1 The Protection of Monuments and Landscapes in Britain: A Historical View Julian Thomas Introduction One of the key points raised by the ‘Chaco Landscapes White Paper’ (Van Dyke, Lekson and Heitman 2016) is that ancient monuments cannot be properly appreciated in abstraction, but must be addressed in their visual, auditory and haptic envelopes. It follows that the preservation of these structures for the benefit of future generations is not just a matter of drawing a red line around a dot on a map, but must involve securing the entire landscape that is integral to their apprehension and understanding. This argument has been strengthened by the growth of ‘experiential archaeologies’ since the 1990s (e.g. Thomas 1993; Tilley 1994; Van Dyke 2007). In the British context, the imperative to place isolated sites into their broader setting has a long pedigree, through General Pitt Rivers’ investigation of the Bokerley Dyke in Dorset, to O.G.S. Crawford’s ‘field archaeology’ and Crawford and Keiller’s Wessex From the Air, and on to traditional landscape archaeology (Aston and Rowley 1974; Crawford 1953; Crawford and Keiller 1928; David and Thomas 2008; Darvill 2008; Pitt-Rivers 1887). Despite this, British efforts to protect monuments on the one hand and landscapes on the other have not always entirely harmonized: ‘buildings’, ‘ruins’ and ‘countryside’ have often been safeguarded by different people, for different reasons. In Britain, the historic environment has formed the focus for struggles based on class and property, but these are set against a constellation of philosophical viewpoints,