Golddiggers thwarted by Ancient Rome - though YAT backs the mine

[BAJR]

A leaked British report into the archaeological significance of an ancient Roman gold mine has helped to scupper plans by the Romanian government to approve invasive mining at the site.

The expert report, kept hidden for three years by the Bucharest government, was commissioned by Romania's ministry of culture and funded by a not-for-profit organisation, Pro Patrimonio, which works to protect Romania's cultural heritage. The report says that the ancient site, in Rosia Montana in the Apuseni Mountains of western Transylvania, is worthy of consideration as a Unesco world heritage site and that its galleries are "the most extensive and most important underground Roman gold mine known anywhere".

This month, the ministry of culture presented a list of monuments that it would like to see included as world heritage sites, but the picturesque village of Rosia Montana, with its ancient galleries that tell of Roman mining, was not on it.

More: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scienc...75118.html

Interestingly...we read here: http://www.mining.com/archeologists-coul...fin-45204/

British archaeologist David Jennings, director of the York Archaeological Trust and a former director of Oxford Archaeology, an institution involved in the research program of the Rosia Montana heritage as early as since 2008 found three main flaws in the arguments set out by the Oxford professors and CgMs:

<em>“An exaggeration of the importance of the site; The lack of appreciation of the precarious state of preservation and precarious integrity of many heritage-related objectives due to intense exploitation, especially over the last 250 years, which had a huge impact on the earlier phases of the heritage and left behind a largely non-rehabilitated and massive polluted environment; The lack of a professional opinion on the amount of the costs entailed by a full conservation program (estimated at around 200-300 million dollars)

Morality

The moral issue does not just hold to the archaeology - it is the cyanide used in the process. There is no guarantee that this will not leak into rivers and ground water...Â* killing the region.

150 years later... and it is still an issue for goldrush regions in America... http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/...-gold-rush

Just because the Soviets messed the area, does not seem to be a good enough reason to continue and enlarge the process... or is it?

[Boxoffrogs]

Oh what tangled webs we weave...

[ken_whittaker]

Did OAU, under the direction of David Jennings, have the competence to advise on historic mining landscapes ?

Alwyn B Nixon BSc(Hons) MRTPI, an Inspector appointed by the National Assembly for Wales recommended refusal of a planning application submitted by Merthyr Village (Ref: APP/U6925/X/03/514357 Land at Rhydycar, south-west of Merthyr Tydfil, bounded by the A470 to the east and Heolgerrig to the north dated18/09/06).
http://www.assemblywales.org/01dc4488abb...b146e0.pdf

A key issue considered at the planning inquiry was the harm to the Merthyr Tydfil Landscape of f Outstanding Historic Interest. It is worth considering his conclusions on the evidence prepared and presented by OAU:

15.44 Although some archaeological mitigation is now proposed, through conditions and the provisions of the section 106 agreement, this is a belated attempt to preserve archaeological features within the framework of a largely pre-determined development proposal. It falls far short of a properly analysed appraisal of the historic landscape and the significance of its surviving components, used to inform consideration of an appropriate development approach. The archaeological mitigation proposed would be unlikely to amount in practice to much more than the retention of the most significant archaeological features of the site as isolated remnants, lacking context or coherence, together with some of the lines of former linear features echoed by the alignment of modern thoroughfares. In my judgement this would be no more than a token, and wholly inadequate, response to the archaeological and historical significance of the site. I do not regard other considerations put forward as benefits of the development, such as recording of features prior to loss or burial, greater public accessibility to and interpretation of those features retained, the proposed contribution to an interpretive heritage facility, or the possibility of further deterioration of the archaeological features on the site if the development proposals are not permitted, as sufficient to alter my conclusion that the proposed development would be seriously detrimental to the archaeological character and integrity of the site.

15.46 The ASIDOHL undertaken on behalf of the applicant is roundly criticised by CCW [10.4- 10.9]. The counter-criticism on behalf of the applicant that the evidence of CCW’s witness on this matter reflected an extreme view on the principle of change to the historic landscape [7.63] is to some extent justified. However, this does not disturb my assessment that the ASIDOHL is based upon an insufficiently thorough analysis of the historic features of the landscape and their historical significance. In my judgement, based upon the overall balance of all of the evidence as to the significance of the site as part of the Merthyr Tydfil Landscape of Outstanding Historical Interest and the impacts which the phase 1 and 2 developments
would have upon it, the ASIDOHL significantly underestimates the severity of the effects of the development on HLCAs 14 and 70. These effects include the consequences for comprehensive and nationally important groups of structures and systems forming key parts of the extractive landscape and the physical and visual effects of the development upon the character of the historic landscape.

[Boxoffrogs]

Ouch! Slap!

[Boxoffrogs]

Bad Karma there Gnome!