> I never understood why people don't do any research before getting into metal detecting.
Because people do it for fun, not to do archeological research
> And on top of that most laypeople don't even properly record the location of the find
what detectorists find is 99.9% of the time just crap, and the 99.9% of the 0.1% remaining is just stuff that is not interesting for archeology or history. Interesting finds are extremely rare
> The latter is the same reason shady companies don't record where they disposed of chemicals in the woods,
Yes, polluting a place and finding a badly damaged roman coin on a field used for centuries is exactely the same
> but somehow it's okay for you? Because you have convinced yourself you are "preserving history" by removing a bronze axehead from a location that has preserved it for over 2000 years?
They don't preserve history, but neither do historians and archaeologists in the cases mentioned, because they don't and won't carry out any research in these places anyway. It's obviously different when detectorist work on archeological places but it's forbidden almost everywhere
If they were smarter, archeologists should push for more sensible rules, and for collaboration with detectorist associations instead of blind repression.
> what detectorists find is 99.9% of the time just crap
That's a bit of a disingenuous argument though. To a first approximation, no-one's out to find ring pulls and bottle caps. The fun is feeling like you might win the lottery, encouraged by reports of people who do. If it wasn't for the 0.1% no-one would be doing this.
> "archeologists should push for more sensible rules"
...like what?
The thing that is of value is the site with the artefact in place. Digging up and sending in the artefact on its own with no other information is like scraping all the paint off a painting and sending the scrapings. Yes, your paint detector found some paint, and for once it wasn't junk. You've won the lottery. Great! Awesome! Bully for you! I bet it felt wonderful. But it's too late. You've already destroyed the thing that made it interesting, valuable and important.
A rule that fails to discourage this destruction is not a "sensible rule". Sure, once the destruction has happened, it's better to have the anonymous paint scrapings than to have nothing at all; but the archaeologists will still grieve when they receive that package, just as you would grieve if someone broke something important to you - even if you weren't previously aware of its existence! - and sent you some of the broken pieces; and they will push back on any change that might in any way encourage more people to pull this crap.
> because they don't and won't carry out any research in these places anyway
Until the site is destroyed, it's possible it will be identified and researched. Once it is destroyed, this can never happen.
Because people do it for fun, not to do archeological research
> And on top of that most laypeople don't even properly record the location of the find
what detectorists find is 99.9% of the time just crap, and the 99.9% of the 0.1% remaining is just stuff that is not interesting for archeology or history. Interesting finds are extremely rare
> The latter is the same reason shady companies don't record where they disposed of chemicals in the woods,
Yes, polluting a place and finding a badly damaged roman coin on a field used for centuries is exactely the same
> but somehow it's okay for you? Because you have convinced yourself you are "preserving history" by removing a bronze axehead from a location that has preserved it for over 2000 years?
They don't preserve history, but neither do historians and archaeologists in the cases mentioned, because they don't and won't carry out any research in these places anyway. It's obviously different when detectorist work on archeological places but it's forbidden almost everywhere
If they were smarter, archeologists should push for more sensible rules, and for collaboration with detectorist associations instead of blind repression.