17th August 2005, 03:39 PM
Should decisions on whether a "finite resource" such as archaeology be solely based on the cost to a developer? If the archaeology has a value, both monetary and cultural (as I presume we here all believe it does) if a developer cannot afford it then so be it, I suggest that it is right and proper that the development does not go ahead.
Archaeology has an absolute, not a relative value. Or, the same remains in different parts of the country or different circumstances, are the same remains and have the same real value. It cannot be right for their location in our present landscape to cause one to be treated proparly and the other trashed.
Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.
Archaeology has an absolute, not a relative value. Or, the same remains in different parts of the country or different circumstances, are the same remains and have the same real value. It cannot be right for their location in our present landscape to cause one to be treated proparly and the other trashed.
Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.