+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: preservation or thrown to the wolves? (/showthread.php?tid=2144)
preservation or thrown to the wolves? - 1man1desk - 22nd February 2006
Quote:quoteon't let em build where there is archaeology, thats the only real answer!
Achingknees is dead right. Virtually the whole of the UK landscape and 100% of its townscapes is man-made, or at least altered, so it is all archaeology in one way or another.
So, you either stop all building of anything in the UK, or you have a system to decide the following:
- when the archaeology is so important that no building is allowed;
- when it can be allowed, subject to mitigation (and what mitigation);
- when the impact is so insignificant that it does not matter.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
preservation or thrown to the wolves? - deepdigger - 22nd February 2006
Fine, fully understand that its not going to happen, but theres building and then there's building. No-one's going to complain about the building of a new hospital and, if its in an inner city area then while we're doing it lets have a look and see what has been going on here before, if anything of interest is found then as Troll says why not make it a feature of the new building or at least accesable for future generations.
And then theres building on a new green field site simply to fill the pockets of some bloated house building company who only want to use greenfield site because its cheaper to build there and just ride roughshod over the archaeology in order to make more profit!
Greed over Need, since thatcher, who wins?
deep
preservation or thrown to the wolves? - 1man1desk - 22nd February 2006
OK, developers make money out of house building. But they only do so because we are willing to pay through the nose for houses, and we are mainly willing to do that because there aren't enough of them.
We all need to live in houses - there aren't enough suitable old houses in the right places, so we need to build new ones - and all houses need a bit of land to be built on.
If you go brownfield - you're generally in a town, so often there will be a risk of complex deep strat etc., plus risk of contamination etc. There is a limited number of such sites, and not all are suitable for housing.
If you go greenfield - all sorts of other environmental issues as well as archaeology.
If you say don't build new houses - more homeless people, more poor people with no hope of ever buying a home.
Pros and cons both ways. Mostly, it is not the developer that decides what land is available (whether green or brown), its the local authority in setting their local plan - a democratic process in which we can all get involved if we choose.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
preservation or thrown to the wolves? - sniper - 22nd February 2006
slightly ironic that the archaeologists who work on the sites in advance of construction of new houses are never going to be able to afford to buy one...
++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++
preservation or thrown to the wolves? - monitor lizard - 23rd February 2006
And if no houses get built we're all out of work...
ML
preservation or thrown to the wolves? - troll - 24th February 2006
Not just houses I`m afraid. Just how many multiplex cinemas/bowling alleys and shopping centres do we actually need?
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
preservation or thrown to the wolves? - ladyjen - 26th February 2006
enough to emoloy all the ex-miners and rover workers [:I]
preservation or thrown to the wolves? - deepdigger - 4th March 2006
And unempolyed archaeologists!!
deep