The Monuments Protection Programme (MPP) was established following a review of archaeological records held in SMRs which was published in 1984 immediately prior to the creation of English Heritage (England's Archaeological Resource). This review demonstrated that only 2% of the country's known archaeological sites (then estimated at 635,000) were scheduled, and only 4% of all known records. It also quantified some of the Schedule's thematic and regional gaps and some shortcomings in the way that the Schedule reflected the resource's full diversity in terms of form, condition and survival. The MPP, as one of the newly-formed English Heritage's earliest initiatives, was set up as a ten year programme in 1986 to redress these failings.
By 1986 the Schedule was over a hundred years old, and had grown piecemeal from the handful of sites listed in the original Schedule of the first 1882 Ancient Monuments Act to c12,500 Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs). The focus of scheduling had changed over the decades with archaeological fashion, and the selection criteria used had varied widely. As a result of this long evolution, the character and quality of the associated documentation was highly variable. Mapped depictions of scheduled areas were often poor or absent, often using obsolete maps of the 1920s or even the 1880s. A simple computerised database had been set up in the earlier 1980s, but purely for record purposes and the process of scheduling itself was not computerised.
The MPP was therefore faced not only with the task of enlarging the Schedule, but also with the equally challenging task of completely reviewing the existing Schedule, and of modernising its infrastructure, particularly in relation to building new database structures and systems, both within English Heritage and the SMRs. From the outset, it was likely that the original 10 year period allocated to the programme from 1986 would be inadequate to achieve these objectives fully.
An account of the first 10 years of the MPP was published in 1997 (The Monuments Protection Programme 1986-96 in retrospect). The first 5 years was occupied with developing new theories and procedures for the enterprise (Darvill, Saunders, and Startin 1987, in Antiquity), and building new computer-systems (the Record of Scheduled Monuments and the Computer Mapping System) (Clubb and Startin 1995 in BAR Int. 598). On this foundation, a re-classification of the archaeological resource was produced, with an emphasis on the surviving form, condition, and rarity of monument classes, and c250 separate class descriptions were written which are now mainly available on the World Wide Web [insert reference to web page]. These formed the basis in 1989-91 for county evaluation by SMRs and thereafter for the majority of scheduling of pre-1650 single monuments.
Since 1997 the MPP has built on this sound base, notably by its full scale scheduling programme starting in 1990. By the end of February 1999 the Schedule had increased from 12,500 to 17,933 entries (scheduled monuments), the latter figure including about 30,000 separately identifiable archaeological items, which is the most closely equivalent way of relating the Schedule to SMR 'sites', 'monuments' or records'.
The early 1990s also saw the establishment of a series of ambitious national evaluation programmes for sections of the archeological resource for which SMR-based knowledge was inadequate. These programmes were designed to draw together existing knowledge from disparate sources (specialist collections, expert knowledge, SMRs in some areas) so as to produce new conservation-related understanding for MPP action. This programme (aspects of which have been reported frequently in Archaeology Review and Conservation Bulletin) ranges from industrial archaeology to medieval settlements, and from lithic scatters through Iron Age/Roman rural settlement to 20th century defences. In some cases, these projects rework themes which MPP scheduling experience had demonstrated were not fully reflected even in the 1989-91 SMR evaluations. Detailed use of the results of MPP evaluation in turn allows the setting of new agendas and highlights the need for further research and thinking before the MPP can properly operate in these sectors.
In parallel to this monument-based work, the MPP has led the development of conservation theory underpinning both the programme itself, and the work of English Heritage's regional teams and local government archaeologists. This includes the relationships between scheduling and other measures, the need for a second test of viability for scheduling beyond that of national importance, and the place of site-based designation within emerging concepts of sustainability and landscape conservation (working with local authorities to build on our work in 1993-94 on historic landscape characterisation).
The current objectives of the MPP were developed from a strategic review carried out in 1995 and in 1996 as part of the Archaeology Division Business Review. They are in summary:
· to maintain progress with resource evaluation, aiming to complete the majority of this work by 2001/02;
· to maintain the pace of monument scheduling, aiming at completion of MPP scheduling in c2010 (a corrected version of the target set down by the Public Accounts Committee in 1993);
· to put greater effort into the dissemination of the results of the MPP.
Additional, or revised, Monument Class Descriptions (MCDs) have been completed for medieval dispersed settlement and medieval villages, midland medieval open fields, post-medieval formal gardens, and a suite of 6 MCDs covering military fortifications 1660-1914.
The industrial archaeology programme (Conservation Bulletin 27, pp8-9) has produced 24 Step 1 (characterisation, ie extended MCD) reports of which 16 have been taken further to Step 3 (site assessment) reports, 10 to Step 4 (management recommendations) and 5 to Step 6 (scheduling).
A new evaluation has been carried out of medieval settlement, using new MCDs in the context of the national and regional framework provided by MPP's Settlement Diversity project carried out by Durham University, due to be published early in 2001 (Conservation Bulletin 26, July 1995, pp17-19). Use of the Atlas results has in turn been an interactive process, defining areas where further developmental work (eg on dispersed settlement) is essential and currently being planned.
In urban areas, the MPP's needs are met by English Heritage's two urban assessment programmes, the intensive (UAD) and extensive (EUS) projects. The latter in particular, as they come to completion, are beginning to enable MPP to define sustainable, regeneration-sensitive, scheduling policies within the overall context of urban conservation (Conservation Bulletin 30, November 1995, pp18-19). The first EUS-supported schedulings, in Somerset and Gloucestershire, are moving through the system at the moment.
A comprehensive archive-based review, with CBA and in support of the Defence of Britain project, has been carried out (Conservation Bulletin 27, November 1995, pp12-13); this is a series of MCD-type characterisation documents ("Step 2 reports"), but (unusually) supported by documentary records of almost the total original population of many monument classes. Preliminary evaluation work with the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England HM has enabled us to identify priorities for survival.
A pilot project on the evaluation of lithic scatter sites was successfully carried out in 1995 (Conservation Bulletin 25, March 1995, pp9-11) and a proposal for a national programme is awaiting funding. This national project, as part of the MPP's broadest remit and like the English Rivers Palaeolithic Survey, would focus primarily on delivering a consistent national understanding on survival, condition, potential, and significance to SMRs for use in PPG16 and agri-environmental casework rather than on scheduling outcomes.
Iron Age/Roman rural settlement was poorly covered by the original set of 1989-91 MCDs, restricted as they were to the limited national understanding of the subject at that date. A fresh survival-related classification of settlement of this date is now approaching completion through an MPP/Durham University project (conservation Bulletin 34, July 1998, p13). The resultant database, with its associated concise MCDs, will enable MPP to take a more comprehensive and justifiable approach to this sector of archaeology.
Both Scheduling and the wider MPP are monument-based, site-specific approaches to archaeological resource management. A much broader view of the historic environment has been promulgated during the 1990s. This attempts to draw greater attention to the overall historic character of the whole landscape, to the wide range of 'non-site' and indeed semi-natural components within it, and to the pattern and grain of the historic environment at scales from local to regional (c PPG15, Sustaining the Historic Environment). In recent years the primary vehicle for this work has been the development of historic landscape characterisation projects at county-scale with local authorities, of which nine are at present completed or underway (see AR 1998).
Since 1989/90 when MPP scheduling began, the Schedule has increased from 12,500 to c18,000 [insert actual figure which should be available now] at the end of 1998/99 (counting Schedule entries - ie Scheduled Monuments). Of this increase c4,500 Scheduled Monuments are entirely new, and the majority of re-scheduled monuments have had their area revised. At the same time the MPP has now reviewed 42% of the old Schedule. As a result nearly 60% of the current Schedule is now based on rigorous MPP evaluation and modern documentation, with the added value of recent site inspection, meetings with owners and occupiers, and up-to-date descriptions and assessments of importance.
Progress on dissemination has proved more difficult because of contracting resources since 1997. However most of the MCDs have been placed on the Web, two A5 leaflets have been produced explaining the MPP and Scheduling for a public audience, and an A4 leaflet reviewing the programme between 1986-96, its philosophy, and its product, is aimed at the archaeological and conservation audience. For a different audience, a wide range of articles on MPP projects have been published in successive issues of Conservation Bulletin and Archaeology Review, and MPP local staff have published short articles on MPP work in local and county society newsletters. Academic papers have been published in a number of journals (eg Antiquity), conference papers have been delivered at major international conferences (including the European Association of Archaeologists, and the World Archaeology Congress) and a series of English Heritage seminars have been held at Burlington House, many of which have been published (notably Monuments of War from an Society of Antiquaries seminar, and a series of papers on historic landscape characterisation).
Looking ahead, drafts are well advanced for two major MPP publications in 1999 or 2000: the Atlas of Medieval Settlement (Roberts/Wrathmell) and a pathfinder volume ('Laying Out the Land', on linear boundaries) designed to establish a model for publishing groups of MCDs in the light of MPP fieldwork.
This review has indicated the scale, ambition and complexity of the MPP project, and the extent to which the original mid-80's estimate of resource-needs and timescale represented a significant under-calculation. It has sought to demonstrate the progress which MPP has made since 1986 through its various phases; how it has contributed to a greatly improved understanding of the archaeological resource, and of our knowledge of our records; and how by a thorough modernisation of the Schedule, it has also developed conservation and monument theory, and new broader landscape approaches. The recent report of the Monuments at Risk Survey has simply confirmed the need to persevere with the MPP in order to underpin English Heritage's management strategy for the historic environment and to complete the task of modernising the coverage and legal protection for nationally-important monuments.
