3 ms·

That is completely absurd. How many artifacts are being destroyed or concealed because people either can't pay or refuse to pay for such archaeology "services"?

magicalhippo 6y ago
Yeah the people in charge of this definitely didn't take any game theory at uni... There are quite harsh penalties for destroying artifacts etc but yeah, I'd rather take that risk than financial ruin.
- fdjhjsxkm 6y ago
  lol game theory what a load of crap. It really varies by jurisdiction. It is common in many european countries to have government-run archaeological services that pay for work on residential property, and charge companies at cost (as noted in a prior comment). In north america it is more commercial, and is generally associated with construction and contractor work, with lowest bids winning contracts. This is all traced through zoning records, and is factored into land taxes. Big companies tend to prefer to have all their ducks in a row, since its actually a highly competitive market and costs tend to be pretty low, keeping in perspective the revenue that will eventually be generated. Fines tend to be quite high for companies that neglect to do proper investigation, though arguably not high enough. But if it is on a residential property then there is literally no reason to not undertake archaeological investigation if the government will pay for it. Also you're missing the fact that this occurs in multiple phases, with thresholds for work of varying intensity (these thresholds are often arbitrary and nonsensical, to appease land developers, who hold lots of power on the process, depending on jurisdiction). For example, a surface survey that yields considerable results would move onto a test trench phase (literally a few 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 m holes) and if that yields considerable results then you move onto even more extensive results. If human remains are found, then all bets are off and a really intense excavation occurs. Generally speaking, it's not a zero sum game. There are certainly egregious cases where sites are knowingly destroyed. For instance, when rio tinto destroyed a 46,000 year old site in australia. There were consequences, but this only demonstrates the need for even more regulation, not less. https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/911866159/a-mining-company-blew-up-a-46-000-year-old-aboriginal-site-its-ceo-is-resigning https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/911866159/a-mining-company-bl...
ehvatum 6y ago
Mechatronic archeological velociraptors with 10,000x redundant fly-eyes, running tamper-proof signed binaries on Apple silicon, linked directly to all social networks via 5G, could rapidly respond to digital fingerprints suggesting potential destruction of history. Sadly, if the archeoraptors project the extinction of mankind, to protect our legacy, we would all be shredded to confetti by diamond-hard 3d printed talons, and they would then squat on our remains like suffocating geese incubating cracked eggs that will never hatch, for all eternity...

magicalhippo 6y ago

Yeah the people in charge of this definitely didn't take any game theory at uni... There are quite harsh penalties for destroying artifacts etc but yeah, I'd rather take that risk than financial ruin.

fdjhjsxkm 6y ago
lol game theory what a load of crap. It really varies by jurisdiction. It is common in many european countries to have government-run archaeological services that pay for work on residential property, and charge companies at cost (as noted in a prior comment). In north america it is more commercial, and is generally associated with construction and contractor work, with lowest bids winning contracts. This is all traced through zoning records, and is factored into land taxes. Big companies tend to prefer to have all their ducks in a row, since its actually a highly competitive market and costs tend to be pretty low, keeping in perspective the revenue that will eventually be generated. Fines tend to be quite high for companies that neglect to do proper investigation, though arguably not high enough. But if it is on a residential property then there is literally no reason to not undertake archaeological investigation if the government will pay for it. Also you're missing the fact that this occurs in multiple phases, with thresholds for work of varying intensity (these thresholds are often arbitrary and nonsensical, to appease land developers, who hold lots of power on the process, depending on jurisdiction). For example, a surface survey that yields considerable results would move onto a test trench phase (literally a few 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 m holes) and if that yields considerable results then you move onto even more extensive results. If human remains are found, then all bets are off and a really intense excavation occurs. Generally speaking, it's not a zero sum game. There are certainly egregious cases where sites are knowingly destroyed. For instance, when rio tinto destroyed a 46,000 year old site in australia. There were consequences, but this only demonstrates the need for even more regulation, not less. https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/911866159/a-mining-company-blew-up-a-46-000-year-old-aboriginal-site-its-ceo-is-resigning https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/911866159/a-mining-company-bl...

ehvatum 6y ago

Mechatronic archeological velociraptors with 10,000x redundant fly-eyes, running tamper-proof signed binaries on Apple silicon, linked directly to all social networks via 5G, could rapidly respond to digital fingerprints suggesting potential destruction of history. Sadly, if the archeoraptors project the extinction of mankind, to protect our legacy, we would all be shredded to confetti by diamond-hard 3d printed talons, and they would then squat on our remains like suffocating geese incubating cracked eggs that will never hatch, for all eternity...