> If they're so common, why not incorporate into the construction project?

If it's the same one I read about, they did.

Because it's more expensive and takes longer (which then makes it even more expensive).

Which is why ancient ruins in construction sites are often covered up, unreported, or even destroyed.

I visited Athens in 2006 shortly after the Olympics were held there and the city had been refreshed. The Syntagma Square subway station did exactly this, with layers of archaeology revealed behind glass as you descended the stairs. It was magnificent!

They do do that? https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20260408-a-150-metro-tick...

That's actually done a lot in ruin-heavy cities. For instance, here's a Lidl with bonus underfloor Viking village in Dublin: https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/aungier-street-lidl-arch...

Reminds me that story about the beach table in Bulgaria, that turned out to be a 1,700-year-old Roman tomb: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/article2...

I mean, it's the rest of the subway line thats the problem -- how many ancient sites do you tunnel through to reach the next stop?