3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoThe point is that 150 meters down would likely be older significant human inhabitation of the area.
- KirillPanov 5y agoSort 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.