At 09:21 PM 6/26/98 +0200, you wrote:
>        think we have failed miserably in educating the public -
>        was reading the transcript of a lecture given by someone high up in the
>state archaeologists' office here in saxony, at a conference devoted to the
>"problem" of private excavation firms - among other things he pointed out that
>investors (who have to pay for the costs of rescue excavations) have no
interest
>
>in nor do they in any way benefit from archaeological investigations, and hence
>were totally hostile to the whole idea - you could also say the same thing
about
>
>environmental assesments and labour laws, too, but look how most companies will
>bend over backwards to proclaim themselves "environmentally friendly" or to
make
>
>sure they aren't (ab)using child labour or chinese prisoner/slaves or
whatever -
>
>why do they accept the fact that they have to be environmentally friendly and
>will proudly put little green marks all over everything, but don't give a
>similar damn about being "heritage" friendly? should we maybe start a heritage
>equivilent of greenpeace, and start hitting on firms who wantonly bulldoze
>sites...? somehow there just doesn't seem to be the same public support for
>protecting archaeological/historical/cultural sites that there is for
protecting
>
>rainforests, endangered species, tibet...
>        we just ain't getting the point across
>
>geoff carver
>[log in to unmask]
>http://home.t-online.de/home/gcarver/
>
>
 
It seems to hit a nerve when we mention that archaeological sites are
non-renewable resources.....