Hadrian's Wall World Heritage Site

Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site English Heritage A Case Study The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site

English Heritage

A Case Study

Written by Randall Mason, Margaret G. H. MacLean,

and Marta de la Torre

The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles Project coordinator: Marta de la Torre Report editor: Marta de la Torre Design/Production coordinator: Joe Molloy Copy editor: Dianne Woo

The Getty Conservation Institute  Getty Center Drive, Suite  Los Angeles, CA - Telephone  - Fax  - Email [email protected] www.getty.edu/conservation

The Getty Conservation Institute works internationally to advance conservation and to enhance and encourage the preservation and understanding of the visual arts in all of their dimensions—objects, collections, architecture, and sites. The Institute serves the conservation community through scientific research; education and training; field projects; and the dissemination of the results of both its work and the work of others in the field. In all its endeavors, the Institute is committed to addressing unanswered questions and to promoting the highest possible standards of conservation practice.

The Institute is a program of the J. Paul Getty Trust, an international cultural and philanthropic institution devoted to the visual arts and the humanities that includes an art museum as well as programs for education, scholarship, and conservation. Contents

Introduction Site Management—Traditional and  Values-Based The Case Study Project  About This Case Study 

Management Context and History of Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site Physical and Geographic Description  History of Hadrian’s Wall  The Management Context 

Understanding and Protecting the Values of the Site Values Associated with Hadrian’s Wall  How Management Policies and Strategies  Take Values into Consideration Impact of Management Policies and Decisions  on the Site’s Values and Their Preservation

Conclusions 

Appendix: Time Line for Hadrian’s Wall  during Heritage Status

References 

Acknowledgments 

Steering Committee of the Case Study Project  Persons Contacted during the  Development of the Case

Introduction

Over the past five years, the GCI has undertaken research for decisions. The approaches most often favored are on the values of heritage. Following work on the nature those called values-based. of values, on the relationship between economic and cul- Values-based site management is the coordinated and struc- 1 tural values, and on methods of assessing values, the cur- tured operation of a heritage site with the primary purpose rent effort aims to illustrate how values are identified and of protecting the significance of the place as defined by des- assessed, how they play into management policies and ignation criteria, government authorities or other owners, objectives, and what impact management decisions have experts of various stripes, and other citizens with legitimate on the values. This analysis of Hadrian’s Wall World Her- interests in the place. itage Site is one of four studies of heritage sites undertaken by this project. Values-based approaches start by analyzing the values and significance attributed to cultural resources. Site Management—Traditional They then consider how those values can be protected and Values-Based most effectively. This systematic analysis of values distin- guishes these management approaches from more tradi- Heritage site management can be defined simply as “the tional ones, which are more likely to focus on resolving way that those responsible [for the site] choose to use it, specific problems or issues without formal consideration 2 exploit it, or conserve it.” Authorities, however, seldom of the impact of solutions on the totality of the site or its make these choices solely on their own. As the interest in values. While there are variations in the terminology and heritage and heritage sites has grown, people have come specifics of the processes followed, values-based manage- to anticipate benefits from these resources, and authori- ment is characterized by its ability to accommodate many ties must take into consideration these expectations. heritage types, to address the range of threats to which Many cultural sites are appreciated for their cultural and heritage may be exposed, to serve the diversity of interest educational benefits; some are seen primarily as places of groups with a stake in its protection, and to suggest a recreation; and others are expected to act as economic longer-term view of management. engines for communities, regions, or nations. Sometimes There are many sources of information that the expectations of different groups can be incompatible can be tapped to establish the values of a site. Historical and can result in serious conflicts. records and previous research findings have been the most Although heritage practitioners generally agree used in the past, and they are generally consulted first. that the principal goals of cultural management are the Values-based management places great importance on the conservation of cultural resources and/or their presen- consultation of stakeholders—individuals or groups who tation to the public, in reality, cultural sites almost always have an interest in a site and who can provide valuable have multiple management objectives. The result is that information about the contemporary values attributed to often the various activities that take place at these sites— the place. Traditional stakeholders of cultural sites have such as conservation interventions, visitor management, been professionals in various disciplines—such as history, infrastructure development, and interpretation—are archaeology, architecture, ecology, biology, and so on— handled separately, without a unifying process that whose input is expressed through their research or expert focuses all decisions on the common goals. opinions. More recently other groups who value heritage In recent years, the field of heritage preservation sites for different reasons have been recognized as stake- has started to develop more integrated approaches to site holders too. These new stakeholders can be communities management and planning that provide clearer guidance living close to a site, groups with traditional ties or with interests in particular aspects of the site. Stakeholders

 with wide-ranging and sometimes conflicting interests in VALUE AND SIGNIFICANCE a place may perceive its values quite differently. However, Value and significance are terms frequently used in site most of the values articulated in a values-elicitation or management with various definitions. This holds true for consultation process are legitimate, and thus merit serious the organizations involved in this case study project; each consideration and protection as the site is used. of them uses these terms slightly differently, and they are In its strictest definition, values-based manage- often guided by wording included in legal or regulatory ment does not assume a priori the primacy of traditional documents.4 values—historic, aesthetic, or scientific—over others that In this study, value is used to mean the characteris- have gained recognition more recently, such as social ones. tics attributed to heritage objects and places by legislation, However, in the case of sites of national or regional governing authorities, and/or other stakeholders. These significance, the principal values recognized are almost characteristics are what make a site significant, and they always defined by the authorities at the time of designa- are often the reason why stakeholders and authorities are tion. In those instances, the values behind that significance interested in a specific cultural site or object. In general, ordinarily have primacy over all others that exist or might these groups (or stakeholders) expect benefits from the eventually be identified. In all sites (national and others) value they attribute to the resource. some of the ascribed values will be deemed more impor- Significance is used to mean the overall important than others as the significance of a place is clarified. tance of a site, determined through an analysis of the Once the values of a site have been identified and totality of the values attributed to it. Significance also its significance established, a critical step to assure their reflects the degree of importance a place has with respect conservation—and one of the most challenging aspects to one or several of its values or attributes, and in relation of this approach—is determining where the values reside. to other comparable sites. In its most literal sense, this step can mean mapping the values on the features of the site and answering questions The Case Study Project about which features capture the essence of a given value. Since  the Getty Conservation Institute has been What about them must be guarded in order to retain that involved with values-based site management planning value? If a view is seen to be important to the value of the through research efforts, professional training courses, place, what are its essential elements? What amount of symposia, and field projects. As an extension of this change is possible before the value is compromised? A commitment, and associated with a related research and clear understanding of where the values reside allows site publication effort on values and heritage conservation, managers to protect that which makes a site significant. the Institute has led an effort to produce a series of case Values-based heritage management has been studies that demonstrate how values-driven site manage- most thoroughly formalized in Australia, where the Burra ment has been interpreted, employed, and evaluated Charter guides practitioners.3 Faced with the technical by four key organizations. In this project, the GCI has and philosophical challenges posed by aboriginal places, collaborated with the Australian Heritage Commission, nonarchitectural sites, and vernacular heritage, Australian English Heritage, Parks Canada, and the U.S. National heritage professionals found that the existing guidance in Park Service. the field (such as the deeply western European Venice All four national agencies employ approaches to Charter) failed to provide adequate language and sensiti- the management of their own properties that reflect their vities. Building on the basic ethics and principles of the own histories and legal environments. However, they all Venice Charter, they devised guidelines for heritage man- have expanded their approaches to define, accommodate, agement that became the Burra Charter, a site-specific and protect a broader range of values than a stock set tra- approach that calls for an examination of the values ditionally associated with heritage places. ascribed to the place by all its stakeholders and calls for The case studies in this series focus on values the precise articulation of what constitutes the site’s par- and their protection by examining the place of values ticular significance. While it is officially endorsed only in management. By looking at individual sites and the in Australia, the Burra Charter is an adaptable model for management context in which they exist, they provide a site management in other parts of the world because the detailed example that describes and analyzes the processes planning process it advocates requires the integration of that connect theoretical management guidelines with local cultural values.

 management planning and its practical application. The ciated archaeological features such as forts, milecastles, analysis of the management of values in each site has and vallum ditches, and the “setting,” a “visual envelope” been structured around the following questions: and buffer zone extending from  to  kilometers from the •How are the values associated with the site Wall itself. A number of agencies, government bodies, and understood and articulated? private landowners are involved in the management of •How are these values taken into account in the the site under the coordination of English Heritage. This site’s management principles, policies, and strategies? study focuses on the values-based management of these •How do management decisions and actions on resources since the site’s World Heritage listing in . site affect the values? Throughout this case study, references to “the The four sites studied as part of this project— site” indicate the entire World Heritage Site—the Wall, Grosse Île and the Irish Memorial National Historic Site its associated remains, and its immediate surroundings. in Canada, Port Arthur Historic Site in Australia, Chaco According to planning documents, the site and the Culture National Historical Park in the United States, and setting are understood as distinct geographic entities Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site in the United King- in this report.5 dom—were identified by their national organizations. However, most of the general references to the Each of the sites examined in this study was put forth as site refer also to the setting. If some uncertainty remains an example of how values issues have been addressed by in these definitions, their use in this case study closely mir- their respective stewards. The studies do not attempt to rors that in the  Hadrian’s World Heritage Site Man- measure the success of a given management model agement Plan. In the plan, the setting is considered part of against some arbitrary standard, nor should they be con- the site and is described as distinct from it. When referring strued as explaining how an agency handles all its sites. to some overarching aspect of the site—for example, “vis- Rather, they illustrate and explain how four different itors to . . . ,” “perception of . . . ,” or “government policies groups have dealt with the protection of values in the toward . . . ”—the setting is implicitly included. In other management of four specific sites and how they are instances, the setting is referred to specifically as a terrain helped or hindered in these efforts by legislation, regula- separate from and enveloping the Wall. The lack of a rig- tions, and other policies. In those instances where the orous and clear distinction in the plan seems intentional negative impact of policies or actions has been noted, it in that it conveys the loose, flexible nature of the partner- has been done to illustrate the complexity of managing ship-driven management structure of the site. In the end, sites with multiple values. These comments should not be the values according to which the Hadrian’s Wall land- taken as a judgment of the actions of the site authorities. scape is managed are understood as pertaining to the The organizations participating in this project whole entity, site and setting. It is possible that if the plan share a belief in the potential usefulness of values-based defined the setting as part of the core managed territory management in a broad range of international contexts. of the site—instead of defining it as a “visual envelope”— These studies have a didactic intent, and they are intended it would engender political opposition. Such was one of for use by institutions and individuals engaged in the the lessons learned during the boundary-setting debate study and/or practice of site management, conservation raised by the ‒ plan. planning, and historic preservation. As such, they assume The long history of Hadrian’s Wall as a heritage that the reader is familiar with heritage management con- site provides an excellent illustration of how values cepts, international charters and guidance, and general emerge and evolve with changing use and new knowledge conservation principles. as well as how they are influenced by changing values in society. More specifically, this case explores how the values About This Case Study of an extensive site, with a complex set of landowners and stakeholders (and where there is no unified ownership of This case study looks at the management of Hadrian’s the land or historical features of the World Heritage Site), Wall World Heritage Site. Hadrian’s Wall is a remarkable, are conserved and managed in collaborative arrange- extensive Roman ruin that has been valued as an archaeo- ments. Of interest are issues arising from the large-scale logical remain for more than two centuries. Today, the partnership model of management as well as issues designated World Heritage Site includes the Wall, its asso-

 related to the conservation and development of specific sites within the regional management framework. An analysis is presented in the next two sections. The first of these, “Management Context and History of Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site,” provides general background information on the site and its management, gives a geographic description of the site, and summarizes the history of Hadrian’s Wall. Also discussed is the management environment of the site, including the numerous partners involved at national and local levels, as well as relevant legislation and policy. The last section, “Understanding and Protecting the Values of the Site,” looks at the connections between values and management in three ways. First, the values ascribed to the site are summarized, as they have been reflected in successive planning and management documents. Second, the role of values in determining the management policy of the current World Heritage Site regime is examined. Finally, management policies and decisions are analyzed as to their impact on the site’s values.

 Management Context and History of Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site

Physical and Geographic Description Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site is located in northern England. The site extends approximately  kilometers ( miles) east to west, following the line of Hadrian’s Wall across the Tyne-Solway isthmus and spreading down the Cumbrian coast to include Roman coastal defenses. The speciﬁc geographic boundaries of the site6 are based on the extent of the Wall and associated sites and ruins that are protected as scheduled monuments under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act of .7 The setting consists of the viewshed around the site itself. The Romans, in search of a location on which to build a defensive military network against hostile inhabi- tants to the north, chose the narrowest east-west path in this region of Britain and used many of the area’s topo- graphic features to their advantage. Today, the archaeological remains of the Wall and its associated structures take many forms, and a great deal of archaeological research has been conducted on them. Features of the Wall have been adapted, altered, reused, dismantled, and conserved on an ongoing basis since its construction began in  .. In many places, the Wall stands above ground in its original position, though not in its original dimensions (nowhere does the Wall survive at its full height). On the Figure . Map of the United Kingdom, indicating the location of western and eastern ends there are few aboveground Hadrian’s Wall. The Wall was built by the Roman army in  .. remains. Wall features are best preserved and most read- across the narrowest part of its island territory able in the central section of the site, where a signiﬁcant portion, called the Clayton Wall, has been conserved and

Figure . Map of the Wall and its setting.

  Figure . A long view of the Wall. This portion of the Wall is typical Figure . The exposed foundations of a fort at South Shields. Photo: of the central section of the World Heritage Site. Photo: Margaret Margaret MacLean. MacLean. rebuilt.8 Many landscape features—vallum ditches and This sprawling urban area (now called Tyneside) domi- other earthworks—survive. Dozens of milecastles, forts, nates the eastern region of the site. Within Tyneside, the and fortlets are still evident in excavated and conserved Wall exists mostly as below-ground or excavated/con- remains, and many of these are interpreted for the public. served ruin. Since the s most of the Wall’s visible remains have The continuous course of aboveground Wall been conserved and consolidated in some measure. The runs westward, beginning at Heddon and extending Wall has been totally destroyed in only a few places, where toward Birdoswald, and forms the second, central region highways, pipelines, or quarries cross or cover its line.9 of the site. Topographically, the site can be divided roughly The third region lies to the west and consists of into three regions. The first is the eastern lowland region lowlands between Brampton and the Solway Firth, a tidal known as the Tyne and Wear Lowlands, which lie estuary characterized by marshes and mudflats. Today, between South Shields and Chollerford. From Wallsend, this area is dominated by livestock pastures and agricul- the Wall runs westward from the North Sea coast across tural cultivation. Farther inland is the Carlisle Basin, a low-profile terrain and through the lower Tyne River val- broad valley drained by the rivers Irthing, Eden, Esk, and ley. After the industrial revolution, the urban center of Newcastle upon Tyne emerged as the commercial capital of England’s northeast, a position the city still maintains.

Figure . The remains of a well-preserved regimental bathhouse Figure . One of numerous sections of the Wall that cut through associated with the Roman fort at Chesters, situated astride the Wall working farms. Photo: David Myers. on the North Tyne River. Photo: Margaret MacLean.

 A maritime inﬂuence creates a temperate climate year round in Great Britain, in spite of its relatively high latitude.10 The region of the site is characterized by regu- lar high humidity, cloudiness, and a high percentage of days with precipitation.11

History of Hadrian’s Wall12 The history of the Wall’s creation by Roman legions, and of the Roman period of U.K. history, has been extensively documented.13 This section focuses on the post-Roman period and emphasizes the history of the Wall as a heritage site and the gradual acknowledgment of the land- Figure 7. Detail of a conserved section of the Wall near Birdoswald. scape in which the Wall is situated as part of the site. The stone contains an original Roman inscription. Photo: David In the centuries following the Romans’ abandon- Myers. ment of the Military Zone, the stones of the masonry Caldew, all of which flow into the Solway Firth. Rural structures of the Wall and its associated fortifications land in the basin is used mainly for livestock grazing. Situ- were removed and reused in the construction of castles, ated at the head of the Solway Firth is the historic city of churches, dwellings, field walls, and other structures. Carlisle, the region’s urban hub. Between the basin and Thus the Wall provided great utilitarian value as a source the central region of exposed uplands is a transitional of building material. Land records dating back to the Nor- zone of rolling hills divided by valleys. man period also show that the Wall was an important Although the wall ends at Bowness-on-Solway boundary between property holdings, agricultural fields, along the Solway Firth, remnants of the Romans’ defen- and parishes. In addition, it inspired place-names through- sive network, in the form of freestanding fortlets and tow- out the region, giving rise to Walton, Walwick, Thirlwall, ers, are found to the southwest along the Cumbrian coast and Walby. as far as Maryport at the periphery of the Lake District. Although the Wall has been described in written Here the landscape becomes more rolling, with the coast and cartographic works dating back to the eighth century,  marked by sea cliffs. Occasional fort sites continue as far the first relatively large-scale account appeared in , south as Ravenglass, the southernmost point of the World when antiquarian William Camden published a survey Heritage Site. and explanation of the Wall and its structures in the fifth edition of his Britannia. Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the Wall continued to be used as a source of building material. The  saw the construction of the Mili- tary Road, which is approximately  kilometers ( miles) long, between Newcastle and Carlisle.14 The road was built on the top of the Wall to minimize damage to the fields of local landowners and to save costs by using the Wall’s remnants as a road foundation and as a source for stone.15 The steady erosion of the Wall led to concerted efforts to study it, as well as a growing interest in conserving it. In the eighteenth century, several antiquarian studies were made, including William Hutton’s The First Man to Walk Hadrian’s Wall in . Ten years later, Hutton saved a section of the Wall at Planetrees from being pil-  Figure . The Romans took advantage of the landscape’s natural laged to make field walls, an event considered the first suc- barriers, situating the wall atop the high ridges of Whin Sill, east of 16 Housesteads. Photo: Marta de la Torre. cessful effort of conservation.

 John Clayton was an important figure in the prominence in Wall studies and replaced the amateur anti- understanding and conservation of the Wall. In , he quarians. With the passage of national legislation provid- inherited land containing Chesters Roman Fort. The nine- ing for the protection of archaeology, a first portion of the teenth century was a period “when [Wall] sites were Wall was scheduled as an ancient monument in 1927. owned by privileged individuals . . . who could use them In , continued quarrying threatened the for their own research—and the pleasure of themselves archaeological fabric of the Wall, motivating the national and of their friends.”17 For nearly six decades, Clayton government to introduce new, more powerful national funded the excavation, protection, and reconstruction of ancient monuments legislation. This led to the adoption remains of the Wall. In the process, he amassed a collec- of the Hadrian’s Wall and Vallum Preservation Scheme, a tion of Roman objects from various locations along the first step toward comprehensive public protection of the Wall. Clayton acquired and worked on five Roman sites in central part of the Wall and some buffer areas surround- the area of Chesters and led excavations at the fort sites of ing it.22 The National Trust also received as a donation the Housesteads (–present), Carrawburgh (‒), and core of its Hadrian’s Wall holdings at Housesteads in the Carvoran (). central region, a Wall site that has proven to be the most The nineteenth century was also marked by the popular among tourists. In , the National Trust establishment of “learned societies” for the study of antiq- opened the Housesteads Museum to the public.23 uities. This development came at a time when there was a Mass tourism began in the years following World strong interest in all things Roman and the view that the War II, when the growth in automobile ownership and Roman Empire was a model for England’s own vast impe- increases in leisure time brought more and more visitors rial holdings. These societies increased interest in and to the Wall. Visitation peaked in , then quickly access to the Wall, introducing it to broader audiences, dropped as a result of a spike in fuel prices (see figure ). although membership was limited to the social and eco- From the start, the experiences available to tourists have nomic elite. The proliferation of these groups coincided been quite varied and remain so today, ranging from well- with the emergence of the Romantic movement, which staffed and thoroughly managed sites with interpretive fostered an appreciation for the aesthetic qualities of the schemes, gift shops, and amenities, to large stretches ruins and the natural or naturalistic landscapes in which accessible informally by simply walking through the they were situated.18 In , the first pilgrimage traveling countryside. the full length of Hadrian’s Wall was led by John Colling- In , the Vindolanda Trust, an independent wood Bruce. Two years later, Bruce published the first archaeological charitable organization, was founded at edition of The Roman Wall, which summarized the results the fort site of Vindolanda (formerly Chesterholm). Its of Clayton’s excavations at Chesters Roman Fort and pub- mission was the excavation, preservation, and presenta- licized John Hodgson’s theory of the Wall’s construction tion of the Roman remains. Later, in the mid-s, under the emperor Hadrian.19 In , Bruce also pub- another fort site went into public ownership when the lished his Handbook of the Roman Wall, an important Cumbria County Council acquired the Birdoswald estate. historical guide to this day.20 Likewise, Rudchester was acquired by Northumberland The latter part of the century saw the first public County, North Tyneside acquired Wallsend, and South acquisition of part of the Wall and the creation of the first Tyneside expanded its holdings at South Shields. English museum to display its Roman relics. In , the South Heritage (EH), created by Parliament in , has served Shields Urban District Council established the Roman as an active force in the conservation, management, and Remains Park at South Shields, marking the first public presentation of the Wall. The agency opened the Cor- acquisition and display of part of the Wall by a public bridge Museum in  and launched its Wall Recording authority.21 Later, in , the museum at Chesters Roman Project the following year. The project provides detailed Fort was constructed to house John Clayton’s collection documentation of the visible remains of the Wall and its of Roman objects. associated features.24 EH continues to care for many parts Government efforts to protect the Wall increased of the Wall. through further public and trust ownership in the twenti- As a culmination of its long history of heritage eth century. These decades also witnessed an extraordi- and stewardship, Hadrian’s Wall was inscribed by the nary growth of tourist visitation. A new generation of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural academically trained, professional archaeologists rose to Organization (UNESCO) as a World Heritage Site in .

 The inscription cites criteria C (ii), (iii), and (iv) (see vi. be directly or tangibly associated with events or living tra- below). Since this designation, a number of measures ditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary have been implemented to coordinate management of the works of outstanding universal significance (the Committee site. The Hadrian’s Wall Tourism Partnership (HWTP) considers that this criterion should justify inclusion in the was created in  to coordinate the development of sus- List only in exceptional circumstances and in conjunction tainable tourism for the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage with other criteria cultural or natural). Site area. Early work focused on coordinating marketing The  inscription of Hadrian’s Wall Military Zone to the and visitor information. Shortly thereafter, the secretary World Heritage List cites criteria C (ii), (iii), and (iv). of state approved a proposal for the Hadrian’s Wall Path, a new National Trail enabling visitors to walk the length In recent decades, local entities have imple- of the Wall. The path opened in . In , a Hadrian’s mented a variety of strategies to attract more visitors to Wall World Heritage Site management plan for the period the site. These efforts have been motivated in part by the - was published after extensive consultation. The weakening of other industries in the region, such as ship- first plan to coordinate management of the entire site, it building, coal mining, iron making, and steelmaking. In established the World Heritage Site Management Plan , the Tyne and Wear Museums completed reconstruc- Committee (WHSMPC, or MPC) “to act as the primary tion of the West Gate at Arbeia Roman Fort at South forum for issues concerning the management of the Shields, which Ewin notes was “the first reconstruction World Heritage Site.”25 EH established the Hadrian’s Wall of a standing remain associated with Hadrian’s Wall and Co-ordination Unit, based in Hexham, to oversee imple- was consequently controversial.”27 Work is now under mentation of the plan. The plan was updated in . way to reconstruct the Commanding Officer’s quarters and a soldiers’ barracks block. At the eastern end of the World Heritage List Criteria for Wall in Maryport, the Senhouse Museum Trust opened Cultural Properties26 the Senhouse Roman Museum in , which houses the  A monument, group of buildings or site—as defined Netherhall collection of Roman artifacts. In , the above—which is nominated for inclusion in the World Segedunum Roman Fort, Bath House and Museum in Heritage List, will be considered to be of outstanding Wallsend opened to the public. The development, which universal value for the purpose of the Convention when the reuses part of a shipyard on the Tyne River, is operated Committee finds that it meets one or more of the following by the Tyne and Wear Museums and includes a working criteria and the test of authenticity. These criteria are defined reconstruction of a Roman bathhouse as well as a viewing   by the Committee in its Operational Guidelines. Each prop- tower approximately meters ( feet) in height. erty nominated should: Faced with rising numbers of visitors to the Wall, the  Management Plan expressed concerns about i. represent a masterpiece of human creative genius; or the negative impact on historic resources by increased ii. exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a tourism (especially by walkers and other informal visi- span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on devel- tors28). That upward trend was reversed, however, in  opments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, with the outbreak of foot and mouth disease (FMD). town-planning or landscape design; or The epidemic caused the closure of the countryside in iii. bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cul- many rural areas of the region to avoid the spread of the tural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which disease. Access to sections of the Wall on farmland was has disappeared; or impeded, and the most popular managed site—House- iv. be an outstanding example of a type of building or steads—was closed to the public all but ten days during architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which that year. Footpaths remained closed most of the year. illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history; or However, managed rural sites with exclusive visitor access either stayed open or reopened after safety assessments v. be an outstanding example of a traditional human settle- were completed. Urban sites suffered indirectly via ment or land-use which is representative of a culture (or cul- general downturns in the numbers of overseas and tures), especially when it has become vulnerable under the education/group visits to the region. impact of irreversible change; or

 180,000 Foot and Mouth Disease: 160,000 140,000 The Effects of External Forces 120,000 Housesteads

Number of Visitors 100,000 80,000 Chesters The agricultural economy and pastoral land- 60,000 Vindolanda 40,000 20,000 Corbridge scape that predominate much of the central 0 section of the Wall are important contributors 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Year to contemporary values of the World Heritage Figure . “The graph shows some longer term trends. Whilst the numbers of visitors to the forts and museums shown have declined since Site and its setting. These came under direct the s, the numbers of people out walking around the Wall area, particularly in the central sector have increased. . . . Approximately % threat in  with the outbreak of foot and of visitors in the central sector of Hadrian’s Wall are from overseas. Approximately % of visitors in this area are on holiday.” Source: mouth disease (FMD) among livestock popula- “Tourism Facts & Figures.” [http://www.hadrians-wall.org/] tions in the United Kingdom. FMD is a viral

FMD severely damaged the region’s agricultural disease that is deadly to some livestock and economy, necessitating the slaughter of all infected or other mammals, including cattle, sheep, pigs, potentially infected livestock, and had a secondary nega- 1 tive impact by reducing tourism to the site to a fraction of goats, and deer. The outbreak had disastrous its pre-existing levels. Latest figures indicate that tourism economic effects in the area of Hadrian’s Wall, promotion and other efforts to recover from FMD have been effective vis-à-vis tourism traffic. Total visitation to along with a number of secondary effects on staffed sites in the region reached , in —a . the values and management of other aspects percent increase on  figures and a . percent increase on  figures.29 of the site.

Management Context The FMD crisis effectively closed large areas Heritage preservation in the United Kingdom began around the Wall for months. It dealt a major with modest efforts to protect individual archaeological blow to the agricultural and tourism sites of interest. The preservation movement became more formalized in  with the passage of the Ancient economies of the region and has had lasting . Over time, historic buildings, Monuments Protection Act effects on the surrounding communities and landscapes, parks, battlefields, and other places attracted the interest and concern of preservationists and landscape. Cumbria was the county hardest government, and efforts proliferated to record, restore, hit: “Approximately % of farms within the and preserve such places for posterity. The main legislation concerning archaeological resources at this World Heritage Site and its setting had their time is the 2 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act stock destroyed.” Visitor traffic to much of of . Other protections now in place are numerous, flexible, and almost entirely integrated into the planning the site came to a virtual halt as parts of the processes from the national level down to the county country were quarantined, although some sites council level, and are supported by the various governmental and nongovernmental organizations that along the Wall remained open. Fear and nega- administer heritage places. tive perception kept people away perhaps as Hadrian’s Wall is a constellation of scheduled monuments and listed buildings with unique status at the much as the actual closures did. national level; it is also inscribed as a World Heritage Site, continued on page 

 Assisting farmers and rescuing the agricultural and management of the site. For decades the economy and landscape—a fundamental part Wall had provided economic value as a tourist of the World Heritage Setting and perhaps the attraction; balancing this with conservation of key contributor to its widely perceived aes- heritage values was the central challenge for thetic value—were the necessary, immediate planning and management. The external force responses to the crisis. In the longer term, of FMD threatened this balance by focusing FMD heightened partners’ perceptions of the attention on economic values. Tourism (which importance of agriculture in managing the suffered its own  percent drop in activity in landscape. Farmers, who are important stew- the aftermath of the outbreak) became ards of historic and aesthetic values, are eco- identified more fully as the “replacement” economic operators and key participants in the nomic development strategy for agriculture, production and enjoyment of the site’s con- much as it had been for industry a generation temporary values. Thus, threats to their liveli- earlier. Conservation of cultural values was hood translated into threats to their steward- not directly undermined by the FMD crisis, ship roles: if they could no longer farm, how though damages to the tourism economy high- would that impact the management of the site? lighted the vulnerability of the cultural sector A new agricultural farming economy based on to fluctuations in tourism-market revenue. tillage or forestry instead of pasturage, or new The most relevant lesson was learned through kinds of commercial or industrial development the difficulty encountered in responding to this seen as alternatives to pasturage, could drasti- kind of “slow-burn” disaster, given the much cally affect the character of the setting. The decentralized power structure of the partner- Countryside Stewardship Scheme, developed ship. A quick and sure response was hindered by the Department of Environment, Food, and

Rural Affairs (DEFRA), has been addressing 500,000 490,000 ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ these types of transitions for a decade, but 480,000 ▲ ▲ 470,000 ▲ Number of Visitors 460,000 FMD dramatically emphasized how serious the 450,000 ▲ 440,000 ▲ effects could be. 430,000 420,000 410,000 400,000 The FMD crisis also highlighted the impor- 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Year tance of tourism to the regional economy— Visitation to major sites near Hadrian’s Wall. There was a signiﬁcant particularly in rural areas along the Wall—and decrease in the number of visitors as a result of foot and mouth disease affecting the area during ‒. However, the number the relationship between agricultural practices of visitors increased quickly once the crisis had passed.

 by the need for consultation and coordination agriculture as well as for heritage tourism, the among the partners. This factor would also heritage values of the site and setting were come into play in the wake of similar natural protected. The basic structure of the site’s disasters, environmental accidents, or eco- management regime—flexible policies and a nomic dislocations. Though the FMD disaster wide latitude for the actions of individual part- is still quite recent and adjustments are still ners, held together by a mutual commitment being made by landowners, organizations, to a common core of values—allowed partici- communities, and other groups, a few insights pants to respond the way they did. At the same can be drawn from the experience. time, the decentralized partnership structure prevented a swifter response. The need for The  Management Plan was greatly partners to act in concert and inform one influenced by the fact that it was written dur- another takes time and resources. Coming to ing the FMD recovery period—illustrating that an agreement on novel, contentious, unex- the conditions under which a plan is formu- pected issues also causes delays. There was lated have a strong impact on it. The emphasis much debate, for instance, on the pros and on economic recovery and, consequently, on cons of which Wall venues would stay open contemporary-use values has been the most during the crisis. And a great deal of effort was obvious impact of the FMD crisis. Planners and put into informational campaigns and discus- partners have participated and continue to par- sions among agencies and institutions, which ticipate in determining the adjustments needed helped foster a mutual understanding between to find a new balance of diversified, sustainable institutions with very different mandates and agriculture that does not have adverse effects missions (e.g., DEFRA, HWTP, individual on the heritage resources of the site. farmers, and heritage site operators). This balance of values has changed in response Brought on by FMD, the heightened awareness to the FMD tragedy and the resulting stresses of the connection between agricultural on the Hadrian’s Wall landscape and use/policy and management of the Wall and stakeholders. The Management Plan goals setting has been a learning experience for the remain focused on sustainable management— management group of the Hadrian’s Wall which is to say, development within a conserva- World Heritage Site. Management has accom- tion framework—but this sustainability has modated a shift toward emphasizing the eco- been redefined by FMD. By bolstering the nomic values of the Wall in the context of economic use of the landscape for diversified

 conserving the core heritage values. In the new continued from page  more as a conceptual entity than as a particular place. It climate, the focus is now on tourism rather is subject to a broad range of protections afforded by gov- than on the crippled agricultural sector. ernment authorities through statutes, regulations, and policy directives, and by the international community through the World Heritage Convention and its opera- Notes tional guidelines. Below is a brief description of the heritage classifications, agencies, and statutory authorities,  . Accessed at http://www.defra.gov.uk/footandmouth/ which inform the management discussions that follow. about/index.htm (April , ). . Accessed at http://www.hourmuseum.org.uk/nwh/ DESIGNATED CLASSIFICATIONS ART.html ( July ). A primary means of heritage protection in England is statutory designation. The categories of heritage places covered by separate legislation are: scheduled ancient monuments, listed buildings, and conservation areas. World Heritage Sites, registered parks and gardens, and battlefields are protected through the integrated planning processes administered at the local to district levels.30 Scheduled ancient monuments As prescribed by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act (), a scheduled ancient monument is one that meets specific criteria of age, rarity, documentation, group value, survival, fragility or vulnerability, diversity, and potential. The secretary of state approves those monuments meeting these criteria as well as the criterion of national importance, in consultation with English Heritage. Of the three types of designated heritage, scheduled ancient monuments are the most rigorously protected by legislation. By law, the treatment of scheduled ancient monuments is handled at the national level and is not integrated into town and country planning policies. Scheduled monument consent must be obtained from the secretary of state for all works to scheduled monuments, including maintenance.31 Certain authorities may be granted class consent to allow specific types of work to be carried out on monuments under their stewardship without specific applications. Planning guidance for work on such monuments—including that proposed in these management agreements—is provided in Planning Policy Guidance  (PPG ).32 Today, there are more than , such monuments under protection around the world. After being scheduled as an ancient monument, Hadrian’s Wall later acquired status as a listed building and as a World Her- itage Site.

 Listed buildings For example, PPG  requires local authorities to devise The primary means of acquiring national protection of policies to provide for the long-term protection of these buildings is through listing. The secretary of state, again sites, and that any development proposals be evaluated relying on the counsel of EH, is responsible for maintain- with regard to their potential impact on the prospective ing a statutory list of buildings determined to have special site and its setting, from an aesthetic as well as an architectural interest, historic interest, close historical environmental perspective. association, and group value. PPG : Planning and the Thus, national policy works with the guidelines Historic Environment contains the definitions, selection so that World Heritage designation serves to stimulate the criteria, procedures, and considerations relevant to this development of integrated conservation planning across designation, and provides guidance concerning the treat- the United Kingdom. Hadrian’s Wall has the distinction of ment of listed buildings.33 having the first World Heritage Site management plan to Listed buildings are ranked according to grades I, be completed in the country () and the first to be II* (“two starred”), and II. Any works (repairs, upgrades, updated (). restorations, etc.) being considered for listed buildings NATIONAL HERITAGE-RELATED AGENCIES must obtain consent. The secretary of state has delegated At the national level, heritage is managed by several to local authorities most decisions concerning these con- departments and agencies. The Department for Culture, sent applications. Applications for works to grade I, grade Media and Sport (DCMS) holds primary responsibility for II*, and demolitions of grade II buildings must be the built heritage through its Architecture and Historic reviewed by EH or other relevant national bodies. Environment Division.35 Advised by EH, the secretary of Conservation areas state for culture, media and sport is responsible for the A conservation area is a territory that has been deter- scheduling of ancient monuments, ruling on applications mined to have special architectural or historic interest. for scheduled monument consent and listing buildings of Conservation areas may be designated by local planning special architectural or historic interest. The secretary also authorities, and local development plans contain descrip- works specifically with UNESCO on issues related to tions of them and policies for their protection. Local World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom. authorities determine whether proposed new develop- Land-use planning falls under the aegis of the ment will negatively impact a conservation area’s charac- Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, including national ter and appearance. No conservation areas have been legislation and guidance documents such as the PPGs created to protect any part of the Hadrian’s Wall World (see statutes, regulations, policy directives, and guidelines Heritage Site or its setting. below). DEFRA, which handles countryside issues, also World Heritage listing plays a significant role in the management and conserva- Since becoming a signatory to the World Heritage Con- tion of heritage. The Countryside Agency, which operates vention in , the United Kingdom has added twenty- under DEFRA, is the national agency responsible for rural four World Heritage Sites to the list in the natural and/or matters. It plays a less direct but noteworthy role in cultural categories. The operational guidelines of the heritage affairs. World Heritage Convention include a recommendation English Heritage serves as the government’s to develop site management plans for each site being statutory adviser concerning all issues related to the con- nominated to the list: servation of England’s historic built environment. EH is “States Parties are encouraged to prepare plans for the classified as “an Executive Non-Departmental Public Body 36 management of each natural site nominated and for the sponsored by the DCMS.” It is responsible for the man- safeguarding of each cultural property nominated. agement (i.e., repair, maintenance, and presentation) of All information concerning these plans should be made more than four hundred properties in public ownership available when technical co-operation is requested.”34 and, more commonly, guardianship. EH interfaces with many aspects of the planning and consent system, as dis- While there is no legislation or regulation per- cussed further below. Funded in part by the government taining solely to World Heritage Sites or nominations, and in part by self-generated revenues, it also re-grants some official guidance makes specific reference to the funding for the conservation of the built heritage. (Other operational guidelines that implement the Convention. key nongovernmental financial supporters of heritage in

 the United Kingdom include the Heritage Lottery Fund Monuments Protection Act of . Since that time, the and the European Union.) adoption of new national statutes and policies has greatly The National Trust was established as a private expanded the extent of government control over cultural charity in  to safeguard threatened natural and cul- heritage, including towns and landscapes. Starting in the tural heritage sites.37 Today, it holds in perpetuity more late s, national conservation activities have been than , hectares (, acres) of countryside in folded into the planning process. Rather than enforcing England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, almost six hun- fixed rules, this discretionary planning system allows for dred miles of coastline, and more than two hundred build- flexible and responsive decision making. A listing of the ings and gardens. It is a particularly important force in the principal statutes follows; those with annotations bear a region of Hadrian’s Wall. specific relation to designation, enhancements of protection, and new approaches to planning and management. LOCAL HERITAGE AUTHORITIES At the local level, responsibility for conservation of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Act () historic built environment resides with  county councils,  district councils, and  unitary councils. These Civic Amenities Act (). This act launched the trend of authorities handle most decisions regarding buildings and embedding heritage preservation in the planning conservation areas, including consideration of applica- processes at the county and district levels. It also legalized tions for listed building consent and conservation area the group value of buildings and acknowledged the consent. Local authorities also issue monetary grants to importance of conserving areas as opposed to individual outside groups and vendors for the repair and improve- buildings. Local planning authorities were given the ment of both designated and nondesignated elements of responsibility of designating as conservation areas those the historic built environment. In some cases, the local places within their jurisdiction that were of special archi- authorities own and manage their own heritage sites. Ten tectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of national parks in England and Wales also are independent which it was desirable to preserve or enhance. local authorities with statutory responsibility for heritage. These include Northumberland National Park, a large Town and Country Amenities Act ().“It shall be the duty portion of which coincides with the Hadrian’s Wall World of a local planning authority to review the past exercise of Heritage Site. functions under this section and to determine whether In addition to their role in determining the out- any parts or any further parts of their area should be des- come of consent applications, the councils provide active ignated as conservation areas; and, if they so determine, protection of the historic built environment by placing they shall designate those parts accordingly.” specific policies into local town and country plans. A number of local authorities have incorporated specific provi- Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act (). sions into these policies as a way of implementing the oth- This act refined the definition of protected status designa- erwise advisory and partnership-based Management Plan. tions—adding the category of archaeological area— As of summer , thirteen local authorities at various which could be made either by the secretary of state or levels had incorporated measures specific to Hadrian’s by local planning authorities, subject to confirmation by Wall, based on the Management Plan, into local policies.38 the secretary. The criterion of national-level significance Statutes, Regulations, Policy Directives, remained in force. The act also strengthened protections and Guidelines by making certain offenses against scheduled monuments A number of statutes, regulations, policy directives, and subject to criminal prosecution. guidelines have a direct or important indirect bearing on the protection and management of Hadrian’s Wall. Town and Country Planning Act (). The latest in a series that began in  with the establishment of the English NATIONAL HERITAGE STATUTES AND POLICIES planning system, this act recognizes and assigns planning Provisions for the national government’s conservation of jurisdiction in various contexts. Any development of land heritage are found in acts of Parliament, regulations, and or change in land use warrants an application for permis- policy documents. Statutory protection of heritage in sion from the planning authority in force, thus reducing Great Britain began with the enactment of the Ancient

 the individual landowner’s ability to change the character PPG : Archaeology and Planning () is a parallel manual of a townscape or countryside in unacceptable ways. for planning processes involving archaeology. It is directed at planning authorities, property owners, developers, Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act archaeologists, amenity societies,41 and the general public. ().39 This act recognizes that the primary responsibility “It sets out the Secretary of State’s policy on archaeologi- to list significant buildings lies with the secretary of state cal remains on land, and how they should be preserved or and his or her advisers. However, it emphasizes the roles recorded both in an urban setting and in the countryside. and responsibilities of local planning councils to monitor It gives advice on the handling of archaeological remains the historic fabric in their jurisdictions, recommend build- and discoveries under the development plan and control ings for listing, and limit changes that can be made to systems, including the weight to be given to them in plan- listed buildings. ning decisions and the use of planning conditions.”42 Annex  of this document describes the special controls National Heritage Act (). This act established English used for scheduled monuments. Heritage as a public body with responsibility for all aspects OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT DISTRIBUTION of protecting and promoting the historic environment. Distribution of ownership and management within the site is varied and complex. There are approximately seven Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) (). The National Lottery Act hundred private owners, accounting for  percent of the of  allowed for the creation of a revenue stream to site. Land use is similarly diverse and includes urban support conservation projects for the physical upkeep neighborhoods, farms and pasturage, towns and villages. of buildings and sites of national importance. While the Many of the prime archaeological sites, however, are pub- legislation relating to the National Lottery Act is not pre- licly owned or otherwise managed for conservation and scriptive in regard to the heritage itself,  saw the intro- public access. duction of the requirement for a conservation plan for a Approximately  percent of the site is managed site requesting HLF funds for works on historic sites. specifically for heritage conservation, access, presentation, research, and recreation. These owners and managers Planning Policy Guidance (PPG). “Planning policy guidance include seven local authorities, English Heritage, the notes set out Government policy on planning issues National Trust, and the Vindolanda Trust. The local and provide guidance to local authorities and others on authorities with the most substantial holdings and the operation of the planning system. They also explain management roles for particular Roman heritage sites the relationship between planning policies and other are the Cumbria County Council (owns and manages policies which have an important bearing on issues Birdoswald), Northumberland County Council (owns of development and land use. Local planning authorities and manages Rudchester), North Tyneside Council (owns must take their content into account in preparing their Wallsend), and South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough development plans.”40 Council (owns South Shields). Both Wallsend and South Shields are managed for their owners by the Tyne and PPG : Planning and the Historic Environment (September Wear Museums. Northumberland National Park Author- ; updated frequently) focuses on the planning processes ity also leases Thirwall Castle and manages a visitor center involving listed buildings and other aspects of the historic and car parks. The Allerdale District Council and Carlisle environment, including World Heritage Sites, parks and and Newcastle City Councils also own areas of Roman gardens, battlefields, conservation areas, associated road- ruins related to Hadrian’s Wall. ways and traffic, and the broader historic landscape. No English Heritage manages approximately  kilo- special statutes pertain specifically to World Heritage meters ( miles) of the Wall, three forts and parts of their Sites. Rather, this PPG (section .) articulates that local civil settlements (including Roman Corbridge), two authorities must devise management plans that include bridges, and most of the visible milecastles and turrets. policies to provide for the long-term protection of sites. It should be noted that many EH guardianship properties Development proposals must be assessed with regard to are owned by the Cumbria County Council, the National their potential impact on a site and its setting, including Trust, and the Vindolanda Trust, resulting in considerable the assessment of environmental impacts for develop- overlap in management activities. ment of significant magnitude.

 The estate of the National Trust in the site’s central sector covers approximately , hectares (, acres). Its main holdings include the fort at Housesteads, approximately  kilometers ( miles) of the Wall, lengths of the vallum, two visible milecastles, and the fortlet and marching camps at Haltwhistle Common. The Vindolanda Trust owns the forts and civil settlements at Vindolanda and Carvoran, and operates museums at both sites. The Senhouse Trust also operates a museum of Roman relics located next to the Roman fort at Maryport. Both the Newcastle Museum of Antiqui- ties and Tullie House hold major collections related to Hadrian’s Wall. A number of related Roman sites lie Figure . View of a structural wall of Housesteads Fort in the fore- within the World Heritage Site but are under varied ground with Hadrian’s Wall extending eastward into the distance. ownership. Photo: David Myers.

MANAGEMENT COORDINATION and its associated features holistically and asserted that the Coordination among the many owners, managers, stew- Wall should be managed as a whole. ards, and users of Hadrian’s Wall and its setting is one of The notion of Wall-wide management gained the leading challenges in conserving and managing the further momentum in ‒ as a result of major devel- site. The  designation of the Wall as a World Heritage opment proposals for open-cast coal mining and oil Site clearly recognized the value of the Wall and its setting drilling in what would later be designated as the setting. as a whole, not simply as a collection of individual sites and features. In addition, it highlighted the importance of coordinated management to preserve the Wall’s values. Groundwork was laid for the present efforts of the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site Management Plan Committee (MPC) as far back as the  Darlington Amenity Research Trust (DART) report and the  Hadrian’s Wall Consultative Committee document Strat- egy for Hadrian’s Wall. Both documents were based on the intellectual-historical tradition of understanding the Wall

Figure . View of the excavated area at Housesteads Roman Fort Figure . The English Heritage museum building just below the fort at looking south into the valley. Visitors cross this area as they walk from Housesteads. Photo: Margaret MacLean. the car park up to the fort. Photo: Randy Mason.

 Opponents of the development (including English Her- . to receive reports from responsible bodies and itage and the Council for British Archaeology) prevailed, agencies on projects which affect the Hadrian’s Wall area; and the experience provided an important validation of . to agree action programmes and priorities for the Wall’s acknowledged values as well as the values of its developing specific aspects of the management plan; landscape/setting. Furthermore, it emerged that manage- . to monitor the condition of the World Heritage ment of the Wall and its surroundings—not just its desig- Site, and develop and agree on appropriate action to deal nation and protection—would be key to its survival and with threats to its well-being; development. . to develop and agree further policies and codes Prior to these pro-conservation outcomes, World of practice for protection, recording and research, access, Heritage designation had not been explicitly addressed in interpretation, and preservation of the World Heritage the legislation regarding the management of the historic Site, as well as safeguarding the livelihoods and interests of built environment. These public controversies occurred those living and working within the zone, and to encour- before PPG  was published in ; indeed, the inquiries age the adoption of such policies by responsible bodies that were held helped lead to the inclusion of specific and agencies; World Heritage sections in PPG . . within the overriding need to conserve the World Around , three distinct but related initiatives Heritage Site, to promote the economy of the region; were developed, each bringing together a variety of part- . to agree the work programme of, and provide ners and focusing efforts on the Wall and setting as an general direction for the proposed Hadrian’s Wall Co- integrated whole. These three initiatives were the ordination Unit; Hadrian’s Wall Tourism Partnership (HWTP); the . to review the conclusions and recommendations Hadrian’s Wall Path National Trail, led by the Country- within the management plan, to determine the frequency side Agency; and the start of the Management Plan of the necessary updating of the plan, and to oversee this process, led by English Heritage. Historically, ownership process when it occurs.43 and control of the territory making up the site and setting had been fragmented. In response, these initiatives created The members of the MPC are: institutions and partnerships to manage Wall and setting Allerdale Borough Council resources in ways that were coherent geographically and Association of Northeast Councils across sectors. They have led quite directly to the current management and planning regime. Behind the initiatives Carlisle City Council is a core set of individuals, connected informally and for- Carlisle County Council mally, who remain involved in the management of the site Castle Morpeth Borough Council to this day. Community Council of Northumberland In , the first comprehensive management plan was adopted to provide a framework reconciling and Copeland Borough Council balancing the variety of interests in the site, to articulate Council for British Archaeology agreed-upon objectives, and to generate programs of Country Land & Business Association work. Among the central provisions of this plan was the Countryside Agency creation of the Management Plan Committee (MPC), which represents the stakeholders in the site and its set- Cumbria County Council ting. The  plan spells out the MPC’s responsibilities: Cumbria Tourist Board Department of Culture, Media and Sport .to oversee the implementation of general and Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs specific recommendations made within the Management Plan, and to monitor the success in meeting the targets it Durham University sets; English Heritage, Hadrian’s Wall Co-ordination Unit  . to establish a forum for management issues, and English Heritage, London to continue to co-ordinate efforts towards concerted man- English Nature agement within the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site; European Liaison Unit

 Forest Enterprise mandate and of the types of values it recognizes in its site- Government Office North East specific work, EH sees itself as steward, advocate, and pro- tector of historic landscapes and environments, rather Hadrian’s Wall Tourism Partnership than of sites and monuments.44 ICOMOS UK Of central importance to the success of manage- Lake District National Park ment is the HWCU, set up in  by EH to lead the imple- 45 National Farmers Union mentation of the first Management Plan. Currently, the HWCU consists of two staff members on loan from EH The National Trust who, in collaboration with other individuals from other Newcastle City Council institutions, lead the implementation of this scheme North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council across the totality of the site, aided by dozens of partner Northeast Museums, Libraries and Archives Council organizations and more than seven hundred landowners. EH is the government’s “lead body for the his- Northumberland County Council toric environment” and is the only national body with the Northumberland National Park remit to protect and conserve the World Heritage Site. Northumberland National Park Based on the  Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Northumbria Tourist Board Areas Act and the  National Heritage Act, EH has statutory review authority for planning consent regarding Tyne & Wear Museums scheduled monuments. EH also offers advice to owners of Tynedale District Council scheduled monuments and listed buildings and is the man- Tynedale District Council ager of several museums/historic sites and museums at University of Newcastle the site (Corbridge, Housesteads, and Chesters). Because of its key role in the HWCU and its legal The Vindolanda Trust mandate at a national level, EH is somewhat more than an Voluntary Action Cumbria equal partner in the scheme, and this creates an imbalance of power among the partners. EH holds a trump card in The MPC convenes biannually to review progress the form of its statutory review authority. If in certain sit- on the plan. The  plan also created the Hadrian’s Wall uations the negotiation, consultation, and collaboration of Co-ordination Unit (HWCU), which oversees implemen- the partnership fails to bring a result acceptable to EH, the tation of the management plan on a day-to-day basis. organization has the authority to change the outcome. Another important entity is the HWTP, which, like the Evidently, this action is avoided to the largest extent possi- HWCU, handles day-to-day responsibilities for managing ble. EH fills the complicated roles of manager, regulator, activities at the site. The HWTP works to coordinate sus- archaeologist, business partner, and referee. Furthermore, tainable tourism marketing and development; it is dis- as an operator of historic sites, the organization needs to cussed in more detail below. cultivate the site’s economic and use values, and it is sometimes seen to be in competition with other sites. THE ROLE OF ENGLISH HERITAGE This puts EH in the position of advocating—and needing English Heritage is a key organization in this management to balance—different kinds of values. Recognizing the scheme. It plays several roles simultaneously. At one level, complexity, EH and its partners have established other it serves as partner and coordinator; at another level, it is organizations, such as the HWTP and the National Trail, the national authority that advises and approves or pre- to bolster the sitewide presence and perspective and hedge vents certain interventions or activities of other partners. reliance on one sole, coordinating entity. EH’s core mandate—and its historical mission and raison d’être—as well as its statutory responsibilities identifies it closely with the historic, archaeological, and research values of the Wall. The management functions it has taken on for the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site (and others in England) have, however, more fully clarified its role in contemporary values. Congruent with this broadening of

 Reconstruction at Archaeological Sites: erably from site to site along Hadrian’s Wall, A Lens on Cultural Resource Policy making reconstruction an excellent lens

Reconstruction of aboveground features at through which to view the varying, sometimes archaeological sites is a source of great contro- opposing, approaches to cultural resource pol- versy in professional circles, and yet it is a fairly icy that exist within the Management Plan common practice. In situ reconstruction pro- framework. posals often highlight conﬂicts of value: while Several examples of reconstructed buildings reconstruction usually destroys archaeological and features are present at individual sites and research value to some extent and may across the World Heritage Site, and more are damage perceptions of a site’s “authenticity,” planned for the future. Even the Wall itself is the “realism” suggested by the new structure an in situ reconstruction in some places. Part- can increase the number of visitors and there- ners have different standards for reconstruc- fore the economic and social value of the site. tion, ranging from a strict avoidance of recon- Ex situ reconstructions are less controversial struction as a conservation strategy, to its free because, in principle, they are not placed over use to generate interpretation and visitor archaeological deposits. The strategies and attraction. intentions behind reconstruction vary consid- Reconstruction has been justiﬁed either as research in the use of construction materials and techniques or as a means of increasing awareness of the historic appearance of a site. The reconstructions illustrated here were con- ceived and executed to create stronger images and interpretive tools for conveying the central historic values of the Wall and its features as representing the Roman military frontier that The bathhouse of Segedunum at Wallsend. In addition to a so strongly shaped this part of the United King- broad, excavated area and a new, award-winning museum, the site includes a Roman bathhouse reconstructed ex situ. The dom. Reconstructions often relate also to eco- project has captured considerable interpretive and research values through the process of researching, constructing, and nomic value, since it is theorized that a more presenting the working Roman-style bathhouse. Since it was not built above archaeological resources and is presented as a easily visualized site will attract more visitors. modern structure, it does not undermine the research value A negative aspect of reconstruction, however, of the site. Photo: Marta de la Torre.

 Panoramic view of the actual remains of the fort at Segedunum, as seen from an observation tower, showing the reconstructed bathhouse Principles of the Conservation of Historic at the far left. Photo: Margaret MacLean. Buildings2 instructs, “A presumption against is the threat it poses to the authenticity—or restoration is a hallmark of the British perception of authenticity—of a site. approach to building conservation.” However, some experts believe reconstructions make In general, the conservation ﬁeld does not sites easier to interpret and visualize by visi- embrace reconstruction. The Venice Charter1 tors, thus increasing public understanding, states, “All reconstruction work should . . . be bolstering the marketability of sites, creating ruled out ‘a priori.’” PPG  terms reconstruc- jobs, and boosting tourism expenditures and tion “not appropriate.” The  Guide to the associated economic externalities.

Recently revised EH policy on reconstruction maintains basic conservation principles while carefully circumscribing certain conditions under which it can be accepted as conservation policy, and therefore in the interest of sustaining heritage values. Emphasis, however, remains on discouraging speculative reconstruction and precluding in situ reconstructions that damage original fabric. The West Gate at Arbeia at South Shields. Located near Newcastle, the site of Arbeia has several reconstructions. The West Gate, recon- The  Management Plan adopts a structed in 1988, was initially challenged by English Heritage and resulted in a public inquiry. Reconstruction was eventually approved, policy generally supportive of reconstruction, along with tacit approval of the idea of using reconstructions as a bold visitor attraction strategy. It is interesting to note that the same individ- citing several successful examples at the site ual developed the plans for South Shields and Segedunum using recon- and listing several advantages of selective struction, excavation, and museum display methods but different overall approaches to each. Photo: Margaret MacLean.

 The reconstructed barracks at Arbeia at South Shields. At Clayton’s Wall, near Steel Rigg. Many segments of Hadrian’s present, additional in situ reconstructions of barracks and Wall could be considered reconstructions. For example, in houses are being undertaken within the excavated fort walls some places much of the wall was mined for building stone at Arbeia. Photo: Marta de la Torre. in the post-Roman era. The extensive sections of Clayton’s Wall reconstructed in the nineteenth century (followed by similar conservation in the twentieth century) consist of a core of excavated and reassembled Roman-era dry-laid wall with nineteenth-century course layered on the top. Few, if any, truly authentic segments of exposed wall survive. Photo: Marta de la Torre.

, prior to World Heritage designation, approval of the proposal for the reconstruction of the West Gate at South Shields did not come until after a public inquiry, the last step in resolving a reconstruction disagreement. The reconstructed temple at Vindolanda. The private Vindolanda Trust pursues an active program of excavation, The interests in favor of reconstruction and its research, conservation, and reconstruction with a strong entrepreneurial visitor orientation. Some of the Trust’s economic-development beneﬁts won out over initiatives have proven controversial. These include a num- heritage conservation interests, led at that time ber of ex situ reconstructions, for example this temple and segments of stone-and-turf wall. The Trust plans to recon- by EH. Proposals for reconstruction are struct a large Roman fort on its properties, in a location that would have a strong visual impact on the Setting. Photo: expected to continue as conservation and Marta de la Torre. development activities proceed in the World reconstructions (in situ and otherwise). This Heritage Site. The absence of consensus is seen marks a change from the traditional approach as an indicator of the health of the overall to archaeological values. partnership: partners can disagree on speciﬁc approaches even though they agree on the gen- All in all, a lack of consensus still remains on eral framework of values and their protection. reconstruction among the Hadrian’s Wall part- “Generally, there can be no objections to ners. The issue has been divisive. Already in reconstruction which is not in situ provided the

 setting of the World Heritage Site is protected,” and, further, that principles of histori-

cal accuracy and reversibility are respected.3 Hadrian’s Wall policy therefore reﬂects a branching away from rigid ideological pro- nouncements against reconstruction toward a more situational decision making based on recognition of the multiplicity of values involved. Future proposals for reconstruction present potentially divisive decisions for the partnership.

In the end, the key question about reconstruction is whether it threatens the overall integrity and authenticity of the Wall and setting, and therefore the heritage values of the entire site. Decisions ultimately will be made within the planning controls system—the scheduled monuments review conducted by EH to advise the consent decisions of the DCMS. A number of different attitudes toward reconstruction continue to coexist within the management plan framework, a situation that is not only permis- sible but desirable. The partners negotiated it this way in order to include and recognize everyone’s values.

Notes

. ICOMOS, The Venice Charter, . . British Standard on the Principles of the Conservation of Historic Buildings (BS, ), cited in English Heritage Policy Statement on Restoration, Reconstruction, and Speculative Recreation of Archaeological Sites Including Ruins, February . .  Management Plan, pp. ‒.

 Understanding and Protecting the Values of the Site

Values Associated with Hadrian’s Wall directly on or related to the Wall itself, and proposed a strategy of strengthening tourism use of larger, central HOW VALUING OF THE WALL HAS EVOLVED sites along the Wall (Carvoran, Birdoswald, Chesters, In the preceding section of this report, the narrative on and Corbridge). While concentrating on safeguarding the the history of Hadrian’s Wall makes it clear that the Wall Wall, the document suggested efforts to protect and and its surrounding landscape have been valued for differ- enhance its landscape setting. The four points of the ent reasons over the centuries. strategy are: Since the departure of the Roman legions cen- a. to safeguard the splendid heritage of Roman turies ago, local people and communities valued and monuments and all associated remains so that they are made use of the Wall in a variety of utilitarian ways: as a not lost or spoilt for future generations; source of quarried stone, as field boundaries, and so on. b. to protect, and where possible enhance, the Antiquarian interest in Hadrian’s Wall, and the conscious quality of landscape setting of the Wall sites; understanding of archaeological and historic value, began c. to encourage appropriate public visiting of around  and increased throughout the nineteenth the Wall area, with convenient access and high-quality century. Thus, use values and heritage values of the Wall experience and (for those who seek it) understanding stretch back over centuries. of the Roman monument and way of life; Legislation protecting the Wall has been enacted d.to ensure that local people derive the best possi- over time, reflecting the changing values attributed to the ble benefits from tourism by way of income and employ- site. The original legislation scheduling most of the Wall ment, whilst ensuring that all appropriate steps are taken as a national monument dates from  and focused to minimise the adverse effects of tourism, particularly exclusively on the Wall’s Roman archaeological and his- on agriculture.47 toric values. This scheduling was updated by the  Though both the DART report and the Strategy Hadrian’s Wall and Vallum Preservation Scheme, which had little immediate, practical effect, they did set a prece- extended the protected area. dent for partnership building and a broadened view of the The  Darlington Amenity Research Trust Wall’s values. Both acknowledged contemporary and her- (DART) report on conservation and visitors services, itage values, and valued the Wall itself as well as the sur- organized by the Countryside Commission, formulated rounding landscape. Equally important, these early initia- a strategy to deal with the Wall in a geographically com- tives launched an evolutionary process of conceiving the prehensive way. It also addressed both the threats and Wall and its values as a whole entity comprising the core opportunities presented by tourists drawn to the Wall, archaeological resources as well as the landscape setting. and recognized real and potential constraints presented Monument scheduling under the  Ancient Monuments by reconciling agricultural, tourist, and conservation uses and Archaeological Areas Act revised the original designa- of the Wall and its landscape. The DART report was the tions. The Wall is now almost entirely scheduled. basis for the  document Strategy for Hadrian’s Wall, UNESCO World Heritage inscription of produced by the Hadrian’s Wall Consultative Committee, Hadrian’s Wall Military Zone in  was based on which consisted of a few dozen national, regional, Roman-era heritage values. “Built under the orders of and local government agencies, as well as nonprofit Emperor Hadrian in about  .. on the border between groups representing a wide variety of stakeholders.46 England and Scotland, the -kilometer long wall is a The balanced view of resources and/or conservation and striking example of the organisation of a military zone, development opportunities presented in the DART report which illustrates the techniques and strategic and geo- were extended by the Strategy. The latter focused on sites political views of the Romans.”48 The inscription was a

 catalyst for understanding and managing the Wall as a to the concerns of a wider range of stakeholders.50 zone, not simply an archaeological resource. Hundreds of copies of the draft and , summary Managing the site in a comprehensive and leaflets were distributed to a wide range of partners and holistic way became the major challenge. The primary individuals. The three-month consultation period was   vehicle has been the Management Plans of and . extended, and eventually more than two hundred The plans dealt with contemporary-use values and the responses were received. Most of the concerns were long-recognized, iconic archaeological and historic values expressed by the archaeological community and by of the Wall. They have stimulated the development of the landowners and farmers, often channeled through local partnership-based management model employed today, authorities. The overall number of responses was not and in their formulation even embodied such an large, and few were hostile, but specific concerns were approach. strongly articulated: CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF VALUES •Fear of additional controls on farming through- The current understanding of the site’s values is explicitly out a wide zone. represented in the two Management Plans. The values are •Fear of widespread enforced change to farming not listed per se in the  plan. The site’s historical and practices. contemporary significance is well summarized as follows: •Fear of increased bureaucracy and additional “The Hadrian’s Wall corridor is important . . . both for the English Heritage controls. concentration of Roman sites and for their survival and • Concerns over traffic management on road B6318 effect on today’s landscape.”49 An articulation of values (the Military Road). is presented in the significance of the Hadrian’s Wall •Fear of impact of tourism and of the National Military Zone: Trail on farming activities and archaeological remains. •archaeological values of the Roman Wall English Heritage’s response, as captured in the remains, as well as its associated features (vallum, etc.), revised plan, was described by lead planner Christopher and outlier sites (e.g., fortlets and Stanegate features); Young: “We rewrote the plan [after the public comment • the historical values associated with the Roman cycle] and made it more accessible. We also spent a lot of northern frontier and its subsequent influence; time talking to people and groups with concerns. In the • the varied surrounding landscape along the 80- end, apart from the boundaries, there was comparatively mile length of the Wall; little difference in substance between the policies set out   • aesthetic and natural values of the surrounding in and but we had achieved better understanding landscape are also noted briefly; and of what was intended as a result of the consultation 51 • the additional layer of World Heritage value is process.”  described. The final plan addressed the primary Economic and other contemporary values were concerns as follows: not explicitly articulated as a contributor to the site’s • It adopted a tiered approach to land-use and mon- significance in , though they are tacitly addressed ument controls, using normal ancient monument powers in plan policies and through the partnerships formed. for archaeological cores and appropriate planning policies In section ., “Need for a Management Plan,” the central to protect the setting. management challenge is clearly defined as involving • It recognized the need for change in the agricul- “four major factors which need to be balanced”: () con- tural landscape (not the fossilization of particular farming serving archaeological resources (and associated land- methods), and the development of positive landscape scape); () protecting the working agricultural landscape management on a voluntary basis with appropriate grant surrounding the Wall; () ensuring public access for visi- support. tors and local users, and making this access sustainable; • It clarified that EH sought no additional powers and () recognizing the important contributions of the in establishing the Co-ordination Unit; the role of the unit Wall to the local and regional economies. was to provide a focus on the Wall as a whole, as well as A first-draft plan was issued in July  and coordination of efforts and carrying-out of tasks that did generated strong reactions during the public consultation not fall to other agencies. period, resulting in revisions and a plan more responsive

 • It formalized the boundaries of the World •World Heritage values. The rationales for meeting WHC Heritage Site and defined its setting. criteria (ii), (iii), and (iv) stem exclusively from Roman fabric • It pursued “sustainability” of tourism through and associations. [Though stated last, these really are at the working with the HWTP and through maintenance and center of articulated values for the Wall and its setting.] management of traffic throughout the region. The revised ‒ Management Plan is not a Current management and policy is clearly significant departure from the  plan; rather, it is a focused on the archaeological values and associated refinement and continuation of it. The  plan includes historic values of the Roman Wall. Secondary to this but a point-by-point analysis of the progress accomplished on integrated as bases for policy are the aesthetic values of the nineteen objectives of the  plan. Adjustments to the setting and the economic values. The latter is perhaps “regulatory and administrative measures” for putting the the most important contemporary value of Hadrian’s plan into effect were considered to have been largely Wall, and represents a departure from the  plan. achieved. For the most part, objectives in the area of con- The latest Management Plan does not reflect all servation and research were estimated not to have been the values held by all the partners. What are represented achieved. Finally, in the areas of sustainable tourism and are the values and policies on which there is consensus, visitor access, it was determined that significant progress and which have emerged from the process of consultation had been made both at specific sites and at the Wall-wide and negotiation that created the multipartner plan. Each scale.52 In the  plan, the approach to value articulation of the partner organizations and/or landowners is likely was revised to suggest a new balance between heritage to have projects and hold values that are not accounted for values (the basis of conservation policies) and contem- in the plan. porary-use values (the basis for access and development Each partner sees management of the site from policies). the perspective of its particular stake in the Wall and its The core statement of significance makes the value priorities. The core significance, range of values, connection between archaeological values and their uses, and general policies for the World Heritage Site are shared both cultural and economic: “[Hadrian’s Wall Military by all. As expected, the values are arranged and prioritized Zone] is of significant value in terms of its scale and iden- differently by different partners as each pursues its goals tity, the technical expertise of its builders and planners, within the Management Plan framework. For example, its documentation, survival and rarity, and also in terms the  bid for Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) of its economic, educational and cultural contribution to regional economic development funding highlights eco- today’s world.”53 nomic values. These documents were submitted by the HWTP and reflect a collective decision by the members Statement of Significance54 of HWTP (which include English Heritage).55 •Archaeological and historical values: tightly tied to Roman How Management Policies and Strategies period, with some acknowledgment of the nineteenth- Take Values into Consideration and twentieth-century values created by conservation . . . although the values are clearly centered on the Roman, the This section describes how the evolving values of the Wall aboveground remains have (almost exclusively) been con- have been reflected and taken into consideration in the served, consolidated, and restored in situ over the last  policies and strategies of the World Heritage Site Manage- years. ment Plans. The discussion is organized around several • Natural values: seven key types of habitat are represented types of policies or management issues that provide a per- in the World Heritage Site, many of them recognized as spective on the particular challenges faced by manage- significant ecological resources at the national and inter- ment. These challenges include the setting of boundaries, national levels. the value shifts between the  plan and the  plan, • Contemporary values: economic, recreation and educa- tourism strategies and the creation of the HWTP, agricul- tional, social and political. tural policy, and the central role of partnerships in management of the site.

 SETTING BOUNDARIES The most powerful arguments offered regarding Boundaries for the site were not included in the original boundaries were not about the cultural value of the land- nomination of Hadrian’s Wall to the World Heritage List scape, but rather about the potential impact on modern in the mid-s. The boundaries were set later, during land management and the interests and freedoms of cur- formulation of the  Management Plan. This lag gave rent landowners. There was widespread concern that for- the multipartner collaboration the opportunity to grow mally designating such a large area as a World Heritage and develop before the contentious subject of boundary Site would lead to further controls. This issue was taken setting was addressed. up at senior levels of government, and the eventual deci- Primarily, boundaries were determined in accord sion on boundaries was made at the ministerial level. with the parts of the Wall that had been scheduled as In the end, the practical management effect of ancient monuments. Secondarily, the setting was estab- setting the boundaries was very small—the planners’ orig- lished as a viewshed of the Wall resources (from  to  inal conception and the eventual result are quite similar. kilometers distant) and as the areas that potentially con- Psychologically, though, many people felt more comfort- tained significant archaeological resources. The resulting able with a closely defined Site along with a broad Setting, discussions and negotiations revealed the different values which might be easier to alter in the future.56 held by various groups and stakeholders. Disagreements FROM THE 1996 PLAN TO THE 2002 PLAN arose with local authorities or landowners about specific There are some subtle but significant differences between properties to be included in the setting, and strategic deci- the  and  Management Plans, which reflect on the sions had to be made to exclude particular agricultural, continuing evolution of site values. town, or other lands lest landowners perceive even more Conceptually, over the course of this period, regulatory controls and reviews were being imposed. focus shifted from the Military Zone to “the Wall and its The  draft plan proposed boundaries that Setting.” Although the notion of Hadrian’s Wall as a land- approximated roughly to the area now defined as the scape and not simply as an archaeological resource was Setting of the World Heritage Site. Also proposed, more indicated in the  draft and the  plan, this central tentatively, was the inclusion of a wide zone down the idea is much more evident in the  plan. This shift Cumbrian coast, down the north coast of the Solway reflects a broadening of the types of values toward a estuary, and through a large area of the Tyne River valley greater inclusion of aesthetic and contemporary values around Corbridge and north of Hexham. This reflected of the wider setting landscape. It also was a response to an approach that viewed the World Heritage Site very the FMD disaster and its impact on the values of the much as a cultural landscape. World Heritage Site. In addition, it symbolized a move In practical terms, the  draft plan presented toward a broader-scale and more holistic approach to a tiered approach to the management of this broadly planning. One could say that the older model of planning defined site. The innermost tier, the archaeological core, for an archaeological resource had been replaced by a would be protected by powers under ancient monuments model of planning for a living landscape that counts the legislation since it consisted of scheduled sites only, while -kilometer (-mile) archaeological resource among developments in the outer part of the site would be con- its dearest elements. trolled through planning policies in local authority plans. Access, tourism revenue, tourism impact, agricul- This was effectively the position reached, after exhaustive tural viability, and economic development—issues that public consultation, in the  plan—a tightly defined form the social context of conserving the Wall—have Site composed of the archaeological core and a Setting been discussed and debated since the s. The Manage- under local control. The end result was virtually the same. ment Plans have grown progressively more detailed and Some argued in the ‒ public discussions proactive in dealing with these diverse issues that consti- that the World Heritage Site should not be concerned tute the social context of the Wall’s conservation, and with the landscape as a whole since that landscape is not integrating them with the more heritage-centered values Roman and therefore not of outstanding universal value. and issues. The values articulated in the  plan more This argument did not win out, owing to the logic that explicitly recognize the importance of contemporary-use the Wall is where it is because of the landscape and has values. Correspondingly, the policies are more strongly greatly influenced the development of the landscape since shaped by contemporary values in the  plan, though its construction.

 not at the sacrifice of heritage values (which already were The overriding goal of the Hadrian’s Wall part- well articulated in the  plan). nerships has been to create a balanced program of conservation and development, as evidenced in the collaboration THE CENTRAL ROLE OF PARTNERSHIPS of three different organizations leading the effort: English Recognition and engagement of many diverse stakehold- Heritage, a conservation-driven agency; the HWTP, ers is key to values-based management. The Hadrian’s primarily an economic development agency; and the Wall plans are inclusive in this regard, taking into consid- Countryside Agency, a statutory agency involved in many eration the interests of future generations, of the world at countryside issues and in developing the Hadrian’s Wall large (universal value), of archaeologists and researchers, Path National Trail. This is a departure from traditional of tourists and visitors, and of government, landowners, conservation practice—which generally resisted or farmers, and local communities. Development and imple- ignored development and its benefits, and too often mentation of management policies have relied strongly focused on monuments rather than whole landscapes— on the formation of institutional partnerships, with the and is aligned with similar efforts in other countries seek- HWCU, HWTP, or the Countryside Agency playing the ing to manage large heritage resources, complexes, or coordinating roles. At one level, this regime of partner- landscapes (for example, French regional parks and ships is a straightforward response to the decentralized American heritage areas). patterns of ownership and stewardship in the territory Through partnering and overlapping of responsi- of the Site and Setting—namely the seven hundred or bilities, the site’s values have been well acknowledged in so owners and dozens of government and nonprofit both depth and breadth. This acknowledgment probably agencies with a stake in the site. comes more easily when the partners have diverse inter- Fragmented landownership remains a prevalent ests and values than in a case of centralized ownership pattern. Under the current partnership regime, there is and management. For instance, some partnerships focus no single manager for the whole site, but rather a fluid but on archaeological values, others on natural values or fairly stable group of organizations led by a small core of recreational use. With these collaborations spread out coordinating partners.57 This has been called a partnership across the region, a critical task for management is one of park management model, in contrast to the traditional coordination. The Wall’s status as a World Heritage Site model of unified site ownership.58 The core group of plays an anchoring role, keeping archaeological values, partners per force spends a great deal of energy managing and historic value related to the Roman archaeology, as the partnerships. These investments in sustaining partner- the focus of all efforts. Such buy-in on “Roman” values ships are considerable but provide benefits beyond those brings together all the stakeholders—not just the partners that would accrue from individual partners acting alone for which Wall-wide value understanding and manage- and without coordination. That these benefits are seen ment is the primary goal, but also local authorities, indi- as outweighing the costs holds true even for some individ- vidual heritage sites, government agencies with divergent ual partners—foremost, the Vindolanda Trust—who dis- mandates, national government, and World Heritage agree with some of the main policies guiding the Manage- stakeholders. ment Plan, yet recognize the value of their participation in the partnership because of the substantial benefits TOURISM STRATEGY they receive. Tourism development activities and the economic values By making it a priority to coordinate and inte- realized by tourism play a strong but not primary role in grate the actions of partners at all geographic levels, the site management. The leading tourism strategy pursued Management Plan serves the range of the landscape’s val- has been spearheaded by the tourism development agency ues well. One risk of such a large partnership park is that HWTP. The HWTP is itself a partnership, with an execu- of uncoordinated action, which not only can damage tive and more than a dozen funders and partners (govern- resources and threaten values directly but also can send a ment agencies, local councils, and others). The agency message that the entire partnership is not fully supported seeks to increase the economic benefits and sustainable by all partners. Maintaining a spirit of cooperation and uses of the heritage resources and other amenities avail- partners’ ultimate deference to the values of the whole able to visitors. site, as discussed and recorded in the Management Plan, Since its formation in , the HWTP’s efforts is central to the success of the partnership. have been closely coordinated with those of the Hadrian’s

 Wall Co-ordination Unit and other Wall-related entities, recognized in the plan, both contemporary and historic. as reflected in the Management Plan.59 This integration As the Management Plan states on its very first page, it is of tourism and management activities is evident in the list “to provide a means for establishing an appropriate bal- of HWTP objectives: ance between the needs of conservation, access, sustain- •To develop a high quality tourism product which able economic development, and the interests of the local meets the needs of identified target markets, within the community.”62 Indeed, sustainability is anchored in values: overall objectives of the World Heritage Management “An underlying principle [of the plan] is that of ‘sustain- Plan; ability’ which strikes a balance between maximising •To generate and spread benefits for businesses in enjoyment and use of the WHS while still preserving the the area, by improving communication and access to mar- values and fabric of the Site and its Setting and ensuring kets, attracting more high spending domestic and overseas that their universal significance is not impaired for future visitors, and developing the ‘shoulder’ seasons; generations.”63 •To encourage more people to leave their cars at AGRICULTURAL POLICY, VALUES, AND USES home and to travel into and around the area by public The practice of agriculture and agricultural policy has transport and other means such as cycling and walking; a significant effect on the Hadrian’s Wall landscape and •To stimulate visitor interest in, and support its management, especially in the central sections of the for, the management and conservation of the World site. Agriculture has shaped the landscape for centuries Heritage Site; and plays an exceedingly important role in the regional •To influence visitor behaviour, to spread the load economy, rivaling tourism and tourism-related develop- in support of agreed site management objectives, to max- ment as the most important contemporary-use values imise benefits and minimise any adverse impacts on the in the Setting. host community.60 The  plan recognizes the interdependency The agency engages in traditional marketing between agriculture and heritage conservation. As part of activities and plays an important part in regional branding the articulation of contemporary values, the plan’s state- and identity for both the Northeast and the Northwest ment of significance notes the contribution of agriculture (two governmental regions across which HWTP’s work to the World Heritage Site’s economic values.64 spans). It works with local businesses to improve their Sustaining agriculture, difficult in itself given eco- understanding and connections with the site and also nomic pressures and globalization, is yet more complex in organizes the Wall-wide bus service.61 the context of the World Heritage Site. The maintenance The HWTP’s involvement reflects the attitude of traditional agriculture (especially pasturage) is a power- that tourism values must be integrated with heritage val- ful lever for managing the landscape, which has become ues. The agency takes the lead in tourism promotion and an increasingly valued part of the site, as well as for con- Wall-based economic regeneration—within the frame- serving the archaeological resources of the Wall itself. work of the Site’s conservation mandate. It has launched Great aesthetic and historic value lies in the landscape of a wide variety of successful services and initiatives (from pasturage, stone walls, and sheep. Likewise, agriculture is the aforementioned bus service to a Web site to winning essentially an economic activity, and economic pressures and administering a large government grant for tourism- on agriculture are addressed by a number of government led regional economic regeneration) to work toward these programs, such as the Countryside Stewardship Scheme, goals, operating on the idea that “heritage is a driver of which provides grants and advice on diversification. economic regeneration.” What sets the HWTP apart Farmers tend to see conservation and tourism from other tourism agencies is its close partnership with as costs to bear, and even as a threat to economic sustain- EH and its full buy-in to the Management Plan, including ability. Nevertheless, they are partners in managing the the primacy of heritage conservation. site as a heritage place. DEFRA’s Countryside Stewardship Through its objectives and activities, the HWTP Scheme is one program used to manage the threats and defines and pursues what the Management Plan calls sus- opportunities of changing agricultural practices and their tainability. Sustainable, as defined by the HWTP and its effect on heritage places. The scheme gives grants to World Heritage Site partners, means () staying within the farmers to encourage the conservation of landscape and overall (conservation) objectives of the World Heritage ecological values. For example, by helping start farm-stays Site and () balancing the pursuit of the various values

 instead of converting pasturage to tilled land or forestry, Or, consider the wholesale transfer of pasture land to cul- stewardship grants help farmers manage their land to con- tivation (although it is unlikely for reasons of climate and serve valued environments and cultural features while soil). This would result in potentially damaging effects of diversifying operations to achieve greater financial stabil- plowing on several kinds of site values, physically disturb- ity. The site is a target area for this national program, and ing archaeological remains, accelerating erosion, and, applicants from within the area receive preferential treat- again, changing the look of the landscape. ment. Another benefit is the barn scheme, through which In the end, economic decisions of individual farmers secure grants to construct barns that are appro- farmers must be reconciled with local effects as well as priate to the aesthetic values of the landscape and that regional effects, not only on the Wall and Setting but also allow them to shelter stock during winter and therefore on environmental/ecological values. At the local level, manage a more lucrative operation. This program was co-ordinated conservation of archaeological resources, strongly promoted by Northumberland National Park and ecological resources, and economically robust agricul- is a good example of what can be achieved through part- tural practices is difficult for so few staff to manage. nership; indeed, such a program would not have been created by any one organization working independently. Impact of Management Policies Heritage protection is an important public good, and Decisions on the Site’s Values and restricting some of the rights of private-property and Their Preservation holders is a reasonable trade-off for guaranteeing public This section outlines some of the impacts that the Man- access to heritage. Heritage conservation of any kind thus agement Plans, policies, and decisions have had on the has some perceived disadvantages, for instance, the con- site’s values. The discussion highlights major innovations straints that monument scheduling might impose on free of and lessons learned from the Hadrian’s Wall experience use of one’s land. Although World Heritage designation and identifies issues relevant to managers of similar sites brings advantages to some farmers, others see it as further and projects. In reality, of course, the effects of the site’s constraint. management extend beyond what is covered here. The The foot and mouth disease crisis of  reduced topics selected for discussion in this section are the impact farming incomes some  percent in the region and of World Heritage designation on values; the balance pushed agricultural values to the forefront.65 (See the side- between the values of the Wall and the values of the bar on foot and mouth disease on page  for a more com- wider landscape; the effects of the partnership-driven prehensive discussion.) The impact on tourism, access, model of management; and the nature of Management and the regional economy—along with the direct threat Plan policies. to agriculture—shaped the creation of the  plan. The World Heritage designation has reinforced, and  plan takes agricultural values into consideration even helped expand, the values of Hadrian’s Wall. It has more seriously, given that it was written when this region generated planning processes that have engaged a full was recovering and responding to the FMD disaster. Even range of values and integrated these into the manage- though the decimation of animal stocks threatened the ment of the surrounding landscape. As a policy decision very practice of pasturage in these places, the crisis is taken by the government, the World Heritage nomination thought to have accelerated the pressures on agriculture has directly affected the perception and assessment of the but not to have changed them fundamentally. Economic values of this landscape and its resources. In primary pressures on farming will continue to spur diversification, ways, it has clearly articulated the site’s “universal value,” changes in ownership (both fragmentation and amalga- and in myriad secondary ways it has prompted value mation of farms), and conversion of farmland to other assessment, planning, and management action. uses altogether. World Heritage status functions as both a con- At the regional scale and in the long-view time servation strategy and a marketing strategy and furthers frame, the interrelationship between agricultural policy the efforts of existing local, regional, and national bodies. and management of the World Heritage Site is evident in It does so by creating the mechanisms for Wall-wide several ways. Consider a scenario in which agriculture management through partnerships, which have resulted ceased to be viable in its traditional modes: open land in a series of affirmative relationships and development would likely revert to scrub or forest, vastly changing the aesthetic of the landscape and the perception of its values.

 opportunities, while reinforcing existing statutory con- tourism and grant revenue in times of economic stress, trols and refraining from imposing additional ones. it is reasonable to think that there would not have been a By adding an explicit layer of universal value, Wall-wide plan or management scheme without the des- World Heritage status continues the decades-long ignation. Opinions on this interpretation differ, however. evolution of the understanding and management of Some of those involved feel that some regional scheme the Wall and its landscape. It facilitates moving from a would still have emerged without the designation’s cat- narrow focus on the Roman archaeological remains to alyzing effect. a more holistic, encompassing view of the heritage All these benefits should not lead one to think values. Because it has enabled and fostered regional that World Heritage status has been a panacea. The desig- cooperation, World Heritage designation has indeed nation has not eliminated divisiveness and continued added value in each of the categories articulated in the competition among stakeholders in the Site and Setting. Management Plan. Conflicts between owners and regulatory agencies As the basis for inscription, the emphasis on remain, as do conflicts between conservation-driven archaeological and historic values is a positive factor in interests and development-driven interests. The essential management, though it may de-emphasize other historic nature of this place’s heritage and contemporary values— values represented by non-Roman resources and land- extraordinarily rich and very diverse—makes such dis- scape patterns (i.e., medieval or later agricultural fea- agreements inevitable, and a planning system in which tures). The management planning activities, however, this is recognized and dealt with collectively is a produc- have resulted in a broad articulation of the values of tive arrangement. Various agencies will continue to com- Site and Setting (i.e., including natural, contemporary, pete for resources. Indeed, various groups—the Roman and non-Roman cultural values along with the core archaeology community, or the owners of one or another Roman/universal values). By institutionalizing the con- site/attraction, for example—have selectively used the nection between the management of the site and the statement of significance to advance their own interests. setting, World Heritage status has reinforced the values This study, however, suggests that World Heritage desig- of the living landscape, such as ecology and nature, nation and the management efforts that have resulted sub- visual qualities, and contemporary use. stantially outweigh these real and potential conflicts. The The designation has also brought prestige to the World Heritage efforts have led to effective management Wall and probably helped attract the substantial amounts of the full range of the Wall’s values. of government funding devoted to projects at the site BALANCING WALL VALUES AND (£ million to £ million from the Heritage Lottery LANDSCAPE VALUES Fund, for instance; more recently, £3.6 million in regional The Wall and its landscape are closely related but also dis- SRB grants). The result has been a more proactive, incen- tinct. The Wall is primarily an archaeological resource,66 tive-based attitude toward site development, as opposed whereas the Setting is a working landscape defined by eco- to the traditional regulatory, restrictive approach. nomic production, ecological values, aesthetic judgments, World Heritage designation has been a unifying and so on. Site and Setting are valued differently yet man- force, creating incentives (and in some ways require- aged in concert. ments) for collaboration. Projects such as the HWTP pro- From the onset of modern historical interest in grams or the National Trail benefit all and provide addi- the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the values of the tional opportunities to enjoy, use, and understand the site. Wall were overwhelmingly construed in terms of Roman- At the same time, designation enhances (marginally) pre- era archaeological and historic remains. More recently, existing efforts to conserve the archaeological fabric of the perceived values have evolved and broadened quite the Wall itself, although conservation efforts in the nar- dramatically to encompass a richly layered historic land- row sense have in effect given way to other initiatives. scape representing many periods and narratives and carry- Inscription of the site is seen as the force behind the con- ing important contemporary values. Without diminishing tinuing exchange between different stakeholders—from the value of the Wall, the clear trend over the past thirty different parts of the Wall, and from different perspectives years or so has been to value the Wall and its surrounding on the value of the Wall. Given the fragmented ownership landscape for both their heritage values and their contem- pattern, the number of government and other agencies porary-use values. This broader conception represents the involved with land management, and the competition for

 consensus today—that the Roman Wall is the core but Limits of Acceptable Change not the totality of what is significant about this place— Conference and the diversity of values presents a challenge for management. A two-tiered geographic scheme was devised A number of resource-, project-, and place- from the beginning of World Heritage inscription, identi- specific plans have been undertaken under the fying the core archaeological resources (including some associated resources not on the line of the wall itself) as rubric of the Management Plan, including a well as a substantial buffer zone (the Setting). Such a terri- local interpretive plan at Gilsland and conser- torially broad conception necessitates a broad consideration of values, given that much of the land is in active, vation plans for the Roman fort sites of nonconservation use and under the control of many sepa- Chesters and Housesteads. The plans have rate owners. Today, the site is understood and described primarily as a landscape, though it is clear that the roots of been spearheaded by the particular partners the site’s value lie in the archaeology and over time have involved, but, dictated by the Management evolved to include the landscape. Some have observed a conceptual disconnect Plan, efforts have been made to incorporate between the notion of the site as a place of universal them into the larger regional framework of value, based on Roman history, and the notion of a living landscape balancing both contemporary and heritage val- significance, values, and general policies. ues. The Setting as it exists today has been attributed universal value. Yet in certain respects, it is not the landscape Two overarching implementation issues must that existed during Roman times. It could be argued that the values of the Setting are different and should be be addressed. The first is how to specify and appraised differently from the values of the core Site. implement the broad insights and decisions Nevertheless, the key element of Hadrian’s Wall—and the set of values leading to the various legal of the regional planning and management protections and official recognition—is clearly the history scheme at a local level, or for specific resources. of the Wall and its associated features as a Roman imperial frontier. A generation ago, it could be said that the Roman The second is how to monitor values at such values obscured the other values. In the years following local, empirical scales that their improvement the  inscription and the new management structures and initiatives formed in the s, the strict focus on (or erosion) “on the ground” can be gauged Roman archaeological and historic values has evolved to and management can respond. incorporate a broader range of values. This expanded range includes other heritage values (post-Roman uses To address both these challenges, the Country- of the Wall, or the nineteenth-century agricultural landscape) as well as contemporary-use values (associated side Agency and English Heritage are leading with the practice of agriculture or tourism development). an effort to complete a limits of acceptable Today’s management scheme endeavors to maintain a balance among the different kinds of values. change (LAC) study for the most highly visited For instance, historic values related to the agricul- and traveled stretch of the Wall—Housesteads tural landscape created in the nineteenth century seem to be of little consequence in the planning and manage- to Steel Rigg.1 This area is under the most ment of the landscape, though these values are reflected intense use and pressure, and it also has a com- in the amount of territory. Features related to these values form a large portion of the landscape—pasturage, stone plicated, overlapping stewardship and owner- field walls, farmhouses, and barns—and there is ample continued on page 

 ship pattern involving a number of institutions, goals. With the points for unacceptable change including EH, the National Trust, and having been defined, a series of “management Northumberland National Park. An adaptation prescriptions” is drawn up to guide responses of carrying-capacity planning and impact to specific changes (e.g., whom to consult assessment, LAC methods acknowledge the before constructing a fence around a scheduled reality of landscape change and focus on identi- monument, or when it is acceptable to close fying acceptable ranges of change. It is based certain parts of the walking path). on managing outcomes so that the different As with other plans in the World Heritage Site, values and functions of a landscape remain the linchpin of the LAC approach to microlevel balanced, as opposed to setting particular heritage landscape management is not the values as a priori targets for protection. These specific limits or actions described in the plan tolerances are not based on scientific studies, but the system of collaboration. The Houses- but rather are established through extensive teads LAC “brings together organisations and consultation among the stakeholders. individuals with diverse interests (subsequently The Housesteads LAC conference looked at referred to as the Conference) to agree limits of five factors, each relating loosely to the her- acceptable change for specific parameters, how itage and contemporary values articulated they should be monitored and the measures to for the World Heritage Site: archaeological be taken to prevent them being reached or if resource quality; natural resource quality; dis- they are reached.” With the conference done turbance to farming; recreational path quality; and the plan in place, the actual work of moni- and quality of visitor experience. For each fac- toring and reporting is shared by the main tor, clear benchmarks are outlined as limits— stakeholder agencies. for example, “no deterioration in the archaeo- The LAC stresses collaboration among part- logical resource” or “a maximum of  com- ners as the key to balancing the values of the plaints from farmers per annum.” Monitoring landscape, while also demonstrating detailed is built in: “The LAC process relies upon a sys- understanding of the resources and their use. tem of continual environmental monitoring This effort has nonetheless engendered criti- that demonstrates when a quality threshold has cism for being too exhaustive, intensive, and been breached or is about to be breached.”2 expensive to be pragmatic and useful as a The five elements chosen for monitoring corre- widely adopted management method. late well with World Heritage Site values and

 continued from page  evidence of ongoing medieval habitation along and on the Wall.67 The Roman focus on conservation and manage- Notes ment can work against understanding and managing these post-Roman values. Deﬁning the landscape as a “set-  .The source for much of the information on the LAC efforts ting” for the Roman/Wall resources puts it in a secondary is Rimmington and McGlade . position. While this is rightly seen as necessary in terms  , . . Rimmington and McGlade of prioritizing values (identifying the ones of universal value and putting them at the center of management), the implications as to how the other, non-Roman historic values are recognized are not clear. Contrary examples are evident in the several lay- ers of post-Roman historic values that are well preserved and represented. The Birdoswald site has maintained buildings dating from the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries, carrying out conservation and interpretation within this context. The efforts to develop access and interpretation at this site are held up as a model in the framework of the Management Plan. The need for sensi- tivity and subtlety in balancing values is well recognized and wrestled with across the site. These values coexist almost everywhere in the landscape. For example, the Roman historic values relate directly to contemporary values through tourism: the Wall is the source of many kinds of value and is perhaps the most important resource for regional economic development and regeneration. This has long been recognized as far back as the  Strategy document (which in turn was based on a  regional development report). The values are protected explicitly as a matter of policy, and many of the current and planned efforts to improve management are focused on the visual and other experiential qualities of the Wall setting. These have been the subject of the “limits of acceptable change” analyses done by the National Trail, the National Trust, and Northumberland National Park to manage the Housesteads area at a more local scale. Using the conserved archaeological and historic values of the Wall as a visitor attraction has been a driving force not only in the Wall-wide management scheme committed to paper but also in the creation of partnerships (especially with the HWTP and with national and local governments) and the attraction of funding to sustain all activities associated with the Wall (from strict conservation to more development-oriented schemes). What has been the impact of the shift toward valuing the setting as well as the site? Highlighting World Heritage values—explicitly “universal”—seems largely to have bolstered the advancement of local and regional val-

 ues associated with the landscape. The current manage- matically. The territory is controlled by more than six ment regime acknowledges that the Wall has shaped this hundred owners and dozens of different organizations landscape for the last nineteen hundred years, and that a and agencies. The only sensible management model broader story of landscape evolution and a broader range depends on partnership among the existing owners and of values are the basis for its current value to society. stakeholders. While the expansion of geographic scope and universal How does the partnership-dependent manage- significance of the values to be conserved may have intro- ment structure affect values? Regional coordination works duced more complexity and conflict, the more important in at least two ways. First, by raising awareness of the result is positive: a greater range of values is assessed and integrity of the whole Wall as a Roman archaeological conserved, and a more holistic framework for recognizing resource—not the individual, excavated sites—abets the the significance of different kinds of values has become conservation of this overarching, regional-scale cultural broadly accepted. The Management Plans reflect a bal- value, which otherwise would be difficult to achieve anced approach to managing the core heritage values under a piecemeal arrangement of disparate sites. Second, (those associated with the Wall) and the other, often marketing the Wall as a whole to visitors increases eco- equally important, values of the context (i.e., the Setting). nomic values. A collaborative marketing effort can create an image for the region as a whole, rendering it more dis- THE EFFECTS OF A PARTNERSHIP MODEL tinctive to visitors in distant markets. Regional coordina- ON VALUES tion also is spreading visitors elsewhere along the Wall, The partnership management structure used for guiding them to lesser-known places. In some sites this is Hadrian’s Wall has an important impact on values.68 In perceived as “reducing tourism pressure” and in others as a general sense, involving more partners of varied kinds “siphoning off visitors.” broadens the values that are being championed. For Underlying the plans is an ethic of cooperation, instance, including private landowners along with conser- and there is much evidence of cooperative work on the vation groups and archaeologists places economic and ground as well. Nearly every organization and site con- other contemporary-use values on par with historic and tacted for this study reported some kind of partnership as research values. Some particular examples emerge in the essential to its current activities and goals. The partner- following discussion. ship model has also been successful in securing funds for The MPC emerged in the  plan, but such new initiatives and cooperative projects. But the partner- cooperation and collaboration can be traced back to ship structure also leaves room for competition among reports and plans formulated in the s and s. Simi- partners for funding, visitors, credit and visibility, control lar arrangements have been employed elsewhere in the over land use, and other issues. A cooperative ticketing world over the past twenty years, but they reach a high scheme with several participating sites was introduced but level of articulation and refinement in the management failed, as some operators felt the cross promotion was not of Hadrian’s Wall.69 working and opted out. There are indications that the The institutionalized partnership of these agen- older, prevailing attitude of competition among sites has cies constitutes a comprehensive effort to manage a range not faded, although new managers tend to fall in line with of values larger than that held by any one partner. This the cooperative philosophy of the Management Plan. range is clearly reflected in the Management Plans as well: The Vindolanda Trust’s role in the partnership archaeological, historic, aesthetic, economic, and other illustrates some of the issues raised by the partnership contemporary-use values are all accounted for at the model. By definition, partnerships are a two-way arrange- regional scale. Such a thoroughly horizontal process of ment: partners mutually contribute costs and enjoy management, it could be said, leads to a continuous rebal- benefits. Not every partner relates the same way to the ancing of values and thus to plans well adjusted to achiev- whole Wall partnership, and Vindolanda is perhaps the ing longer-term stewardship goals as well as shorter-term clearest example of this. The trust sees the benefit in par- development goals. At one level, this approach is a ticipating in regional marketing activities, but actively response to the mosaic of complicated ownership and resists collaborating on issues of archaeological and stewardship responsibilities. A generation ago, the list of reconstruction policy because of ideological disagree- potential partners was smaller (EH and landowners), but ments, among other reasons. Nevertheless, the statutory under the current regime the number has increased dra- relationship with EH remains (as a matter of law, not

 choice). Thus, a limited partnership is sustained between Management Plan policies set the vision and pro- Vindolanda and the MPC. On balance, the differences vide direction, but they do not prescribe or proscribe among partners are a reality that will continue and, actions. The plan differs from what is traditionally seen as from EH’s viewpoint, “the fact that Vindolanda remains a master plan in that it establishes principles of operation a partner” is seen as “a testament to the strength of the and general guidelines but does not chart out the specific partnership.” work to be done. Instead, the plan creates a framework for Partnership models in general, and the Hadrian’s and anticipates the creation of the regional- and local-level Wall efforts in particular, are not without their inherent plans and contributions to determining local land-use pol- difficulties. There is no single accountability for the site’s icy. Specific regulatory controls remain in the hands of overall well-being. The organizations with sitewide man- local authorities and, for national scheduled monuments date are coordinating or development entities, not man- themselves, with EH. For instance, the plan is designed to agement units. Some partners are involved in several dif- be implemented through adoption in existing local plans ferent aspects at once—as owner, regulatory agency, and regulations—and to a large extent, local and regional financially interested party, neighbor—leaving ample authorities have endorsed the Management Plan and room for conflicts of interest to develop, or the perception incorporated its provisions into their own planning poli- of them. One organization, or core of partners, has to cies and schemes.70 take the lead yet must never appear too far out in front of The Management Plans for the site carry no the consensus on various issues. Recognizing individual statutory authority and are not tabled in Parliament (i.e., partners who are taking uncoordinated actions or follow- passed or endorsed officially by the government). The ing divergent policies requires constant vigilance. Such  plan is “endorsed” by the MPC and “adopted” by the difficulties and complications are best resolved not by individual partners. In other words, the plan gains author- exercises of raw power—though sometimes the need ity only to the extent to which it is adopted or imple- arises—but rather by a continuing series of discussions, mented by local authorities. These local controls, the exchanges, negotiations, compromises, and dispute reso- adoption of which is negotiated and not required, are lution, all of which demand a great deal of resources complemented by existing national statutory controls (staff time, energy, material costs, etc.). Indeed, only (cf. PPG  and ; scheduled monuments reviews) and landowners and EH have and exercise raw power. The are seen as sufficient legal protection. By endorsing the partnership model operates under the hypothesis that World Heritage listing of the site, however, the national the time and effort needed to manage complex partner- government tacitly endorses the provisions of the plan. ships is worthwhile. As a result, the intentions of the plan are backed by vari- The benefits of the partnership model speak ous statutory authorities, but these are neither centralized directly to other issues that have arisen vis-à-vis values and in any particular institution or agency nor tied directly to management of the site—for instance, striking a balance the MPC. between Wall values and setting values. DEFRA and the The primary focus is on the means (the process) Countryside Agency wield the influence and have the of continuing to work together, pursue common goals, incentive to manage the broader landscape, whereas the and/or pursue individual goals within the bounds of the power of EH is fairly well focused on the Wall and its agreed-upon framework. Some typical results of this flexi- immediate surroundings. To manage the site and setting ble policy approach is the use of LAC methods to manage together requires a collaborative partnership. access to the Housesteads-Steel Rigg segment of the Wall, and the different approaches taken to creating local/small- MANAGEMENT PLANS AND THEIR POLICIES area interpretive plans, carried out under the rubric of the It has already been pointed out which values are articu- regional scheme but performed by the local partners lated in the Management Plans for Hadrian’s Wall. The themselves. (See the sidebar on the LAC conference on intent here is to describe how the approach to manage- page .) In all these types of local planning, the key value ment and planning () is reflective of the broader, more added by the MPC is the coordination of actions so that inclusive attitude toward values that has evolved, and consistency and cooperation lead directly to leveraging () is a response to the large scale of the resources and all investments for positive, Wall-wide impact. the need to foster local and resource-specific control over resources and their values.

 Conclusions

The Hadrian’s Wall management and planning scheme metaphoric). Its significant achievements have included represents a highly developed, thoroughly consultative, the founding of the HWTP and its Wall-wide programs and thoughtful system of values-based conservation. It of marketing, transportation, and education; the estab- has two hallmarks of sustainability: it encompasses the lishment of the National Trail; the attraction of substan- many types of values associated with the core resources tial grant funds; and the successful conservation and inter- and their contexts, and its implementation is based on pretation of a large and complex set of cultural resources. partnerships. The scheme is explicitly driven by the The Management Plan provides a framework and guid- identification of heritage and other values, and by actions ance for all partners and actors to carry out their work. undertaken to ensure their existence and sustained use. The partnership model has several features abun- The current scheme has evolved over the past thirty years dantly in evidence for Hadrian’s Wall and contributing to through the efforts of many organizations and has been its success: strengthened by World Heritage designation and the •The positive results of the partnership since the United Kingdom’s efforts to generate a thorough manage- mid-1990s are clear. Working in concert, a number of ment response to this recognition of universal value. objectives have been achieved which, in the opinion of Over the generation or so of planning and man- those on the ground, would not have been reached by agement examined in this case study, there has been a organizations working independently. clear and progressive recognition of the breadth of values • Managing by consensus is an exceedingly impor- to be managed for this heritage place. What was once con- tant principle and a major learning point. It is a replace- sidered an archaeological resource tracing a line across the ment, one can say, for management by regulation and country has been transformed in a few decades into a direct statutory control. There is a remarkably wide buy- complex, layered cultural landscape rich in both heritage in among partners on the protection of the setting as well and contemporary values. Management practices and as the Wall. plans have evolved as well and have helped shift attitudes •There are a lot of “calculated ambiguities” in toward values at every step. Overall, the recognition of planning and management. The planning has remained partners’ collective interests outweighs the importance of at a strategic level, avoiding the prescription of particular individual goals. The partnership has come to an agree- actions for particular sites. This is appropriate given the ment that Hadrian’s Wall is a landscape and not a discrete extensive scale of the whole venture and the need to rec- monument. The two-tiered structure of boundaries fol- ognize (and perhaps decentralize) the distribution of lows the partnership model for managing the landscape: power among the various partners and individuals who the core is agreed upon and protected tightly and uni- wield ultimate control over land and resources. It is also formly, and the setting is managed according to the wishes flexible and allows the partnership to respond to changing of the local jurisdictions or owners, who have differing external forces, whether those forces are welcome oppor- views of what should be protected and how. In seeking tunities (regional regeneration funds) or unwelcome inclusion and recognition of the site’s policies in local threats (the ravages of FMD). land-use policies and plans, the whole scheme recognizes An integrated planning and management regime the limits of a partnership model. Ultimately, control over has been implemented at Hadrian’s Wall that addresses a the resources resides with the individual partners. variety of situations and sets a framework for integrating The collaborative, “horizontal” management policies and actions at different geographic scales. The scheme seems well suited to the resources and the pat- approach used is also a “learning” system, as seen in the terns of landownership and control, and has resulted in evolution from the  plan to the  plan. The latter is benefits equal to (if not exceeding) its costs (real and by no means a finished plan; it explicitly calls for the

 implementation of policies (which necessarily relate to .For the purposes of this study, value and significance are given the region and the whole resource) at a local, actionable consistent meanings; if the organizations involved in the site scale. Further, the partnership recognizes that one goal use the terms differently, it will be clarified. over the next several years should be the creation of . English Heritage ,  and part , “Maps.” monitoring mechanisms—ways to understand and track .Reiterating what is noted in the introduction, site refers how values are being shaped, and to use this information throughout to the World Heritage Site in totality—the Wall, in the management of the Wall and Setting. associated remains, and the setting. The institutional arrangements seem well suited .These include forts, fortlets, and other monuments to the to managing values as well as conservation and develop- south of Bowness (the western end of the Wall) along the Cumbrian coast, and other Roman sites near but not adja- ment activities. The Hadrian’s Wall scheme seems neither cent to the line of the Wall. centralized nor decentralized. An effective center exists in .The Clayton Wall was rebuilt not to its original height, but the combination of the Hadrian’s Wall Co-ordination Unit to that sufficient to serve as a barrier to keep out livestock and the HWTP. This combination also includes partners and create a property boundary. from the private sector but is not so privatized as to be . Details on the archaeological remains and extant remains in overly susceptible to market fluctuations. EH has a unique the site can be found in the Management Plans, in particular and complicated set of roles: for the region, it is a coordi- section .. of the  plan [and guidebooks]. nator, convener, and consultant; for the Wall as an archae- . Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site is situated at a latitude ological resource, it is a regulatory agency; for certain of °N. sites, it is a day-to-day manager; and for other sites, it is . McKnight , ‒. also the owner. As such, EH is potentially at odds with .A detailed time line appears in the appendix. some of its own partners, but this has not proven to be a .For a detailed history and description of the Wall, see Birley liability. It is not clear, however, whether this makes EH ; de la Bedoyere ; Breeze and Dobson ; and more or less effective in playing the lead coordinating role. Ewin . The partnership model is not without its down- .Watson , . Today, the Military Road is known as B. side. Competition among partners remains. There is . Ewin , . little centralized or statutory authority to force resolution . , . of issues when necessary. The partnership’s successes English Heritage have relied on large infusions of funds; if the incentives . Ewin , vii. for funding and marketing dry up, there would be little . Ewin , . more than the power of good ideas to hold together the . Hadrian’s Wall Tourism Partnership, “Hadrian’s Wall whole partnership. Persuasion and perseverance are World Heritage Site: Research and Archaeology: Rev. among the most important managers’ tools in such a Dr. John Collingwood Bruce, ‒.” [http://   scheme, and these require enormous investments of www.hadrians-wall.org/randa/jcb.htm] ( May ). time and human capital. . Ibid. . English Heritage , . . Ewin , . The archaeological protection acts passed Notes during this period were the Ancient Monuments Protection Act of , the Ancient Monuments Act of , the Ancient Monu- .This work has been reported in three publications: See ments Consolidation and Amendment Act of , and the Mason ; Avrami, Mason, and de la Torre ; and Ancient Monuments Act of .  de la Torre . . English Heritage, “Hadrian’s Wall Museums.” [http:// .Pearson and Sullivan , . www.eng-gov.uk/ArchRev/rev_/hwmuseum.htm]   .The Burra Charter is the popular name for The Australia ( May ). ICOMOS charter for the conservation of places of cultural . Hadrian’s Wall Tourism Partnership, “Research and significance, which was adopted by Australia ICOMOS in  Archaeology: Wall Recording Project.” [http:// at Burra, Australia. The charter has since been revised and www.hadrians-wall.org/] ( May ). updated, and the sole version now in force was approved in . English Heritage , paragraph ... .

 . Quoted from http://whc.unesco.org/nwhc/pages/doc/ . It should also be noted that this change is congruent with mainf.htm. World Heritage List criteria for natural heritage philosophical shifts in the heritage field and related disci- properties are also available at this URL. plines that more seriously recognize the geographic and . Ewin , . value contexts of what are traditionally seen as historic resources. .This concern was based on the perception that more walkers   ‒ would come and have a negative impact. Once formal counts . Management Plan, pp. . of footpath traffic were conducted, fears of overuse by walk- . Strategy . ers proved unfounded, illustrating the notion that accurate . Strategy , . information and monitoring are essential for site manage-    ment. Christopher Young, English Heritage, e-mail corre- . Accessed at http://whc.unesco.org/sites/ .htm ( April  spondence,  June . ).   .. .Jane Brantom, Hadrian’s Wall Tourism Partnership, e-mail . Management Plan, paragraph . correspondence,  June . . Accessed at http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/ArchRev/rev_/ .Kate Clark, personal communication, , citing Mynors hadrian.htm. . . Christopher Young, English Heritage, e-mail correspon-   .Ifsuch consent is denied, the applicant has the right to public dence, April . inquiry or informal hearing prior to a final ruling concerning .  Management Plan, section .., pp. ‒. the application. .  Management Plan, p. , emphasis added.   . PPG : Archaeology and Planning, Department of the Envi- . See  Management Plan, pp. ‒, for the full text of the  ronment, . Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London. statement of significance. May be found at http://www.planning.odpm.gov.uk/ppg/  ppg/index.htm (May ). .This document is available at http://www. hadrians-wall.org/. Click on Hadrian’s Wall Tourism   . . PPG : Planning and the Historic Environment, section . Partnership. Department of the Environment and Department of  National Heritage, . Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, .The source for much of the information in this section is London. Found at http://www.planning.odpm.gov.uk/ drawn from correspondence with Christopher Young, ppg/ppg/pdf/ppg.pdf. Recent amendment may be English Heritage. found at http://www.planning.odpm.gov.uk/circulars/ .The core of the partners group is represented by the MPC.    / .htm (May ). . This term is used increasingly, for instance, in the U.S. . UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cul- National Park Service to refer to the increasing decentraliza- tural and Natural Heritage: Operational Guidelines, part I..B. tion of authority and funding through the inclusion of pri- .This department is also responsible for matters related to the vate, public, and nonprofit partners in the management of arts, sport, and recreation; the National Lottery; libraries, parks and historic sites. As an example, see the press release   museums, and galleries; licensing for the export of cultural at http://data .itc.nps.gov/release/Detail.cfm?ID= . goods, film, broadcasting, and the royal estate; and regula- .Available at http://www.hadrians-wall.org/. tion of the press. .Available at http://www.hadrians-wall.org/. Click on . Accessed at www.english-heritage.org.uk. Hadrian’s Wall Tourism Partnership. . See http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/. .The operation of the bus is funded by a number of bodies— .These measures are summarized in appendix  of the  not solely HWTP—including Northumberland National Management Plan. Park, which underwrites any losses.   . .This document is found at http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/ . Management Plan, p. acts/Ukpga__en_.htm#mdiv. .  Management Plan, p. . . PPG , explanatory note. http://www.planning.odpm. .  Management Plan, p. .   gov.uk/ppg/ppg /pdf/ppg .pdf. .  Management Plan, p. .  . Amenity societies in the United Kingdom include the . It should be noted that “the Wall,” as used here and through- Ancient Monuments Society, the Council for British Archae- out, also encompasses related archaeological resources and ology, the Georgian Group, the Society for the Protection of sites not technically part of the Wall itself. Ancient Buildings, the Victorian Society, and the Twentieth   .. Century Society. . Management Plan, section .  . PPG , introduction. . Similar kinds of partnership-driven models have been used in other countries, and the increasing reliance on partner- . English Heritage , section ...

 ships in all types of planning has been an area of innovation for at least the last thirty years. . In the United Kingdom, such partnership arrangements involving different national agencies as well as local and regional partners are quite common now, but those involving Hadrian’s Wall have been a trendsetter. . Appendix  of the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site Management Plan lists the speciﬁc local plans and policies through which the plan is already being implemented.

 record thoroughly and in detail the structure of the Wall and its associated forts in the central sector.5 Appendix: Time Line for Hadrian’s Wall During Heritage Status  The Newcastle Society of Antiquaries and the Cumberland and Westmoreland Antiquarian and  Antiquarian William Camden visited the length Archaeological Society, led by John Collingwood of Hadrian’s Wall except the central sector due Bruce, held their first pilgrimage along the length to its dangerous condition. The following year of the Wall. A second pilgrimage took place in he published his survey and explanation of the 1886, and since that time the groups have led such Wall and its structures in the fifth edition of pilgrimages every ten years.6 his Britannia.1  John Collingwood Bruce published the first  The Rev. John Horsley’s work Britannia Romana, edition of The Roman Wall, which summarized the first systematic study of Hadrian’s Wall, the results of John Clayton’s excavations at was published. Chesters Roman Fort and publicized John Hodg- son’s theory of the Wall’s construction under the ca.  The Military Road was constructed between emperor Hadrian.7 Newcastle and Carlisle. Approximately  kilometers ( miles) of the road was built on top  John Collingwood Bruce published his Handbook of Hadrian’s Wall between Newcastle and of the Roman Wall, which has since served as an Sewingshields.2 important guide to the Wall. Its thirteenth edition was published in .8  William Hutton walked the length of the Wall and wrote an account, now published under the  The South Shields Urban District Council estab- title The First Man to Walk Hadrian’s Wall. lished the Roman Remains Park at South Shields, marking the first public acquisition and display of  William Hutton saved a section of the Wall a part of the Wall.9 at Planetrees from being pillaged to make field walls.3  The museum at Chesters Roman Fort, which housed John Clayton’s collection of objects. ‒ In , John Clayton inherited ownership of Chesters Roman Fort. From that time until his  A first section of the Wall was scheduled as a death in , Clayton excavated and protected monument. remains of the Wall and amassed a collection of  The Ancient Monuments Act was enacted in part as Roman objects from various locations along the a result of threats to the Wall.10 The Hadrian’s Wall. He acquired five Roman sites in the area of Wall and Vallum Preservation Scheme also was Chesters to provide for their preservation. He led adopted. The British government acquired its first excavations at the fort sites at Housesteads ( parts of the Wall.11 onward), Carrawburgh (‒), and Carvoran (). One conservation technique Clayton  The Housesteads Museum was opened to the developed was encasing the surviving Wall public.12 remains in drystone facework topped with turf.  The Vindolanda Trust, an independent archaeo- Sections of the Wall built over in this fashion are logical charitable trust, was founded to excavate, today known as the Clayton Wall. He also pub- preserve, and present the Roman remnants lished reports of his excavations, which were associated with land owned by the trust at supplemented by a number of plans.4 Vindolanda.  John Hodgson published his History of Northum-  The Vindolanda Trust acquired the Roman site berland, the first work to argue convincingly that known as Carvoran, located 8 miles to the west of the Wall had been constructed under the Roman Vindolanda. emperor Hadrian. Hodgson also was the first to

  Tourist visitation to the Wall peaked. Hadrian’s Wall Co-ordination Unit, based in Hexham, to oversee implementation of the plan.  Darlington Amenity Research Trust (DART) report was published, articulating the need for a  The Segedunum Roman Fort, Bath House and Wall-wide conservation strategy, tourism Museum in Wallsend opened to the public. The scheme, and management attention. development, operated by the Tyne and Wear Museums, included a working reconstruction of  The document Strategy for Hadrian’s Wall was a Roman bathhouse and a viewing tower approxi- published, proposing a regionwide framework mately  meters ( feet) in height. for conservation and tourism.  The Hadrian’s Wall region was severely damaged English Heritage opened the Corbridge Museum by the foot and mouth disease epidemic. at Corbridge Roman site.  Management Plan ‒ was released. The Cumbria County Council acquired the Birdoswald estate for the purpose of developing the remains of the Roman fort and other archae- Notes ological features there as a heritage site that would be open to the public. . English Heritage , .  English Heritage began its Wall Recording Pro- .Watson , . ject, which provided the first detailed record of . English Heritage , . the visible remains of the Wall and its associated  , ‒ features. The finished drawings are used in the . English Heritage .  management and conservation of the Wall.12 . Hadrian’s Wall Tourism Partnership, “Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site: Research and Archaeology: Rev. John  The Tyne and Wear Museums completed recon- Hodgson,” http://www.hadrians-wall.org/ ( May ). struction of the west gate at Arbeia Roman Fort . English Heritage , . at South Shields. . Hadrian’s Wall Tourism Partnership, “Hadrian’s Wall World  Hadrian’s Wall Military Zone inscribed by Heritage Site: Research and Archaeology: Rev. Dr. John Collingwood Bruce, ‒,” http://www.hadrians-wall. UNESCO as a World Heritage Site under criteria org/randa/jcb.htm ( May ). C (ii), (iii), and (iv). . Ibid. The first visitor center opened at Birdoswald . English Heritage , . Roman Fort. . English Heritage , .  The Senhouse Museum Trust opened the . English Heritage , . Senhouse Roman Museum, which houses the . English Heritage, “Hadrian’s Wall Museums,” http:// Netherhall collection of Roman artifacts, in www.eng-h.gov.uk/ArchRev/rev_/hwmuseum.htm Maryport. ( May ). . Hadrian’s Wall Tourism Partnership, “Research and Archae-  The Hadrian’s Wall Tourism Partnership was ology: Wall Recording Project,” http://www.hadrians-wall. created. org/ ( May ).  The secretary of state approved proposals for the . English Heritage , paragraph ... Hadrian’s Wall Path, a new National Trail.  The Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site Manage- ment Plan for the period ‒ was published after extensive consultation. The plan established the World Heritage Site Management Plan Com- mittee “to act as the primary forum for issues concerning the management of the World Her- itage Site.”14 English Heritage established the

 References

Australia ICOMOS. . The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Hadrian’s Wall Tourism Partnership/SRB Steering Group. . Enrich- Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance. Australia ment and Enterprise. Round : Single Regeneration Budget Bid.  May. ICOMOS. http://www.icomos.org/australia/ [click on “Charters & Hadrian’s Wall Tourism Partnership. . Beyond the Final Frontier: Pro- Publications”]. jects in Progress and Proposed, Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site. January.  Avrami, Erica, et al., eds. . Values and Heritage Conservation. Los Hadrian’s Wall Tourism Partnership. “Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute. [www.getty.edu/conserva- Site: Research and Archaeology: Rev. Dr. John Collingwood Bruce, tion/resources/valuesrpt.pdf] ‒.” [http://www.hadrians-wall.org/randa/jcb.htm] Bidwell, P., ed. . Hadrian’s Wall ‒: A Summary of Recent ( May ). Excavations and Research Prepared for The Twelfth Pilgrimage of Hadrian’s Hadrian’s Wall Tourism Partnership. “Research and Archaeology: Wall ‒  Wall, August . Carlisle: The Cumberland and Westmoreland Recording Project.” [http://www.hadrians-wall.org/] ( May ). Antiquarian and Archaeological Society and the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle upon Tyne. Hadrian’s Wall Tourism Partnership. “Research and Archaeology: Rev. John Hodgson.” [http://www.hadrians-wall.org/] ( May ). Birley, E. . Research on Hadrian’s Wall. Kendal, England: T. Wilson. Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England. N.d.   Breeze, D. J., and B. Dobson. . Hadrian’s Wall. th ed. New York: World Heritage Convention, Cultural Properties: UK Nomination Hadrian’s Penguin. Wall Military Zone. British Standard on the Principles of the Conservation of Historic Johnson, J. S. . Chesters Roman Fort. . Reprint, London: English ,  Buildings (BS ). In English Heritage Policy Statement on Restora- Heritage. tion, Reconstruction, and Speculative Recreation of Archaeological Sites Including Ruins, February . Land Use Consultants (in association with Heritage Site and Landscape Surveys Ltd). . Hadrian’s Wall Landscape and Planning Study: Final  Darlington Amenity Research Trust. . Hadrian’s Wall: A Strategy for Report. June. Conservation and Visitor Services. DART Publication no. , August. Mason, Randall, ed. . Economics and Heritage Conservation. Los de la Bedoyere, G. 1999. Hadrian’s Wall: History and Guide. London: Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute. [http://www.getty.edu/ Tempus Publishing Ltd. conservation/resources/econrpt.pdf]  de la Torre, Marta, ed. . Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage: McKnight, T. . Physical Geography: A Landscape Appreciation. th ed. Research Report. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. [http://www.getty.edu/conservation/resources/assessing.pdf ] Mynors, C. . Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Monuments. d   Dore, J. N. . Corbridge Roman Site. . Reprint, London: English ed. London: Sweet and Maxwell. Heritage. Ordnance Survey. . Map of Hadrian’s Wall. d ed. Southampton: English Heritage. “Hadrian’s Wall Museums.” [http://www.eng-h.gov. Author. uk/ArchRev/rev_/hwmuseum.htm] ( May ). Pearson, Michael, and S. Sullivan. 1995. Looking After Heritage Places:  English Heritage. . Hadrian’s Wall Management Plan. London: The Basics of Heritage Planning for Managers, Landowners. Melbourne: Author. Melbourne University Press.  ———. . Chesters Roman Fort. London: Author. Rimmington, N., and D. McGlade. . “Limits of Acceptable Change ———. . Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site Management Plan, Conference: Defining and Managing Quality—Housesteads Roman ‒. [Available as a pdf file at http://www.hadrians-wall.org/ Fort to Steel Rigg Section of Hadrian’s Wall.” Consultation draft, HWTPMgmtPlan.pdf]  November. Ewin, A. . Hadrian’s Wall: A Social and Cultural History. Lancaster: The Strategy for Hadrian’s Wall. . Hadrian’s Wall Consultative Centre for North-West Regional Studies/University of Lancaster. Committee. Fairclough, G., G. Lambrick, and A. McNab. . Yesterday’s World, U.K. Department of the Environment. . Planning Policy Guidance Tomorrow’s Landscape: The English Heritage Historic Landscape Project, (PPG) : Archaeology and Planning. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, ‒. London: English Heritage. London. Found at http://www.planning.odpm.gov.uk/ppg/ppg/ index.htm (May ).

 U.K. Department of the Environment and Department of National Heritage. . Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) : Planning and the Historic Environment. Her Majesty’s Stationery Ofﬁce, London. Found at http://www.planning.odpm.gov.uk/ppg/ppg/pdf/ppg.pdf. Recent amendment may be found at http://www.planning.odpm. gov.uk/circulars//.htm (May ). UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Accessed at http://whc.unesco.org/nwhc/pages/ doc/mainf.htm. UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage: Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Accessed at http://whc.unesco.org/ opgulist.htm. Watson, I. . Hadrian’s Wall: A Teacher’s Handbook. London: English Heritage.

 Acknowledgments

This case study of Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site stewardship responsibilities for some aspect of the World is the result of research, interviews, site visits, extensive Heritage Site. The site visits and tours of the region were consultation, and frank discussion. Colleagues at English indispensable in understanding the scope of effort and Heritage and the Hadrian’s Wall Tourism Partnership depth of understanding that go into managing the have been particularly helpful in the research, production, Hadrian’s Wall landscape. To everyone who contributed and reﬁnement of this study. They have been forthcoming we are especially grateful. We sincerely thank all those and generous, and have participated energetically in the who have patiently and generously given their time and extensive tours and discussions that took place during the ideas in the preparation of this study; those who have Steering Committee’s visit to the Hadrian’s Wall region helped us focus our interpretations; and those who other- in April . wise assisted us in our ﬁeldwork and research. In preparing this case study, we have consulted the extensive documentation produced by English Her- Randall Mason itage, the Hadrian’s Wall Tourism Partnership, and vari- Margaret G. H. MacLean ous local governments and regional organizations with Marta de la Torre

 Steering Committee of the Case Study Project

Gordon Bennett Margaret G. H. MacLean Director Heritage Consultant Policy and Government Relations Los Angeles National Historic Sites Directorate Parks Canada Francis P. McManamon Departmental Consulting Archaeologist Christina Cameron Archaeology and Ethnography Director General U.S. National Park Service National Historic Sites Directorate Parks Canada Randall Mason Assistant Professor and Director Kate Clark Graduate Program in Historic Preservation Head of Historic Environment Management University of Maryland English Heritage David Myers Marta de la Torre Research Associate Principal Project Specialist The Getty Conservation Institute The Getty Conservation Institute Dwight Pitcaithley François LeBlanc Chief Historian Head U.S. National Park Service Field Projects The Getty Conservation Institute Christopher Young Head of World Heritage and International Policy Jane Lennon English Heritage Commissioner Australian Heritage Commission

 Persons Contacted during the Development of the Case

Julian Acton David Murray National Farmers Union National Farmers Union Northumberland Cumbria

Lindsay Allason-Jones Karen Parker Director of Archaeological Museums Administration and Newsletter Editor Museum of Antiquities English Heritage Co-ordination Unit University of Newcastle Georgina Plowright Paul Austen Curator Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site Co-ordinator English Heritage English Heritage Co-ordination Unit Corbridge Roman Site

Patricia and Robin Birley Andy Poad Directors Property Manager The Vindolanda Trust The National Trust

Jane Brantom Neil Rimmington Manager Earthworks Ofﬁcer Hadrian’s Wall Tourism Partnership English Heritage

Bill Grifﬁths Brian Selman Curator Parish Council Tyne and Wear Museums/Segedunum Heddon-on-the-Wall

Nick Hodgson Peter Stone Principal Keeper of Archaeology Senior Lecturer Tyne and Wear Museums/South Shields Newcastle University

Paget Lazari Lynn Turner Project Manager Chief Leisure and Tourism Ofﬁcer Northumberland National Park Tynedale Council

David McGlade Elaine Watson Hadrian’s Wall Path National Trail Ofﬁcer General Manager Countryside Agency Birdoswald

Emma Moody Sustainable Transport Ofﬁcer Hadrian’s Wall Tourism Partnership

 The Getty Conservation Institute