Location
1.1
The site is located immediately north of Maryport, Cumbria.
1.2
The site is centred on OS grid reference NY 040 374.
1.3
The site comprises a Roman fort and extensive extramural settlement.
2.0
The Contract
2.1
The Client for this work is the Hadrian’s Wall Trust, the Tender must acknowledge and
accept all the terms and conditions outlined in this Brief. Failure to do so will render the
tender non-compliant.
2.2
The Client proposes to commission a programme of research excavation, public
engagement and training, post-excavation assessment, analysis, finds deposition, archiving
and publication within the extramural settlement at Maryport (the term ‘vicus’ is not used as
this implies a specific legal status in Roman society which has not been confirmed at
Maryport yet). Explicitly the project should comprise the excavation of as much of a single
house plot from the frontage to the backlands over a two year period as can be managed
with the budget.
2.3
There is a maximum budget of £200,000 inc VAT for all works associated with this
programme, but this is not a fixed price contract, but rather an upper limit. It is expected
that all works will be completed to publication within a five year period, with financial
penalties for failure to meet contractual milestones (see Section 16). Given the nature of
archaeological works, only the initial stages of this process can be defined at this stage and
further phases will determined in an iterative manner in discussion with the Client and other
stakeholders within the overall budget envelope. It is anticipated that there be a 50/50%
split between excavation and post-excavation (including publishing and archiving). The
successful contractor will have to justify the specifics of any subsequent fieldwork and postexcavation and proposals at each stage of the project. It is expected that the Project Design
will identify both the key individuals involved and their daily rates to be used for the
duration of the contract.
2.4
It is expected that there will be a minimum of two eight week fieldwork seasons, over two
years and taking place in August and September, the first season starting in 2013. In
addition, there is an existing archaeological research programme at Maryport conducted by
Newcastle University on behalf of the Senhouse Museum. This is expected to continue for
the next three years, taking place in June and July. The current proposed excavation where
Roman Maryport Brief Final 12 April 2013
feasible must ensure integration and compatibility between the two sets of recording
systems, as well as their public engagement programme and ecofact and artefact specialists.
2.5
This Brief proposes a staged approach and a series of products and outcomes but
deliberately does not provide a detailed methodology or specification of where to dig as the
process is intended to be iterative and the project progressed on the nature of the
archaeological remains uncovered with additional guidance from key stakeholders.
2.6
The Client will take a project management approach to the project and its budget. The
Client will only initiate each phase of the project following approval of a detailed costed
proposal. Payments will be made according to an itemised task list following receipt of
timesheets.
2.7
This project is part of a wider programme which envisages the re-development of the farm
buildings south of the Roman fort and extramural settlement as a major new museum and
visitor attraction bringing to life the story of Roman Maryport and of the Hadrian’s Wall
World Heritage Site along the Cumbrian coast.
2.8
The Client owns the land containing the Roman fort and extramural settlement and the farm
buildings to the south. Senhouse Museum Trust (SMT) own and manage the Senhouse
Museum housed in the former battery buildings north of the Roman fort. The wider
programme for Roman Maryport is being taken forward as a partnership project between
the Hadrian’s Wall Trust and the Senhouse Museum Trust.
2.9
It should be noted that the Senhouse Museum Trust have generously offered to make the
facilities of the Senhouse Museum available to the project team.
3.0
Background
3.1
Maryport is of international importance for its collection of military religious dedications
and sculpture. These are unparalleled in Roman Britain, and form the main focus of the
Netherhall Collection, which is the oldest collection of Roman sculpture and artefacts in the
country, begun in 1570 by John Senhouse of Netherhall and added to over the centuries by
generations of the Senhouse family. Since 1990, the collection has been in the care of the
Senhouse Museum Trust, and is currently displayed in the Senhouse Roman Museum
located in the nineteenth-century battery adjacent to the Roman fort. In particular, the
discovery, within the civilian settlement, of an almost complete run of annual dedications to
Jupiter, made by one of the regiments stationed in the fort, make Maryport of outstanding
significance as the primary source, anywhere in the Roman Empire, of information on the
length of service of Roman officers. The altars and other sculpture also furnish
internationally significant information about religious life and ceremony on the north-west
frontier of the Roman Empire. The wide variety of sculpture, including dedications to gods
of the classical pantheon, ‘exotic’ eastern deities, and local Celtic gods, exemplifies the
Empire’s ethos of religious and cultural toleration and cross-cultural exchange, themes with
a powerful resonance in today’s multicultural society.
Roman Maryport Brief Final 12 April 2013
3.2
In Britain, Maryport is highly unusual, for a lowland site adjacent to a significant population
centre, in being almost entirely unencumbered by modern buildings. Though the site has
seen little modern excavation, a substantial body of published data are available from other
forms of investigation, including earthwork survey, geophysical survey and aerial
photographic survey, that have been published in recent years by the Senhouse Museum
Trust. Comparatively detailed nineteenth-century excavation reports, and many scholarly
papers published over the past 60 years, are also available. In particular, geophysical survey
has provided exceptional evidence about the character and extent of the extramural
settlement, which appears to be large, extremely complex, and exceptionally wellpreserved. The proposed project will ‘ground truth’ elements of the survey, as well as
seeking to establish the nature of the civilian occupation and its history within a defined
portion of it. This work will be of international significance, not only for the study of
Hadrian’s Wall and its associated coastal defences, but for Roman frontiers generally, and
the nature of the Roman world at its boundaries, as well as contributing to the ongoing
debate on the nature and extent of ‘Romanisation’ in the provinces.
3.3
Extramural settlements have been relatively little studied, either in Britain or elsewhere. It is
assumed they were home to a cosmopolitan mix of locals and incomers from across the
Empire, including retired soldiers, serving soldiers’ dependants, and individuals who made
a living from servicing the fort, from blacksmiths and food-vendors to innkeepers and
prostitutes. Like frontier towns throughout history, Maryport is likely to have been a
cultural ‘melting pot’, with more than its share of rogues and ‘characters’, and life would
doubtless have been made all the more interesting by the presence of several hundred
soldiers with money in their pockets. These men would originally have been recruited from
other parts of the Roman Empire - Spain, Germany, and the eastern Adriatic, in the case of
some of Maryport’s known garrisons - but the extent to which regiments recruited
subsequently from the local population is not clear.
4.0
Archaeological brief
4.1
This Brief sets out the scope of archaeological works from preparation of a Project Design
to publication of the results and all associated assessment, analysis, archiving and
deposition of finds. It should be stressed that the Brief is deliberately designed to encourage
the successful contractor to engage actively with the project and to propose their own
approaches within a budget envelope, albeit with specific defined outcomes and products.
4.2
The overarching aim of the project is to explore the nature of a discrete proportion of the
extensive extramural settlement, as indicated by the geophysical survey, over a two year
programme of archaeological fieldwork. The precise nature and preservation across the
extramural settlement has not been confirmed through excavation. In addition, the bulk of
the monument is a Scheduled Monument and any excavation will require Scheduled
Monument Consent.
Roman Maryport Brief Final 12 April 2013
4.3
The proposed Project Design must therefore be by its nature modular and iterative as
envisioned and outlined by MORPHE (English Heritage 2006). The first stage will be
consultation with the Client, The Roman Maryport Advisory Group (RMAG), The Roman
Maryport Archaeological Research Group (RMARG), The Senhouse Museum Trust (SMT),
English Heritage, Cumbria County Historic Environment Record and any other relevant
stakeholders in order to prepare a MORPHE compliant Project Design and associated
Scheduled Monument Consent application, which in turn will need to be revised following
feedback from English Heritage. Both Scheduled Monument Consent and the Client’s
agreement must be gained before any excavation commences.
4.4
The appointed archaeological contractor must provide detailed research aims in relation to
the Hadrian’s Wall Research Framework (Symonds & Mason 2009), the North West
Regional Research Framework for the Historic Environment (NWRRF – Brennand 2006,
2007) and the York Archaeological Trust draft Maryport Research framework (Whyman,
2008). The Client recently commissioned a research strategy for the whole of Roman
Maryport from Oxford Archaeology North and while not a key document for reference
purposes it does cover the background and provides some useful research aims. A digital
copy of this report is available from the Client.
4.5
The programme of work has the following aims:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
vi)
vii)
To develop a programme of works that integrate with the existing research;
To explore the nature of the archaeological remains within a discrete
proportion of the extramural settlement;
To determine the chronological span of phases of activity within one housing
plot within the selected proportion;
To record the variety of activities and structure types present in the plot;
To raise the public profile of the site;
To engage actively with the public;
To develop research questions for future excavations.
4.6
The Project Design should propose a programme of archaeological works aimed at
establishing which portion of extramural settlement will prove the most fruitful in terms of
its ability to address our research priorities and then excavating as much of a single house
plot from the frontage to the backland as can be achieved within the budget while ensuring
coherent excavation of complex deposits.
4.7
This exercise should comprise the following, although alternative strategies that meet the
overall aims of the project will be allowed following discussion with the Client:
i)
ii)
The preparation of a MORPHE compliant Project Design outlining the
overall programme of works, including an application for Scheduled
Monument Consent in the name of the successful contractor;
A detailed and enhanced geophysical and perhaps LiDAR survey of four
complete house plots in the immediate environs area between labels M19
and M23 on fig 5.9 in the Biggins and Taylor (2004) report;
Roman Maryport Brief Final 12 April 2013
iii)
iv)
v)
vi)
vii)
viii)
ix)
Information on the level of survival, and degree of impact, left by earlier
antiquarian excavation on the site;
The ground-truthing of each of these four plots, through the excavation of
four three m square test-pits to establish issues of depth of soil and
preservation;
On the basis of the above and following discussion with the Client, EH,
RMAG and RMARG the selection of an appropriate plot to meet the aims
of the project;
If required the revision of the Project Design;
The excavation of as much of a single house plot from frontage to backplot
over two seasons as can be managed within the budget;
Explicitly the excavation of the single plot should aim to maximise
coverage within it rather than focus on one area to the exclusion of others;
Appropriate post-excavation assessment, analysis, publication and
archiving.
4.8
At the end of the first season, an updated Project Design will be prepared outlining the
results of the first season, revised research questions and proposing the nature and extent of
the second season. In the event that the selected plot is not as rich as hoped, it may be that
revised proposals will be required for the excavation of a different plot, which may entail a
second Scheduled Monument Consent Application.
4.9
At the conclusion of the second season of fieldwork costed proposals will be prepared for
the analysis and publication of the results of the fieldwork as well as proposals for future
research. In addition, the site must be left in the state agreed and defined with both the
Client and the putative Scheduled Monument Consent.
5
Roman Maryport Advisory Group and Roman Maryport Archaeological Research
Group
5.1
The Client takes advice on archaeological matters from two specialist committees. The
primary source of advice for this project is the Roman Maryport Advisory Group (RMAG).
This small group has been brought together specifically to advise the Client on the tendering
process and subsequent delivery of the proposed programme of archaeological works on the
extramural settlement. The successful contractor will need to liaise with this group on a
regular basis in developing the Project Design and in delivering the programme of
archaeological works. Any critical decisions/modifications affecting progress of the works
will need the agreement of this group.
5.2
The Roman Maryport Archaeological Research Group (RMARG) is a larger and wider
group of archaeological specialists including representatives involved in the parallel
programme of archaeological works focused on understanding the altars. The remit of this
group is to advise on strategic archaeological issues concerned with the wider Roman
Maryport programme. . The successful contractor will need to consult with this group in
Roman Maryport Brief Final 12 April 2013
preparing the Project Design, to keep the group informed as to progress of the programme
of works and to seek the group’s advice on relevant matters as advised by the Client.
5.3
The Client will advise the successful contractor on the final constitution of both groups on
appointment.
6.0
Recording
6.1
The recording system of this project where feasible must be aligned and integrated with the
existing scheme used by Newcastle University and involve a GIS system. Failure to ensure
this will result in contractually defined financial penalties. If possible an attempt should be
made to aim for joint publication.
6.2
Any topsoil must be removed to the top of archaeological deposits or natural, whichever is
encountered first. Depending upon the nature of the material removed this could be
achieved through use of a mechanical excavator with a toothless grading bucket under
complete and continuous archaeological control, but this will be confirmed during the
Scheduled Monument Consent application process. Thereafter all excavation must proceed
by hand.
6.3
A suitable metal detecting survey of the open trenches and excavation areas – prior to
archaeological excavation – and all spoil must be undertaken. The appointed contractor
must contact the Cumbria Portable Antiquities Officer, currently Dot Boughton, to organise
the inclusion of an approved metal detectorist(s). The detectorist(s) must be named in the
submitted written scheme of investigation. The relationship between the contractor and
metal detectorist must be defined by a contract to ensure there is no mistake over the
ownership of the finds which will form part of the site archive. While some archaeological
contractors have their own detectors the involvement of a third party (ies) is considered an
essential element of engagement and outreach.
6.4
All archaeological deposits and features must be subjected to appropriate levels of
investigation in order to meet the needs of the exercise as outlined by the Project Design
and Scheduled Monument Consent and also be subject to revision by either the Client or the
RMAG, RMARG and English Heritage (EH) and Department Media, Culture and Sport
(DCMS). However, it is imperative to ensure that the budget is spent in pursuance of the
research aims of the project and neither too much or too little excavation is undertaken to
ensure an adequate and appropriate post-excavation budget.
6.5
Any human remains encountered must be accurately recorded, including in-situ
examination by a palaeo-pathologist, but not removed from site at this stage. The Coroner’s
Office, the Client, English Heritage and the Cumbria County Archaeology Officer must be
informed if human remains are found.
6.6
Horizontal survey control of the site must be by means of a coordinate grid, using metric
measurements. The location of the grid must be established relative to the National Grid.
Roman Maryport Brief Final 12 April 2013
Vertical survey control must be tied to the Ordnance Survey datum. Details of the method
employed must be recorded, including the height of the reference points.
6.7
Sections must be recorded by means of a measured drawing at an appropriate scale. The
height of a datum on the drawing must be calculated and recorded. The locations of sections
must be recorded on the site plans, relative to the site grid. Cut features must be recorded in
profile, planned at an appropriate scale and their location accurately identified on the
appropriate excavation area plan.
6.8
All drawn records must be clearly marked with a unique site number, and must be
individually identified. The scale and orientation of the plan must be recorded. All drawings
must be drawn on dimensionally stable media. All plans must be drawn relative to the site
grid and at least two grid references marked on each plan.
6.9
Each archaeological context must be recorded separately by means of a written description.
The stratigraphic relationships of each context must be recorded. Pro-forma record sheets
must be used throughout although options for on-site data collection will be considered by
the Client. An index must be kept of all record types.
6.10
A Harris Matrix showing the stratigraphic relationships in each trench/excavation area
must be produced and included in the site report which must be aligned to MORPHE.
6.11
All archaeological features must be photographed and recorded at an appropriate scale.
Sections must be drawn at 1:10, and plans at 1:20 or 1:50.
6.12
Photographic records must use archival quality black & white prints and colour slide and
include a suitably sized metric photographic scale. Digital images must be taken, but must
not be relied on as the primary means of record. However, the successful contractor should
ensure there are multiple images of the public (assuming all permissions are granted)
engaging with all aspects of the project.
6.13
Pottery and animal bone must be recorded and collected by context. Significant small finds
must be three dimensionally located prior to collection. All finds must be processed to
MAP2 and MORPHE standards and be subject to preliminary specialist assessment in order
to help date archaeological features and contexts. No artefacts must be discarded without
the permission of the Cumbria County Council Archaeology Service, DCMS and EH.
Provision must be made within the tender for appropriate levels of artefact and ecofact
conservation.
6.14
Palaeo-environmental sampling must be undertaken in accordance with the Centre for
Archaeology Guidelines Environmental Archaeology: a guide to the theory and practice of
methods from sampling and recording to post-excavation (English Heritage 2002). The
successful contractor must liaise with the English Heritage Regional Scientific Advisors
during the preparation and implementation of the Project Design and give them the
opportunity to visit the site.
Roman Maryport Brief Final 12 April 2013
6.15
Scientific dating techniques such as the use of high-resolution radiocarbon dating and
full analysis of ceramic assemblages (i.e. petrological analysis), including thermoluminescence dating must be applied if the site yields suitable material. X-ray
photography of metal objects must be used where appropriate. Allowances for the costs of
such work should be included in the budget for the project and will have to be covered in
the fixed fee.
7.0
Specialist Services and Reports
7.1
The Tender should identify all key members of the fieldwork and post-excavation team as
well as their daily rates. Failure to include such details will ensure that the Tender is noncompliant. In addition, where feasible the same artefactual and ecofactual specialists used
by Newcastle University in their excavation should be used in this project. Failing that an
appropriate level of discussion should be undertaken between the specialists.
7.2
It is proposed that 50% of the budget be allocated to all aspects of the post-excavation
process, including analysis, publication, conservation and archiving and bidders should note
that no additional funding will be made available. In the event that the fieldwork has less of
a post-excavation burden than anticipated then the Client, RMAG and RMARG will advise
on alternatives: for example further fieldwork or increased dissemination.
7.3
All artefacts and ecofacts must be assessed by suitably qualified and experienced specialists
and assessment reports from each specialist must be included in the assessment report.
These reports must identify the potential of each class to provide further information should
further excavation works be required or if not, then whether or not final analysis of the data
is warranted. A report listing a simple quantification of data will not be acceptable.
Contractors should ensure through the excavation that they do not excavate more than the
proposed post-excavation budget can handle. Failure to meet this condition will be deemed
a breach of contract.
7.4
Project designs which fail to indicate that contractors have discussed the environmental
potential of the site with the EH Science Advisors will not be approved.
7.5
On conclusion of the project the records generated must be assembled into an indexed and
cross-referenced archive in accordance with both MORPHE and the guidance of Appendix
6 of Management of Archaeological Projects (English Heritage, 1991) and the Standards
and Guidance of the Institute of Field Archaeologists (IFA, 1999). Archiving must meet the
relevant standards set out in Guidelines for the Preparation of Excavation Archives for
long-term storage (UKIC 1990) and Archaeological Archives: A guide to best practice in
creation, compilation, transfer and curation (AAF 2007). The archive must be deposited
with the Senhouse Museum in accordance with their deposition conditions.
8.0
OASIS and BRITANNIA
Roman Maryport Brief Final 12 April 2013
8.1
The Client supports the Online Access to Index of Archaeological Investigations (OASIS)
Project. The overall aim of the OASIS project is to provide an online index to the mass of
archaeological grey literature that has been produced as a result of the advent of large scale
developer funded fieldwork.
8.2
The archaeological contractor must therefore initiate and update the online OASIS form at
http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/project/oasis/ within 3 months of completion of the each season’s
fieldwork and complete the form within three months of the final publication. Contractors
are advised to ensure that adequate time and costings are built into their tenders to allow the
forms to be filled in. Failure to undertake this work will result in contractually binding
financial penalties.
8.3
Once a report has become a public document by submission to or incorporation into the
HER, Cumbria County Council Archaeology Section will validate the OASIS form thus
placing the information into the public domain on the OASIS website.
8.4
In addition, a précis of the findings of each season’s fieldwork must be submitted to
Britannia’s annual ‘Roman Britain’ round up. Finally, an article must be prepared for the
Hadrian’s Wall Magazine and a lecture for the Hadrian’s Wall Forum.
8.5
The archaeological consultant or contractor must indicate that they agree to this procedure
within the Project Design submitted to the Client.
9
Health and Safety Policy
9.1
Contractors are expected to abide by the 1974 Health and Safety Act. Appropriate provision
of first aid, telephone and safety clothing as described in the SCAUM manual on
archaeological health and safety must be followed. Each site must have a nominated safety
officer and given the presence of the public at least one trained first aider at all times.
9.2
As the site will be open to the public, the successful contractor must ensure that the site is
safe for visitors and volunteers. This may require adequate and secure safety fencing (e.g.
metal Heras Fencing) to be placed around deep excavated areas in order to inhibit access by
the public and to ensure adequate security for the excavation. Clear signage regarding deep
excavation trenches and areas must be displayed on the fences and site perimeter as
necessary. These items must be agreed with the Client prior to work commencing and
detailed in the Project Design. Failure to follow these procedures will result in contractually
defined financial penalties.
9.3
Contractors must identify the location of any services or overhead wires which may cross
the site and ensure that they are clearly marked before excavation commences so that they
can be avoided.
9.4
The undertaking of a risk assessment prior to the commencement of works is required. A
copy of the risk assessment must be circulated to the Client and any other sub-contractors
Roman Maryport Brief Final 12 April 2013
working on the site at the same time. Contractors must ensure that all staff working on the
site are fully briefed on all health and safety issues relating to the site prior to working there.
The risk assessment must be available for inspection at all times the site is open.
9.5
Extra care and attention must be taken in areas where excavation goes below 1.20m,
depending on the site specific conditions. It may be that shoring or stepping of the trench
may be required in such an instance, although it is not expected that this will be an issue on
this particular site.
10.0
Dissemination and Public Engagement
10.1
Dissemination and public engagement are absolutely integral elements of this project. In the
specific context of this project dissemination is considered a process rather than an outcome
and should begin before the fieldwork and continue through the lifecycle of the project.
This should ensure that there is sufficient notice for individuals and schools to plan their
participation and engagement and also should ensure that the project maximises its visitor
profile.
10.2
The successful contractor’s Project Design should include proposals to engage with four
different groups: local schools, the local community, volunteers and visitors. These should
cover lectures, regular site tours, training events, opens days, finds washing days and the
preparation of educational material for schools, etc. All such engagement should follow the
IfA guidelines for volunteers to staff ratios. It is explicitly required to liaise with the
Newcastle University team to ensure that the proposed public engagement programme
builds on the established one. It is proposed that a target of 15 members of the public take
part and are trained on site per day and that this number excludes site tours and school
visits.
10.3
It is envisaged that the successful contractor will work a shift pattern, ensuring that both the
working week and day are staggered to maximise public involvement. Explicitly this means
that the excavation will be open at weekends and until 7 o’clock in the evenings.
10.4
Assuming willingness amongst schools, pupil engagement should follow a three-fold
structure: an introductory talk in either the classroom or on site including a handling
session, then active involvement on the site and finally input into an exhibition or
presentation on the event.
10.5
Explicitly the possibility of training placements on the project for local volunteers should be
advertised at both local and national levels and a media strategy should be constructed for
publicising the training opportunities, the tourist attraction and the academic results. This
should include the use of Twitter and Facebook and a series of lectures before, during and
after the project. In addition, it might worth considering recording on site video and sound
to reflect the experiences of local volunteers. Explicitly, the aim of this element of the
project is to involve as many people as possible and the Client, RMAG and RMARG will
seek detailed proposals and discussions with the successful contractor to ensure its success.
Explicitly the ratio of staff to volunteers should be based on 1:7 for fieldwork.
Roman Maryport Brief Final 12 April 2013
10.6
All contact with the media – including news releases, radio and television interviews and
social media such as twitter amd facebook – must be approved by the Client, and will
include the Client as far as possible for quotes, interviews, mentions of
www.visithadrianswall.co.uk and @EmperorHadrian. The Client will prepare a detailed
protocol covering media and public relations in consultation with the excavation team.
11.0
Reporting
11.1
In addition to the Project Design, the proposed programme of works requires at least three
individual reports: a detailed summary of the results of the first season’s fieldwork
including a costed programme of works for season two’s fieldwork (Report 1), an
assessment report at the completion of season two’s fieldwork (Report 2) and at least one
academic publication (Report 3). Please note that the assessment proposals at the
completion of Season two’s fieldwork will have to be discussed and approved with the
Client, RMAG and RMARG in advance of commission.
11.2
The reports will be produced as PDFs, Report 1 within two months of completion of the
first season’s fieldwork, and Report 2 within six months of the completion of the second
season’s fieldwork, failure to meet these deadlines will result in financial penalties.
Following approval of the reports by the Client, RMAG and RMARG one hard copy and
one digital copy will be sent to Cumbria County SMR.
11.3
The season one fieldwork report must be compiled in the manner of Data Structure Report
and include the following, but no ecofact or artefact assessment:















executive summary
a site location plan to at least 1:10,000 scale with 10 figure central grid reference
Planning reference number
OASIS reference number
Site code
contractor’s details including date work carried out
research aims of the project
description of the site location and geology
a general excavation area plan to a suitable scale and tied into the national grid
a plan correctly showing the location and number of all sections in features
within each excavation area
specific discussion of the results by excavation area and context/feature (i.e.
context & feature descriptions)
lists of features, number and class of artefacts
general overall discussion of the results pulling together all data
Harris matrices for all excavation areas
plans and section drawings of features drawn at a suitable scale with height
recorded in metres AOD
Roman Maryport Brief Final 12 April 2013





11.4
additional plans/map extracts to display noted and recorded archaeological
features as appropriate
digital images to clarify information, not to be used in lieu of recorded
sections/plans
bibliography/references
a brief summary of the results for circulation to the CWAAS Newsletter and any
other relevant outlet eg Current Archaeology or Past Horizons, ‘Roman Britain’
section of Britannia
detailed costed proposals for Season two’s fieldwork
In addition to the above the report at the conclusion of Season 2 include the following for
both seasons of fieldwork:




specialist reports, including assessments of each artefact type as well as
environmental data
lists of features, number and class of artefacts, spot dating & scientific dating of
significant finds presented in tabular format
costed proposals for post-excavation analysis, finds disposal, archiving and
publication
proposals for future excavation works
11.5
Each report must be presented in an ordered state and contained within a protective
cover/sleeve or bound in some fashion (loose-leaf presentation is unacceptable). The report
will contain a title page listing site/development name, district and County together with a
general NGR, the name of the archaeological contractor and the client. The report will be
page numbered and supplemented with sections and paragraph numbering for ease of
reference. Photographs of trenches and sections may be included, but must not be used as
the sole graphic representation.
11.6
The assessment report will detail the scope and extent of the proposed analysis. Such
analysis should be in keeping with MORPHE and the advice of English Heritage’s Regional
Scientific Advisors.
11.7
The precise nature and scope of the academic publication (Report 3) is unclear at this
moment, however, it will have to be published within three years of the completion of the
fieldwork and signed off by English Heritage the Client, RMAG and RMARG, and any
other relevant stakeholder. The Client will identify an appropriate financial sum to be
withheld as a retainer pending academic publication.
12
Timescale
12.1
It is expected that the programme of excavation will begin in August 2013. This timescale
imposes tight deadlines to prepare a MORPHE compliant Project Design and associated
Scheduled Monument Consent application alongside all associated consultations. The
Roman Maryport Brief Final 12 April 2013
successful contractor will need to ensure they are in a position to begin this process
immediately on appointment.
13
The Tender
13.1 Tenders for the work must include a detailed costed Project Design for the Client. Given the
nature of the archaeological remains to be examined, the successful contractor must
demonstrate both organisational and individual expertise in the excavation, analysis and
publication of Roman extramural remains, with a preference for experience from the NorthWest of England. The successful contractor must also demonstrate a track record in training
and involving volunteers and in public engagement, and their understanding of research
excavation, of the relevant research frameworks for Roman Maryport and of the contractor’s
ability to develop an excavation strategy that responds to them. In order to demonstrate this
experience the Tender must include detailed CVs for all senior members of the team and a
capability statement for the organisation itself. Explicitly, the CVs of the leaders of the
project must demonstrate experience with Roman extramural settlements and the capability
statement of the bidding organisations must demonstrate a track record of dealing with
substantial fieldwork and post-excavation projects. In addition, the Tender must also include
the following:
13.2 Detailed method statement for delivering the MORPHE compliant research design and
Scheduled Monument Consent Application and associated consultations within the desired
timescale.
13.3 Details concerning proposed methods of recording.
13.4 Statement agreeing to meet the requirements of this Brief.
13.5 A breakdown by grade and number the staff proposed for the project, please note that actual
evidence of staff attendance on site will be required in advance of payment. The tender must
include a breakdown of costs attributable to:






travelling and subsistence
fieldwork
finds assessment
report production
administration
other
13.6 It is envisaged that the provisional budget be split between excavation and post-excavation in
a ratio of 50:50. If finds are less or more abundant than envisaged or require less or more
conservation or specialist input, the budget will be revised to reflect this and the nature and/or
extent of excavation itself extended or reduced accordingly in discussion with and approval
of DCMS/EH, the Client, RMAG and RMARG.
Roman Maryport Brief Final 12 April 2013
13.7 Selection of the successful contractor will be based on the tender submission and on
interview. Shortlisting criteria will include the overall quality of the proposal, understanding
of the brief, the experience of the team, compliance with the requirements of the brief,
approach to undertaking the brief, demonstrable ability to meet the deadlines and value for
money.
13.8 Tenders must be supplied in digital format as PDFs capable of being circulated via standard
email, and in paper copy with a statement agreeing to meet the requirements of this Brief
signed and certified by an authorised person. Any supporting information in large file format
containing images etc should be supplied as separate documents. Note that failure to comply
with these requirements will render the tender non-compliant.
13.9 Expressions of interest must be received by 4.00pm on Friday 26th April 2013 via email
addressed to john.scott@hadrianswallheritage.co.uk.
13.10 Tenders must be returned by 9.00am on Tuesday 7th May. Shortlisted contractors will be
invited for interview on Thursday 23rd May in Hexham. Tenders should be clearly marked
‘Roman Maryport Excavations – Tender’. Digital versions should be emailed to:
john.scott@hadrianswallheritage.co.uk; hard copies should be addressed to: John Scott,
Management Plan Co-ordinator, the Hadrian’s Wall Trust, East Peterel Field, Dipton Mill
Road, Hexham, NE46 2JT.
13.11 Subject to other commitments, Nigel Mills, Director of World Heritage and Access at the
Hadrian’s Wall Trust will be available to answer questions in connection with the Brief 15th –
24th April and 30th April to 3rd May. His contact details are: t. 01434 609700; e.
nigel.mills@hadrianswallheritage.co.uk
14.0
Submission of Report
14.1
This excavation is explicitly a project in its own right, but, it must make reference to the
work undertaken by Newcastle University and aspire if possible to a joint publication. As
stated above the reports must be submitted within six months of the completion of
fieldwork. The final publication must be in print or have been accepted for publication
within three years of the completion of the fieldwork. Failure to meet these deadlines will
result in contractually defined financial penalties.
14.2
All reports will be submitted as PDFs, following their approval by DCMS/EH, the Client,
RMAG and RMARG, one hard copy and one digital copy of each report must be submitted
to the Cumbria County Council HER.
15.0
The Archive and Finds Assesmblage
15.1
All finds and samples from the project together with the site archive comprising the original
paper records and plans, photographs, negatives etc, must be deposited with Senhouse
Museum within one month of either the publication or the acceptance for publication of the
Roman Maryport Brief Final 12 April 2013
academic report. This must be in accordance with Cumbria County Archaeological Archive
policy, a guidance note on which can be obtained from the Cumbria County Archaeology
Service. Failure to follow these procedures or to meet the timetable will incur financial
penalties.
16.0
Notice
16.1
Both English Heritage and the Cumbria County Archaeologist must be given four weeks
notice in writing of the commencement of excavations. During the excavations English
Heritage, the Cumbria County Archaeologist or his nominated representative and the Client
or his nominated representative shall be allowed access to the site and excavations and to all
records pertaining to the excavations, to the public engagement programme and all activity
covered by this Brief at all reasonable times. It should be explicitly noted that SMT will not
be involved in the monitoring of the archaeological project.
16.1
The financial penalty for failure to meet the proposed project milestones will be £250 ex vat
per week. If the specific proposals of the Brief are not followed, a penalty of £250 ex vat per
week will be levied until the problem is resolved and the outlined procedure followed or
targets met. Repeated failure to meet milestones or comply with specific proposals will be
deemed in breach of contract.
17.0
References
Archaeological Archives Forum
2007
Archaeological Archives: A guide to
best practice in creation, compilation,
transfer and curation.
Biggins, A & Taylor, D
2004
“The Roman fort and vicus at
Maryport: geophysical survey, 20002004” in: Wilson & Caruana 2004,
102-33
Brennand, M (ed).
2006
The archaeology of north-west
England: an archaeological research
framework for the north-west region.
Volume 1 : resource assessment,
Archaeol North-West, 8, Manchester
Brennand, M (ed).
2007
The archaeology of north-west
England: an archaeological research
framework ofr the north west region,
Volume 2: research agenda and
Roman Maryport Brief Final 12 April 2013
strategy Archaeol North-West, 9,
Manchester
English Heritage
1991
Management of Archaeological
Projects 2
2002
Guidelines for Environmental
Archaeology: a guide to the theory and
practice of methods from sampling and
recording to post-excavation
2006
Management of research projects in
the historic environment (MoRPHE)
Institute of Field Archaeologists
1999
Standard and Guidance:
Archaeological Excavation
Oxford Archaeology North
2010
Roman Maryport: Civilians and
Soldiers on the North-West Frontier
Symonds, M and Mason, D (eds)
2009
Frontiers of Knowledge: A research
framework for Hadrian's Wall, Part of
the Frontiers of the Roman Empire
World Heritage Site
UKIC
1990
Guidelines for the Preparation of
Excavation Archives for long-term
storage
Whyman, M
2008
Roman Maryport: a research
framework, York Archaeological Trust,
unpubl rep (draft
Wilson, R J A (ed)
1997
Maryport and its setting: essays in
memory of Michael G Jarrett,
Cumberland and Westmorland
Antiquarian and Archaeological
Society, Extra Series, 28, Kendal
Wilson, R & Caruana, I (eds)
2004
Romans on the Solway: Essays in
honour of Richard Bellhouse,
(C.W.A.A.S. Extra Series XXXI)