Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T02:00:20.313Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A question of national importance: approaches to the evaluation of ancient monuments for the Monuments Protection Programme in England

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Timothy Darvill
Affiliation:
Monuments Protection Programme, English Heritage, Room 237, Fortress House, 23 Savile Row, London W1X 2HE
Andrew Saunders
Affiliation:
Monuments Protection Programme, English Heritage, Room 237, Fortress House, 23 Savile Row, London W1X 2HE
Bill Startin
Affiliation:
Monuments Protection Programme, English Heritage, Room 237, Fortress House, 23 Savile Row, London W1X 2HE

Abstract

When General Pitt-Rivers was appointed as first Inspector under the 1882 Act, which first protected British Ancient Monuments, the Act's Schedule named just 50 sites nationally. Although many monuments have been added to the Schedule since then, the growth in knowledge of the long and intensive occupation of England has been such that the current total of nearly 13,000 scheduled monuments amounts to only 1 in 50 of the sites thought to exist.

In matters of monument protection, Britain lies somewhere in the middle: well short of the promised land, as we see it, of Denmark where effective protection goes out from the spot site to include its environs; but well ahead of, for example, the USA where respect for a landowner's formal rights of property is so strong that there is still no Federal protection for monuments in private ownership.

English Heritage feels that now is the time to put the Schedule of protected monuments, as it has grown over the years, into rational shape. The present Chief Inspector of Ancient Monuments, Andrew Saunders, and his colleagues explain why and how.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

DoE [Department of the Environment]. 1983. Criteria for the selection of Ancient Monuments [Press notice 523]. London: Department of the Environment.Google Scholar
Groube, L.M. 1978. Priorities and problems in Dorset archaeology, in Darvill, T.C. et al. (ed.), New approaches to our past: an archaeological forum 2952. Southampton: University of Southampton Archaeological Society.Google Scholar
Groube, L.M. & Bowden, M.. 1982. The archaeology of rural Dorset past, present and future. Dorchester: Dorset Natural History and Archaeology Society. Monograph 4.Google Scholar
IAM [Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments]. 1984. England’s archaeological resource; a rapid quantification of the national archaeological resource and a comparison with the schedule of ancient monuments. London: Department of the Environment.Google Scholar
Sptaawp. 1986. Salisbury Plain Training Area Archaeological Working party report 1984–1985. Bristol: PSA.Google Scholar
Startin, B. 1987. The Monuments protection Programme, British Archaeological News 2(3): 32.Google Scholar
Wainwright, G. 1984. The pressure of the past: presidential address, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 50: 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar