31–40 of 53 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems similar in the UK. Development pauses for a week of archaeologists, then the skyscraper gets built anyway.
In my home town for one such project they came up with a really cool alternative. The basement of the building is encased in glass and you can go see the ruins. Little museum and everything. And the building, or underground parking lot I think, still got built.
Sad that this great trove will end up with a name linked to one of the most shameful pages of Italian history [1], just because postwar politicians in Rome didn't have the guts to do the right thing and rip colonial-era names from the map. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Amba_Aradam
The really funny thing about doing any construction work in basically any Italian city is that you already know from the start that there is going to be several years of delay due to finding ancient stuff... But it's impossible to dig all of that out (reasons: too big, too disruptive, no funds, happens everywhere, etc). So what usually happens is: take pictures, save some artifact, cover with concrete and go on with…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems similar in the UK. Development pauses for a week of archaeologists, then the skyscraper gets built anyway.
In my home town for one such project they came up with a really cool alternative. The basement of the building is encased in glass and you can go see the ruins. Little museum and everything. And the building, or underground parking lot I think, still got built.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the alternative--people stop developing Istanbul, Rome, etc entirely? I can't say I'm entirely unsympathetic to a population that wants development over marginally better understanding of places that already experience high levels of excavation and historical tourism.
I agree. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's valuable. Archaeologists come in and determine if the area has any historical value or advances our understanding of the ancient past. If it does, construction stops while the finds are uncovered. If not, then continue on. Finding yet another clay pot in Rome, one of the largest centers of population with one of the longest and most complete historical records of anywh…
Stupid question: how come so much stuff is buried? Tombs of course. But why do we keep finding other stuff under several meters of earth? It's not like if there are sand storms in Rome like there are in Egypt. And many of these areas have been inhabited continuously since ancient Rome.
Stupid question: how come so much stuff is buried? Tombs of course. But why do we keep finding other stuff under several meters of earth? It's not like if there are sand storms in Rome like there are in Egypt. And many of these areas have been inhabited continuously since ancient Rome.
No, that's not the reason. Rather it is the case that through most of human history new buildings were built on top of the rubble of earlier buildings destroyed in a fire, sacking, earthquake, or in very early times the simple accumulation of trash. In many parts of the Middle East finding a lost city is as easy as looking for a hill that has no geological business being there and digging. People living in the same place over thousands of years is what makes the hill.
Sad that this great trove will end up with a name linked to one of the most shameful pages of Italian history [1], just because postwar politicians in Rome didn't have the guts to do the right thing and rip colonial-era names from the map. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Amba_Aradam
Not far from there is a monument to the fallen of Dogali (another pointless colonial battle that I won't recount here) that was itself built using a obelisk looted around two thousand years before in Egypt. There is no way to neatly untangle that sort of thing.