Coinstriking Michigan said:
Archies just get pissed that amateurs with metal detectors find better stuff than they do, and we didn't need schooling to do it. They spend all that money on schooling/loans to find out they aren't making dink for money.
I have to firmly disagree. Archaeologists have found far better and more amazing finds than any I have seen on here. Any. Not to discount what is found with a MD!! But I have seen much of this stuff in museum archives and I am sure the rest I could see in museums somewhere. Plus, they have things to drool over in the archives.
I would say that the problem is more about greed of control than anything else. Many of the older archaeologists I have had the privilege to work with or know actually see the value in MDers. Furthermore, many agree that the museums and universities have more in their collections than they can financially manage as it is so to add more (in most cases) is redundant and fiscally moronic. Some do confide, albeit privately, that the belief by some archaeologists who feel the need to control all artifacts and dismiss MDers and divers as robbers is narrow-minded and, frankly, stupid.
So I believe the challenge to many MDers is to avoid sounding like some of their archaeologist counterparts when you choose abusive and non-productive language to represent the entire group. I know I hate it when they do it to us and I am the first to point it out.
One more thing, all archaeologists rarely care about most of the stuff we bring up. What they do care about is the context and worry that valuable information could be lost. I believe that is a valid point but care should be taken to not apply that to all relics at all sites. In many many cases there is little that can be gleaned from modern metallic artifacts that isn't known already. Unless it is representing a new site that was previously unknown and is historically significant. Even then, tho, its usually not the items themselves but the site that is important.