Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T01:41:31.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Identifying and protecting historic landscapes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Timothy Darvill ,
Christopher Gerrard  and
Bill Startin
Timothy Darvill
Affiliation:
Department of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University, Fern Barrow, Poole, Dorset BH12 5BB, England
Christopher Gerrard
Affiliation:
Department of History & Archaeology, King Alfred's College, Winchester SO22 4NR, England
Bill Startin
Affiliation:
Monuments Protection Programme, Room 225, English Heritage, Fortress House, 23 Savile Row, London W1X 2HE, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Six years ago, Darvill and colleagues reported (ANTIQUITY 61: 393–408) on the Monuments Protection Programme, a new English initiative to build, from a century of haphazard acts of site protection, a set of balanced judgements and priorities by which to recognize ancient places that are more precious, genuinely of a national importance. The Programme, they tell ANTIQUITY, has now completed the first-stage review of information in local sites and monuments records and is proceeding with the identification of nationally important monuments in every English county. This further paper reports on how the Monuments Protection Programme is addressing landscapes, as distinct from ‘spot sites’ with clear limits, where the matters of defining a ‘relict cultural landscape’ and judging relative value are harder.

Type
Papers
Information
Antiquity , Volume 67 , Issue 256 , September 1993 , pp. 563 - 574
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 1993

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

ASTON, M. 1985. Interpreting the landscape. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
BROWN, K., CROFT, R. & LILLIFORD, R. 1988. Conserving the historic landscape, in Aston, M. (ed.), Aspects of the medieval landscape of Somerset: 109–27. Taunton: Somerset County Council.Google Scholar
COLES, B. & COLES, J. 1986. Sweet Track to Glastonbury: the Somerset Levels in prehistory. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
COONES, P. 1985. One landscape or many? A geographical perspective, Landscape History 7: 5–12.Google Scholar
COONES, P. & PATTEN, J. 1986. The Penguin guide to the landscape of England and Wales. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
COUNTRYSIDE COMMISSION. 1987. Landscape assessment: a Countryside Commission approach. Cheltenham: Countryside Commission. CCD 18.Google Scholar
COUNTRYSIDE COMMISSION. 1990a. Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty: a policy statement 1990. Cheltenham: Countryside Commission. CCP 302.Google Scholar
COUNTRYSIDE COMMISSION. 1990b. Countryside and nature conservation issues in district local plans. Cheltenham: Countryside Commission. CCP 317.Google Scholar
DARVILL, T. 1987. Ancient monuments in the countryside: an archaeological management review. London: English Heritage. Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England Archaeological Report 5.Google Scholar
DARVILL, T. C. 1992. Monument evaluation manual Part III: Relict cultural landscapes. London: English Heritage.Google Scholar
DARVILL, T., GERRARD, C. & STARTIN, B. Forthcoming. Archaeology in the landscape: a review.Google Scholar
DARVILL, T., SAUNDERS, A. & STARTIN, B. 1987. A question of national importance: approaches to the evaluation of ancient monuments for the Monuments Protection Programme in England, Antiquity 61: 393–408.Google Scholar
ENGLISH HERITAGE. 1991. Exploring our past: strategies for the archaeology of England. London: English Heritage.Google Scholar
FLEMING, A. 1978. The prehistoric landscape of Dartmoor. Part 1: South Dartmoor, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 44: 97–124.Google Scholar
FLEMING, A. 1983. The prehistoric landscape of Dartmoor. Part 2: North and East Dartmoor, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 49: 195–242.Google Scholar
FOWLER, P.J. (ed). 1970. Archaeology and the landscape. London: John Baker.Google Scholar
HERBERT, N.M. 1976. Minchinhampton, in Herbert, N.M. (ed.), The Victoria history of the counties of England – Gloucester: 11: 184–206. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
HMG [Her Majesty’s Government]. 1990. This common inheritance: Britain’s environmental strategy. London: HMSO. Command Paper 1200.Google Scholar
HUGH-JONES, C. 1979. From the milk river. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
JONES, M.U. 1974. Excavations at Mucking, Essex: a second interim report, Antiquaries Journal 54: 183–99.Google Scholar
PEARCE, G., HEMS, L. & HENNESSY, B. 1990. The conservation areas of England. London: English Heritage.Google Scholar
PREHISTORIC SOCIETY. 1988. Saving our prehistoric heritage: landscapes under threat. London: Prehistoric Society. Google Scholar
RCHM(E). 1979. Stonehenge and its environs. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
RICHARDS, J. 1984. The development of the Neolithic landscape in the environs of Stonehenge, in Bradley, R. & Gardiner, J. (ed.), Neolithic studies: 177–88. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. British series 133.Google Scholar
RICHARDS, J. 1990. The Stonehenge environs project. London: Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England. English Heritage Archaeological Report 16.Google Scholar
TANN, J. 1967. Gloucestershire woollen mills. Newton Abbot: David & Charles.Google Scholar
WCC [Wiltshire County Council]. 1986. Wiltshire landscape local plan. Trowbridge: Wiltshire County Council.Google Scholar
WHEATLEY, P. 1971. The pivot of the four quarters. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar