18th February 2011, 04:22 PM
I do not disagree with any of the above, but I would like to add this;
some professions are inherently riskier than others - and of course all measures must be taken to reduce that risk.
however sometimes an element of risk will never go away.
Better organised and more venerable professions (generally) recognise this residual risk in the form of high indemnities, and higher risk-related pay for their employees.
1.2m guarantees nothing, either above or below - ratios of depth to width + nature of substrates + conditions + exposure time + method of excavation + informed knowledge = a sensible place from which to begin...
experience and caution are he only real guides.
1.2m should not used as rigid guide to write-off all deeper archaeology as 'inaccessible'
some professions are inherently riskier than others - and of course all measures must be taken to reduce that risk.
however sometimes an element of risk will never go away.
Better organised and more venerable professions (generally) recognise this residual risk in the form of high indemnities, and higher risk-related pay for their employees.
1.2m guarantees nothing, either above or below - ratios of depth to width + nature of substrates + conditions + exposure time + method of excavation + informed knowledge = a sensible place from which to begin...
experience and caution are he only real guides.
1.2m should not used as rigid guide to write-off all deeper archaeology as 'inaccessible'