The MPP is a comprehensive review and evaluation of England's archaeological resource, designed to collect information which will enhance the conservation, management, and public appreciation of the archaeological heritage. One of its principal aims is to identify those monuments and sites whose national importance and conservation needs justify some form of statutory protection (generally scheduling). A great deal of information has been created and gathered during the course of this work, but it has only limited availability. Fuller publication of the methodology and results of the programme will be one of our main priorities in the future, as part of our statutory responsibility to encourage appreciation and enjoyment of the country's historic environment.
The programme originated in response to the urgent need to speed up the rate at which statutory protection was being extended to nationally important ancient monuments. This followed a rapid assessment of the country's archaeological records (England's Archaeological Resource, 1984), which showed that only 2% of archaeological sites (estimated at 635,000) were scheduled, and that this sample was unrepresentative. The programme was established in 1986 for ten years in the first instance. One of its principal aims was to identify monuments for scheduling on the grounds of national importance and conservation need. It was also intended to provide a comprehensive reassessment and a better understanding of the country's archaeological resource using a new classification system in order to improve conservation, management, and public appreciation. We were also to consider forms of management or designation other than scheduling, and the improved understanding which would arise from the process of evaluation was a goal in itself.
The MPP has four principal objectives:
- To review and evaluate the existing information held in county Sites and Monuments Records (SMRs) or collated by MPP national projects in order to identify sites of national importance
- To recommend to the Secretary of State which monuments of national importance should be protected by law, notably by scheduling
- To collate information on the condition of nationally important monuments to provide a guide to priorities and resource requirements for conservation
- To use the programme's national perspective to help frame an improved response to the problems of managing inadequately documented and understood areas of the archaeological record
The first task was to develop systematic methods for classifying and evaluating the archaeological resource. Two different approaches have been adopted: county evaluation using information from local authority SMRs, and national evaluation, using specially-commissioned and largely desk-based assessments of those parts of the resource for which existing information was inadequate. The work based on SMRs used only existing information which had already been built up by county council and other local authorities, often with EH help, and based initially on the Ordnance Survey archaeological survey. A range of manuals and guidance was prepared to help ensure consistency in the structured documentation and evaluation of archaeological sites. This systematic approach confirmed that only the better studied classes of monument could be evaluated from existing data, and for some types of site, notably medieval settlements, early prehistoric lithic scatters, crop-mark archaeology, industrial archaeology, and post-medieval archaeology (especially twentieth-century defences), the existing information and our current understanding were inadequate. This meant that no nationally comprehensive and consistent evaluation was possible without new data collation, and we have therefore commissioned a series of projects (sometimes in collaboration with other bodies such as the Council for British Archaeology (CBA) for defence works and the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England (RCHME) for sites identified from air photographs) which will provide additional frameworks for evaluation.
 |
| MPP Scheduling Office. |
 |
| Inspecting a Megalith. |
Using the 225 separate monument class descriptions which we have prepared to date, county archaeological officers in collaboration with our own staff have carried out detailed and consistent site by site assessments of national importance in each monument class. We have also devised and developed a number of separate special programmes of evaluation for those parts of the archaeological resource which are poorly recorded or little understood. The methodology was first developed on industrial archaeology where its use and value have clearly been demonstrated, and work is already completed or underway on industrial archaeology, medieval settlement, archaeological remains in towns, and twentieth-century defences. Pilot studies have also been carried out on early prehistoric sites represented by lithic scatters, and ecclesiastical sites and buildings, and work has been initiated for Roman rural settlement.
We recognised early in the history of the programme that the evaluation of archaeological remains at a landscape scale was a very different issue from the scheduling of large sites or extensive areas with dense concentrations of monuments, both of which can usually be evaluated in terms of monument classes. We have now constructed an academic foundation for the development within EH of a range of policies and practical initiatives relating to the protection and management of archaeologically important landscapes. This forms part of our broader work on historic landscape which itself is part of an integrated approach to landscape carried out in collaboration with the Countryside Commission. We have moved away from a selective site-specific designation towards a more inclusive approach to landscape evaluation to complement other conservation developments in countryside management, and to promote a common national framework for conservation decisions of all kinds within the larger context of planning and agricultural policies. We have developed a series of historic landscape pilot studies to help us develop a suite of techniques and methods which local authorities can use to characterise and assess the historic landscape as part of development plan work.
At the end of its first decade we can identify clearly the achievements of the MPP. We have produced a new, rigorous classification of the archaeological resource and have evaluated about half of that resource at a strategic level using existing data and an ongoing set of national evaluations is assessing the remainder. These are well-advanced and should be substantially complete by c2001. The methodology for this evaluation itself represents a major step forward, and in many areas, notably industrial archaeology, its results are revolutionising our view of the archaeological heritage. We have three broad priorities for the MPP in the next ten years:
 |
- To complete the programme of national evaluation in order to establish what is nationally important, even if it is not necessarily going to be scheduled. It is essential to complete the review of the resource as a basis for strategic responses to conservation and to ensure that PPG-16 continues to operate successfully and to help local authorities in carrying out their archaeological duties.
- To continue to schedule sites in pursuit of Government (National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee) recommendations and to maintain a high rate of progress.
- To extend the reach of the MPP by more extensive publication of its methods and results, including wider dissemination of the general information which underpins individual site-based advice.
Scheduling, however, is only one aspect of modern archaeological site management and conservation. It must fit within a pluralistic and increasingly sophisticated system which includes the planning process, listing, conservation area work, pro-active management, research-led conservation, environmental land management schemes, and new approaches to the landscape based on the concept of countryside character; the impact of new thinking on sustainability must also be taken into account. The development of theory by the MPP and the results of its evaluation and site-validation work play an important role to in underpinning the full range of conservation instruments available to archaeologists and planners. In particular, EH wishes to offer greater strategic advice in future for local authorities to promote understanding of the basis of our decision-taking, the overall results of evaluation, and the character and importance of archaeology. A publication programme to address professional and public audiences including planners and archaeologists, and owners and occupiers will be a priority for the next decade.