xvii). Adoption of the metal detector as an archaeological tool was not widespread, and indeed, despite its great potential, its adoption by the archaeological community was slow. US National Park Service park historian Bearss worked with non-park personnel who knew how to operate metal detectors to verify the location of Civil War forts Wade and Cobun (Bearss 2000, p. Instead, we need to focus on other motivations for choosing a permissive policy, the number of reports of findings or finds it can yield, and how these can be balanced against lost information. Limiting or blocking unprofessional users of metal detectors is obviously not the purpose of liberal policies.
When the advantages/disadvantages between the systems are examined, it is seen that the most used system in the world is VLF. The user has to choose between the detectors recommended to him according to the features and usage area. Detector systems are divided into VLF and Pulse. Even if a user says to buy a VLF detector and use it everywhere, it will not work.
There is no metal discrimination, the comment made by the user after the analysis of the incoming data is important. Underground imaging systems are not like detectors and field scanning. They measure the magnetic field vectors coming from underground using magnetic sensors. is It does not overwrite the data received from the device in this way. The device shows the data it receives and the user tries to understand what is happening by analyzing the differences there. The basic things that the user can learn from the data received in the underground imaging products are soft soil, void, water, fill, excavated closed place, wet ground, rock, metal, structure, tunnel, cellar, etc. The user can reach these conclusions by analyzing the measurements he made and the data he received.
Metal detectors can be used to locate areas even when there is no surface evidence. Metal detector users must first register with Washington State Parks and comply with published regulations. In the 1990s, Dobison and Denison (1995) conducted a comprehensive review of metal prospecting and archeology in the UK. Another example is metal detection is allowed in more than 30 state parks across Washington. Metal detectors can also be used to study metallic artifact distribution patterns at a site without resorting to expensive and time-consuming official excavation units. One result of their work was the enactment of a new Treasury Act in 1996, which sets guidelines for reporting findings, seeking advice from archaeologists and museum staff, and defining general government policy regarding the metal prospecting hobby. These and other research examples using metal detectors as archaeological tools show that almost any archaeological site containing metal artifacts can benefit from the use of metal detectors in their investigation. Sixty-eight people worked on the 46-acre intense metal detector survey, the excavation of more than 500 targets, and the mapping of all Metal Detector finds discovered. They discovered that literally tens of thousands of new finds are made by detectors in England each year. Detector use by archaeologists has grown exponentially since the 1990s, and a few examples will suffice. Metal Detection Detector, Battle of Resaca, 2011 (from Espenshade Sullivan and Swanson 2011). Metal detectors can aid in the planning of testing and excavation strategies, as they can detect buried individual metallic artifacts or concentrations of metallic artifacts, thus supplementing and informing inventory data and documentary evidence regularly used in planning excavations. They concluded that metal detectors can be used for good or bad, but with proper controls, the positive aspects far outweigh the negatives associated with their use in archaeological sites.