20th February 2006, 01:28 PM
Surely that is exactly what the planning process is for? The "value" (in all senses of the word) of any potential archaeological remains will be considered on an individual basis and a recommendation made, very possibly including mitigation. Are you suggesting that in every case where remains are possible (probably not known without evaluation) construction should be prohibited unless the building can span them without intrusion and display them (a group of postholes and/or a ditch or two?) through glass floors? Clearly this is a nonsense.
If however the thrust of your argument is that archaeology as a material consideration does not have sufficient weighting in comparison with other issues, that is a different question, with which I generally concur. But please recognise that there are other issues.
There are quite a few buildings in Europe that do not display archaeology through glass bits. Those that do will of necessity show a represention of the remains, and be partially detsructive in themselves.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
If however the thrust of your argument is that archaeology as a material consideration does not have sufficient weighting in comparison with other issues, that is a different question, with which I generally concur. But please recognise that there are other issues.
There are quite a few buildings in Europe that do not display archaeology through glass bits. Those that do will of necessity show a represention of the remains, and be partially detsructive in themselves.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.