I know that Mr. Barford is not popular among Metal Detectorists as I have caught some flack over this post on other forums. I apparently was wrong in thinking that people would look past his name in the link and seeing that it is a blog (an arena for showcasing opinions), would have the common sense to sift through some of the negative comments/opinions and find the overall positive message that MDs are good for Archaeology in many ways. I guess common sense isn't so common, huh?
Good read, but I don't think archeologists will ever look on us detectorists with a kind eye. You have to understand that these people spend years at college studying the past, and they work hard at it too. Then you read about someone that buys a detector, spends an hour or two in a farm field and makes the find that would go down in the history books. It makes the professionals look bad and they don't like that. What the archeologists need to do is realize the rewards of working WITH a detectorist. In a way I'm really confused. They want to bring history out to study and present to all the people, but they seem to resist digging it up for that purpose. Help me to understand this.
Not all of the journal entries were negative to metal detectorists and it looks like some are turning to buying metal detectors to aid them in their digs. When they do start using metal detectors, then they truly become the hypocrites that we know that they are and then the public will get to see what we have known for years