f i shbourne research and conservation framework �

1. Introduction

he present document , a researchFramework (frcf), istheresultofaseriesof consultations with researchers and

membersofthepublicaboutthefuturedirectionofarchaeologicalresearchinthefishbourneandchichesterareasofsouthernbritain.thedocumenthaditsgenesisintheneedtoformulateresearchprioritiesforthefurtherinvestigationoftheromancomplexatfishbourne,andtheprominencegiventofishbourneinthefollowingpagesstemsfromthat legacy. the results from our consultationshavebeencollated,andperiodsummaries,fromthePalaeolithictothemedieval,havebeenwrittenbyexpertsintheseperiods.thesehaveattemptedtoassessthecurrentstateofourknowledge.thesesameexpertshavethenidentifiedkeygapsinourknowledge which future projects, of whateverscale,needtoaddress.amassingknowledgeanddiscoveringnewarchaeologicalsitesanddepositsare, of course, of not much use if we cannotconserve them properly for future generations.sosections25to28ofthisreportarededicatedto analysing current conservation strategies and

◆

t assessing their effectiveness. the report endswithanexecutivesummary,prioritizingresearchobjectives.

this Framework, which focuses on quite asmallarea,isonewhichwillcomplementaseriesof such Regional Research Frameworks that arebeing sponsored by english heritage for eachGovernment region; eventually they will coverthewholeofengland.1theyareintendedtobeadirectionalguideforfutureresearch.itisthereforehoped that this modest document will be usedintensively and repeatedly by archaeologicalcurators,commercialarchaeologicalunits,policymakers and grantors in the area to ensure thatfutureprojectsrelatetocommonresearchaims,inwhichknowledgecanbeamplifiedbyco-operationandsynergy,andcost-effectivenessmaximized.

Please note that this Framework will be updatedapproximatelyeveryfiveyears.Justlikethepresent,thepastdoesnotstandstill.

John ManleyAugust 2007

note:adigitalcopyofthisFrameworkcanbedownloadedfromwww.sussexpast.co.uk/research/

2. Aims and objectives

he discovery of Fishbourne Roman Pal-ace in the 1960s recovered the plan, and much detail, of one of the most remark-

able buildings in Roman Britain (Cunliffe 1971). The extent of the excavations could only reveal glimpses of earlier phases of development in the Roman period beneath the Palace, and subsequent excavations, up until 2002, have added additional detail, particularly the 2002 season which demon-strated a long-suspected, and heavily romanized, Late Iron Age phase to the site (Manley & Rudkin 2005). The 1960s excavations could only address in a very limited way other specific issues and crucial environmental factors affecting the loca-tion of the Palace. Such issues and factors include the height of sea level in the Roman period, the location of any harbour or quayside, and how the Palace was accessed from the water; the form of the southern gardens and associated deep-water channel south of the Palace and the extent of the presumed estate that was associated with the Palace. Other complementary data sets produced by the excavations of the 60s and 90s include evidence of the rich variety of local and imported flora, and food resources, including maritime produce, consumed by residents and workers in Roman Fishbourne, and a mixture of exotic and local products and resources represented by finds from the site.

2 . 1 . O v e R A L L A I M S A n d P u R P O S e

The purpose of the FRCF is to establish the broad research and conservation framework for the Fishbourne and adjacent Chichester areas. The document seeks to set out some of the key research themes for the area, and review critical conservation management aims and strategies. The overall aim is to facilitate a co-ordinated programme of research into the archaeology of the area, whilst achieving optimal conservation of the archaeological resource. Crucial to the suc-cess of the document was the consultative way in

◆

T which the contents were finalized, and here the authors wished to involve as many professional and lay people as possible, alongside the obvious institutional partners.

2 . 2 . S T u d y A R e A

Since the FRCF is a document that informs the future conservation management and research of Fishbourne and Chichester areas it is appropriate that Fishbourne Roman Palace and Chichester lie at the centre of the chosen study area (Fig. 1), which stretches from the Selsey peninsula in the south, northwards to the South downs, and from the river ems in the west to the Aldingbourne Rife in the east. The varying geologies run from the brick-earths of the coastal plain to the chalks of the South downs. The terrain rises from sea level in the south to a height of over 100 metres on the downs. The drainage pattern of the various water-courses runs, as expected, from north to south. Apart from Chichester, the area is heavily utilized for agricultural and recreational purposes. The area included in the map is roughly 18 km east to west by 18 km north to south (measured to the tip of the Selsey peninsula), an area of ap-proximately 200 sq.km. The OS grid references of the study area are SZ 70 90 (SW corner); SZ 95 90 (Se corner); Su 70 16 (nW corner); Su 95 16 (ne corner). In terms of prominent natural features most of Chichester harbour is within the area, and, for the archaeological landscape, the principal sections of the Chichester dykes lie within the map.

The rationale for the study area is particularly linked to the core chronological period — from the Middle Iron Age to the Late Saxon period. Relevant to this time period, especially for the first half of this period, this area of the West Sussex Coastal Plain has produced some very significant finds that suggest not only that a more nuanced interpretation of human activity in this area may be possible, but also that a deeper understanding

F I S hBO uRne ReSeARC h And CO nSeRvATIO n FRAM eWOR k �

� 2 . A IMS And OB je CTI ve S

of events in the study area will have ramifications for our understanding of the transition from Late Iron Age to Roman in southern Britain.

The complexity and singular identity of this area has been recognized by other researchers (e.g. davenport 2003) and among the number of archae-ological themes we can pick out some key examples:1. the large number of Celtic coins (over 550) from

the Chichester region, from many continental origins, most dating to the mid-first century ad;

2. the fact that the number of imported and British coins from the middle third of the first century bc may indicate a new settlement of people from across the Channel;

3. the indigenous production of coins (i.e. coin mould from Ounces Barn);

4. the growing quantities of imported wares pre-ad 43, including dressel 1B amphora, Arretine ware, Terra nigra, Terra Rubra and other Gallo-Belgic wares;

5. the presence of some key ‘ritual’ sites such as Westhampnett cremation cemetery (lasting until 50 bc) and the nearby hayling Island Late Iron Age and early Roman temples;

6. settlement sites such as Copse Farm and north Bersted, where there is an interruption in the stratigraphy around the bc/ad divide;

7. the presence of the Chichester dykes, long thought to function as demarcating or defend-ing an oppidum;

8. the earliest (LIA) phase at Fishbourne and the precocious and rapid development of the site post-ad 43;

9. the earliest Roman military phases at Fish-bourne and Chichester and their relationship to Togidubnus;

10. the likely historical correlation of the Chichester/Fishbourne area with the post- ad 43 central place (or royal centre) of the client kingdom ruled by Togidubnus;

Fig. 1. Modern OS map with FRCF study area, Chichester & Fishbourne marked.

2 . A IMS And OB je CTI ve S �

11. the presence of the only large Roman town in Sussex, Chichester; its development both under Togidubnus and subsequently in the later Ro-man period;

12. the transition to Saxon West Sussex and the identification of pagan and Christian central places in the pre-norman period;

13. the importance of salt production;14. the role of harbours and water transport

throughout the study period.Research in the FRCF need not be confined by the borders of the chosen study area. It is envisaged that, for research aims in clarifying the relation-ships of Fishbourne to its external environment, the outside world will, on occasion, be conceived as a nested collection of zones. These zones will be:• National and international relationships: (e.g.

Silchester, Colchester, Gaul, Rome etc.);• Regional: Isle of Wight, east hants, east Sussex

(i.e. slightly wider than the study area);• Local: Chichester, Fishbourne and Fishbourne

harbour (i.e. within the study area);• Site specific: Fishbourne area specifically as an

archaeological resource.

2 . 3 . S T u d y P e R I O d

The core time periods chosen for the FRCF are related to the main periods represented by the excavations to date at Fishbourne Roman Palace. Leaving aside flint scatters indicating Mesolithic and early prehistoric activity, the earliest period represented at Fishbourne is the very Late Iron Age. The Palace was apparently burnt and abandoned in the later third century, but there is some indication of slight activity (possible burials) in the Saxon period and it can be anticipated that robbing of the Palace structures took place at times during the medieval period. Readers will note, therefore, that in places within the document, there is an emphasis on the Late Iron Age and Roman periods. however, preceding and succeeding periods, from the Palaeolithic to the medieval, are also consid-ered in detail.

For the sake of clarity the period divisions in the Framework correspond to the following ap-proximate date ranges:Palaeolithic: 700,000–8300 bc

Mesolithic: 8300–4500 bc

neolithic: 4500–2250 bc

Bronze Age: 2250–700 bc

Iron Age: 700 bc–ad 43Roman: ad 43–410Anglo-Saxon: ad 410–1066Medieval: ad 1066–1536

2 . 4 . C O n T e M P O R A Ry R e S e A R C h C O n T e x T O F T h e F R C F

The excavation of Fishbourne Roman Palace in the 1960s was a land-based project, and, although the paramount importance of understanding the relationship between the Palace and the nearby Chichester Channel was realized, resources at that time only permitted the most cursory of examina-tions of the seaward environment. now there are various initiatives, which are either underway or have recently been concluded, and which have a bearing on this aspect of Fishbourne. These in-clude the Rhythms of the Tide project, sponsored by Chichester harbour Conservancy and funded by the heritage Lottery Fund, and the recent survey of the AOnB by a team from MoLAS (2004). The former includes reference to the need to investigate the seaward side of the Palace in order to ascertain the extent of the southern garden to the Palace, the precise location of the deep-water channel, the local environment and sea-level height to the south of the Palace.

The MoLAS survey (2004) of the Chichester harbour AOnB provides an assessment of the known archaeology of the AOnB. Sites are docu-mented that cover all chronological periods from the Palaeolithic to the twentieth century. Results from this survey are incorporated into the FRCF, and themes from the MoLAS survey, such as the importance of salt production in the Iron Age and its apparent cessation around ad 200, are noted.

In addition, developer-funded archaeology has amassed a considerable amount of new data, not least from the excavations undertaken by Alec down and Southern Archaeology to the east of the Palace and on the downs, but also by Wessex Archaeology at Westhampnett. There have been developments also within the city of Chichester with the establishment of the Intensive urban Survey and its coverage of the city, including Fishbourne.

3. Methodological statement

he methodology employed to develop this Framework was to identify the key archaeological periods (Palaeolithic to

medieval) and recruit period experts to write Summaries and then Gap Analyses for their respective periods. The Gap Analyses identified gaps in our current archaeological knowledge and suggested projects that might fill those gaps in future. In particular, the experts were asked to identify the principal research gaps for their period and then score these gaps or priorities in terms of research importance (5 high/1 low); according to approximate cost (5 cheap/1 expensive); and according to ease of doing them (5 easy/1 very difficult). These three scores were initially added

◆

T together to give, relatively, the highest research priority, the cheapest and the easiest.

In order to produce the distribution maps for the study area, data from the Chichester District, West Sussex and Hampshire SMRs were received in Excel format, combined and converted to ESRI shapefiles representing each discrete time period. They were then imported into ArcView 3.3 GIS software and the distribution of sites by period, and of monument type within period were plotted against digitized 1:25000 OS, soil (NSRI)* and geology maps (BGS)** for the study area. These were distributed to the period specialists for analysis.

* National Soil Resources Institute, Cranfield University** British Geological Survey

f I SHBOURNE RESEARCH AND CONSERVATION f RAMEWOR k �

4. Policy alignments

4 . 1 . N at i o N a l P o l i c y

his Framework forms part of a wider English Heritage initiative to develop interlocking Regional Research Frameworks across the

country (olivier 1996, 2; for a broader introduc-tion to this initiative see cooper & clay 2006, 1–2; Bird 2006). a publication called Frameworks for Our Past (olivier 1996) set out a three-fold structure for developing research frameworks comprising the following elements:1. The Resource Assessment: an overview

of the current state of knowledge and under-standing in the region which allows the setting of…

2. The Research Agenda: recognition of the po-tential of the resource, gaps in our knowledge, and an un-prioritized list of research topics. the agenda informs…

3. The Research Strategy: a prioritized list of research objectives (seen as flexible over time), furthered by implementing specific Research Projects, the results of which would be fed into the resource, leading to changes in the agenda and thus the Strategy.

Given the focus of the FRcF on the late iron age, Roman and Saxon periods, the clearest indicator currently available of national research priorities for these periods is the book sponsored by English Heritage, entitled Britons and Romans: Advancing an Archaeological Agenda (James & Millett 2001).

this book contains 10 chapters, several of which are relevant for the FRcF. Brief sections of particular relevance from these, and which can inform the FRcF, are quoted below:

• The Iron Age–Roman transitionby John Creighton‘the discussion above means we should consider a number of alternative ways of interpreting Fishbourne. Neither the roads nor the granaries need point to a claudian supply base, and the pottery and the otherwise compressed chronology would easily suit an earlier date for these features. But what could the site be if not a military supply base? one important aspect to realise is the small area of early deposits excavated; unfortu-

◆

tnately the Flavian palace has not been removed and the earlier deposits elsewhere remain inaccessible. the granaries make up just one part of a presumably larger complex. the excavation at Gorhambury shows that the control of large storage facili-ties was important to the local dynasties, whether this was for supplying a retinue, or giving out political gifts/bribes to the population (as was happening in Rome). on the other hand, perhaps it was for locally raised troops organised like Roman auxilia, or even an actual Roman unit, protecting or watch-ing over Verica, or whoever may have been in charge of the region at the time. a final alternative is to invoke the hand of an emperor, Gaius, responsible for so many of the harbour works which made claudius’ campaign a success. Perhaps his generals genuinely did achieve something in Britain, despite the hostile literary tradition to which he has been subjected. this achievement may have included improving the harbour works on this side of the channel. Each of these possibilities is only a suggestion. on the present evidence i doubt if one could distinguish between any of them. But all potentially free the evidence from the straight-jacket of ad 43. it now means all the pre-claudian pottery on the site has a potential context. it means that the granaries of Period 1a are not required to have been built, and to have rotted away, within a few years.

Fishbourne is fortunate. a further series of excavations is taking place there, conducted by John Manley, david Rudkin, and the Sussex archaeological Society. New buildings are being found related to the early phases. However the test will be when it comes to interpretation, to see whether the new features are pressed into cunliffe’s original phasing, or whether the new evidence is interpreted in its own right, and perhaps leads to a re-evaluation of the results of the 1960s excavations.

in the context of a re-reading of the historical evidence, the archaeology can therefore appear in a rather different guise. this is not to say that the interpretations above are necessarily true. let me be clear; i am not saying that Gosbecks fort and Fishbourne were occupied before ad 43. But what i do want to stress is that interpretations which automatically assumed they could not be, were based upon a naïve reading of history which failed to see Britain within its continental and Roman context; and that the continental context does not just mean what is happening across the English channel, but across the Roman world as a whole. archaeologists must engage in constructing narratives about the past; but in doing so they have to be extremely self-critical about any fusion of the partial archaeological record with the partial historical record. the present is complicated, and so was the past. Simple answers rarely exist, and for me they take away the mystery and interest from the past. Mystery can also be what engages people with the past, and archaeologists should be more prepared to embrace it. if archaeologists all too readily say they know what happened, then a large part of the rationale for further excavation at the public or developer’s expense

F i SHB ou RNE RESE aRcH a Nd co NSERVatio N FR aME wo Rk �

10 4 . Pol icy al i GNMEN tS

vanishes. My agenda for Romano-British archaeology would therefore be to encourage excavators and museum curators to think long and hard before repeating without question existing assumptions about the claudian invasion, or indeed about any neat historical “event”.’

* * *• Romanisation, gender and class: recent approaches to identity in Britain and their possible consequences by J. d. hill‘Consequences for field archaeologyIt needs to be emphasised that these are not simply issues of aca-demic interpretation of existing material. The basic link between the identities and aspirations of Romano-Britons and material culture and social practices has direct consequences for digging up Roman Britain. At a basic level the evaluation and excavation of Roman Britain could be seen as a project to monitor the process and progress of Romanisation/creolisation, especially through a concentration on key aspects of daily life:

The body — dress, physical appearance, the technologies of personal hygiene, medical treatment, the treatment of body in death.

Foodways — the cultural, social and political aspects of what is eaten, how it is prepared and by whom, how it is consumed, by whom and for what social purposes etc.

Settlement space — how the organisation of activities in the home and the surrounding settlement are organised in terms of gender/class/age, and how that organisation structures and is structured by the physical arrangement of spaces.

Consumption — how and why people felt they needed or required the wide range of goods and things that so typifies Roman as opposed to iron age or early Saxon Britain.

these themes may seem abstract, but they can provide ways to structure the findings of excavations — if not the excava-tion process itself — to address issues of age, gender, class and “ethnicity”. However, it is important to stress that the consideration of all these issues is dependent on a greater concern with deposition on Roman period sites. How the archaeological record was formed is central to understanding all other aspects of that record and there have been few seri-ous attempts to address these issues for Romano-British sites. deposition is an essential component of studying finds in their full context. to address the themes of daily life and identity raised here requires far more than simple regional distribu-tions of artefact types etc.; it also requires closer examination of the specific social contexts in which things were used and of how they entered the archaeological record.’

* * *• A place at the table: the role of vertebrate zooarchaeol-ogy within a Roman research agenda for Britainby Keith dobney‘However, not all sites in Britain show this pattern of high cat-tle frequencies. For example, at early- and mid-Roman Blake Street in york, and at the late Roman signal station at Filey on the east coast of yorkshire, the frequency of pig is significantly raised compared to all other military and urban sites in the re-gion. this is unusual and, as previously mentioned, although

pig (or more specifically “bacon”) is strongly associated with the Roman military diet in available historical texts from the core of the Empire, Roman assemblages from northern Europe with high frequencies of pigs are not the rule.

these few sites showing unusually high frequencies of pig bones perhaps provide evidence of some kind of special status for the inhabitants — e.g. a high degree of “Roman culture” or actual individuals from further south in the empire. comparisons with assemblages from Gaul and the low countries (where high numbers of pig remains have also been recorded) could perhaps be used to infer a “Gallo-Roman” or continental origin for some of the inhabitants of Blake Street and Filey.’

* * *• Approaches to urban societiesby Martin Millett‘we perhaps need to rethink urban definitions to use the ar-chaeological evidence to create better empirical groupings and to acknowledge changes through time. Such a classification would not supplant that based on administrative categories, but could potentially offer a complementary approach to understanding urbanism. we are at a stage where we ought to be exploring various modes of definition and the criteria that might be used. to contribute to this debate i would suggest we consider the following variables:

Size we have reasonable evidence on overall settlement size but we have hardly yet used it (cf. Millett 1990). i believe there may now be some scope for looking at regional and temporal trends in site size.

Settlement density Have we yet got enough data to talk about numbers of buildings per hectare and thus derive a range of figures for settlement density and thus perhaps popu-lation? it is important to note that the figures i used for urban population density (Millett 1990a, 182–3) had to be drawn from comparative studies of other societies. we should now really be able to do better than this. in this context i would like to draw attention to some interesting work on building sizes by clarke and Robinson (1997) and to the study of the development of occupied building areas through time by Faulkner (1994; 1996).

Planning this is not simply a question of looking at the or-thogonal planning of the public towns, but also of attempting to identify other forms of planned settlement organisation (e.g. that recognised at Neatham: Millett & Graham 1986, 151–3). there certainly is work worth attempting on the proportions used in orthogonally planned towns as well as on the deviations from planned patterns at particular sites. there may perhaps be subtle regional and temporal trends to be identified.

Public buildings, space and display this is partially a question of the extent and location of such facilities within settlements, but there are also questions of both how such structures were used and how they structured everyday experi-ence (cf. laurence 1994; Revell 1999). it is equally notable how little work has been done on the distribution of ritual space in Romano-British towns, especially when one considered how the disposition and forms of temples seems to contrast with that seen in some other provinces.

4 . Pol icy al i GNMEN tS 11

Residence patterns, house types, and their variation comparatively little work has been done on house types and their distribution in Romano-British towns (cf. Blagg 1990). there is evidently considerable potential to develop work on the material available, especially given the interesting work that has been done on villa plans, exploring the use of space and its social implications (cf.Scott 1995).

Functional differentiation/specialisation or inter-mixing there has been a little work done on the structure of activities within Romano-British towns (Bates 1983), but far less than might have been expected given the quality of information. approaches like those of laurence (1994) at Pompeii are surely applicable.’

4 . 2 . S o u t H - E a S t R E G i o N a l R E S E a R c H F R a M E w o R k

this will be a key document to refer to but at the time of writing (2006) a draft does not exist.

4 . 3 . w E S t S u S S E x c o u N t y c o u N c i l P o l i c y

a key document for the FRcF remains An Archaeol-ogy Strategy for West Sussex, written by the county archaeologist in 1995. Relevant policies are:• develop a regional research strategy for archae-

ology in conjunction with local and national archaeological agencies;

• where appropriate fund research projects in west Sussex from the archaeological budget and advise on external sources of funding for major projects;

• to promote the amenity and educational value of the archaeology of the county through in-terpretation, publications, and lectures;

• to promote research into the archaeology of west Sussex within an agreed research frame-work for the historic county of Sussex (East and west combined).

4 . 4 . c H i c H E S t E R d i S t R i c t c o u N c i l

an extract from the chichester district local Plan First Review adopted april 1999:

chichester district has a rich and distinc-tive archaeological character with sites and features ranging from Fishbourne Roman Palace to bowl barrows in the downland area. the system of dykes near chichester, and the sequence of remains in chichester

city itself are of particular significance to the archaeological record, whilst the pal-aeolithic deposits in a 500 m band along the southern edge of the downs, where remains of ‘Boxgrove Man’ were found, are of international importance. Some of these are Scheduled ancient Monuments which cannot be altered or destroyed without the consent of the Secretary of State for culture, Media and Sport, who is advised by English Heritage. Government advice in PPG16, ‘archaeology and Planning’, indicates that where monuments and their settings are of national importance, they should nor-mally be preserved, whether scheduled or not. there are many sites and monuments within chichester district which, although not scheduled, are worthy of preservation. wherever possible chichester district coun-cil will seek to encourage awareness of the archaeological heritage and will promote investigation of the archaeological record. this may include joint action with organisa-tions such as English Heritage.

taken from the chichester district council website:welcome to chichester district council’s archaeology service. we are committed to:• encouraging awareness of archaeology• promoting archaeological investigation• protecting sites of archaeological interest’

4 . 5 . c H i c H E S t E R H a R B o u R c o N S E R Va N c y P o l i c i E S

as written in the aoNB Management Plan 2004 to 2009:

HE1 to seek to ensure that the historic and archaeological significance of the aoNB both on land and below the water is identified, recorded and where possible protected and sustained.HE2 to develop effective partnerships and a sound knowledge base for the management of the historic and archaeological aspects of the aoNB.HE3 to raise public awareness of the historic environment and cultural value of the aoNB and to realise its full potential as a learning resource and economic asset to the local community.

12 4 . Pol icy al i GNMEN tS

4 . 6 . c o N c l u S i o N

the overall aims and objectives of the FRcF as stated in the original Project design and Method Statement are therefore in full accord with the national and regional research priorities and local conservation and consultation requirements.

5. Consultations

t was vitally important that all parties inter-ested in the archaeology of the Fishbourne and Chichester area had a chance to air their views

and influence the final outcome of the Framework. This was achieved in two major ways.

A leaflet was designed and printed explaining the purpose of the Framework, and asking for the views of the local community. This was circulated widely throughout the area, and 10,000 copies were disseminated. A dedicated email address was established so that the public could email us with

◆

I their views, or write or phone. Whilst the response was not overwhelming, with most people content to know that the Framework was being produced, some underlying themes recurred. There was a general interest in sea-level changes through the millennia, associated with the corresponding changes in coastal geomorphology. Another theme concerned the need for scholars and researchers in the area to communicate their results in ‘popular-ized’ formats as well as academic ones.

A second level of consultation and stakeholder commitment was achieved through periodic meet-ings of an informal Steering Group which critically assessed and guided the production of the Frame-work. Members of the Steering Group (see Section 33, p. 171 for details) came from the following organizations: English Heritage, Chichester Dis-trict Council; West Sussex County Council; Surrey County Council, Chichester Harbour Conservancy; Sussex Archaeological Society; Universities of Ox-ford, Sussex, Winchester, Reading, Nottingham, selected staff and volunteers from Fishbourne Roman Palace, and independent researchers and students with a history of work in the area. The Steering Group was not only extremely influential in the final format and content of the Framework, but through its participation went some way to ensure that there would be organizational and in-dividual stakeholder commitment to the Framework once it was published.

Now that the Framework is published, of course, there will be a third period and opportunity for wide consultation. Enough copies will be produced, and internet dissemination publicized, to guar-antee that a copy reaches every school, museum and public library in the area, as well as all the significant and relevant organizations. Recipients will be asked to feed-back any comments and these will be amassed and utilized for the updating of the Framework in five years’ time.

F I SH bOURNE RESEARCH AND CONSERvATION FRAMEWOR k 13

Fig. 2. The public’s involvement in the local heritage (as here at boxgove Priory in the study area) will help safe-guard its long-term conservation.