3 ms·
Pragmatically, if you don't want finds to get "overlooked", you shouldn't make them potentially very expensive to the finder. (I don't know the specifics of UK
by abecedarius 5y ago
Pragmatically, if you don't want finds to get "overlooked", you shouldn't make them potentially very expensive to the finder.
(I don't know the specifics of UK antiquities, but a general argument of "they should just suck it up and do the right thing" has this general flaw.)
- unfocussed_mike 5y agoNot in a country that cares about its history. Which I concede you can make a strong argument the UK is doing its best to step away from. The building trade in the UK isn't that kind of corrupt anymore; it's gone meta.
- AlotOfReading 5y agoI've done this work (CRM) in the past. Archaeologists are well aware of that flaw, but it's an inherent cost of preservation because the primary loss for the developer is time. There's an inherent trade-off between preservation and time that's already pushed very far towards the speed side. I suppose you could attempt to fix it by compensating the developer with government money, but it's not obvious to me how anyone would calculate that amount fairly and uncontroversially.