24th February 2006, 09:16 AM
No!
I had a similar scenario a couple of years ago - redevelopment of a shop fronting onto the medieval High Street, nicely preserved Medieval deposits at the front, with backyard activity to look at towards the rear. The developer visibly blanched at paying for weeks of archaeology (and months of post-ex probably) at the front of the site, but the deposits in the back yard were much simpler and therefore quicker to look at. In this case, as with any other, the "viable compromise" is preservation - the developer redesigned his foundations and raised his floor slab at the front of the site by 20cm. The archaeology is still there.
I had a similar scenario a couple of years ago - redevelopment of a shop fronting onto the medieval High Street, nicely preserved Medieval deposits at the front, with backyard activity to look at towards the rear. The developer visibly blanched at paying for weeks of archaeology (and months of post-ex probably) at the front of the site, but the deposits in the back yard were much simpler and therefore quicker to look at. In this case, as with any other, the "viable compromise" is preservation - the developer redesigned his foundations and raised his floor slab at the front of the site by 20cm. The archaeology is still there.