3 ms·

Isn’t there an extremely high probability that a tunnel will run into archaeological sites that might derail or postpone the tunnel being built?

ggm 5y ago
Yes. the ceremonial nature of the landscape for miles around makes it an investment in 2-3x the apparent cost of the route for specific archeology reasons, which most financial planners cannot entertain seriously. Same with a deep tunnel. I don't think 150m down there would be substantive archeology. I don't think anyone is willing to countenance going below the remains is viable.
- nextaccountic 5y ago
  > Same with a deep tunnel. I don't think 150m down there would be substantive archeology. I don't think anyone is willing to countenance going below the remains is viable. Usually it's the opposite: things well buried tend to last longer.
  - ummonk 5y ago
    The point is that 150 meters down would likely be older significant human inhabitation of the area.
  - KirillPanov 5y ago
    Sort of like the joke among those building Finland's nuclear waste repository: they'd dig a mile under the bedrock to create a storage chamber for the waste, and what they'd find in the mining spoils would be... perfectly preserved, 500,000 year old copper canisters. Filled with formerly-radioactive waste.
- rolleiflex 5y ago
  You might want to take a look at how painful the undersea tunnel across the Bosphorus have been. Quite a well written article as well: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/31/the-big-dig https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/31/the-big-dig In short — when contract builders determine depths of tunnels based on earliest known human habitation, it’s often the case that they find humans got there earlier than thought. Then the proposed great solution to the traffic problems instead becomes an archeological dig site for the next decade.
DrBazza 5y ago
Yes, in the south of the UK an infrastructure project beyond a mile in length or so is almost certain to hit some form of archaeological site. Graves, coins, roman roads, villas, mammoths, boats, swords, the list just goes on.

ggm 5y ago

Yes. the ceremonial nature of the landscape for miles around makes it an investment in 2-3x the apparent cost of the route for specific archeology reasons, which most financial planners cannot entertain seriously. Same with a deep tunnel. I don't think 150m down there would be substantive archeology. I don't think anyone is willing to countenance going below the remains is viable.

nextaccountic 5y ago
> Same with a deep tunnel. I don't think 150m down there would be substantive archeology. I don't think anyone is willing to countenance going below the remains is viable. Usually it's the opposite: things well buried tend to last longer.
- ummonk 5y ago
  The point is that 150 meters down would likely be older significant human inhabitation of the area.
- KirillPanov 5y ago
  Sort of like the joke among those building Finland's nuclear waste repository: they'd dig a mile under the bedrock to create a storage chamber for the waste, and what they'd find in the mining spoils would be... perfectly preserved, 500,000 year old copper canisters. Filled with formerly-radioactive waste.
rolleiflex 5y ago
You might want to take a look at how painful the undersea tunnel across the Bosphorus have been. Quite a well written article as well: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/31/the-big-dig https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/31/the-big-dig In short — when contract builders determine depths of tunnels based on earliest known human habitation, it’s often the case that they find humans got there earlier than thought. Then the proposed great solution to the traffic problems instead becomes an archeological dig site for the next decade.

DrBazza 5y ago

Yes, in the south of the UK an infrastructure project beyond a mile in length or so is almost certain to hit some form of archaeological site. Graves, coins, roman roads, villas, mammoths, boats, swords, the list just goes on.