28th August 2013, 10:49 AM
Antipesto Wrote:There is no such thing as a negative result. Go and ask any competent scientist. There is only a 'result'. If it looks like I'll not be finding anything I always make an effort to explain to the client why we had to look, or tell them at least its fairly cheap (the saving on a small 'found nothing of note' report over a few thousand quid on finds processing, C14, research and publication) and point out a few other sites where we didn't know if anything was there/didn't expect much but then found something very worthwhile. If you dont explain to your client why you're doing it, I can see how they might think you were a waste of their time.
I think that your missing my point, I'm not talking about clients and contractors, I'm talking about planning officers and explaining to them why they should back the archaeologist's request that a condition be put on. The negative result angle gets you only so far. In addition, to date I'm the only one that has advanced anything other than anecdotal observations, can I pose a simple question is the annual figure from across the whole of Scotland, 70% of interventions producing negative results worth it? My own opinion is that is too high, but do you think that its a reasonable number?