Curious, I idly asked Chat GPT: "what is the worst (but still realistic) British metal detecting story you can invent?" Here's the result. Count the stereotypes and hyperbole (and then work out what part PAS played in the compilation of this narrative)
The Tale of the Unearthed Treasure
It’s a crisp autumn morning when a metal detectorist, let’s call him Dave, heads out to an isolated field in the English countryside. This field, unbeknownst to him, sits on top of what had once been a significant Roman settlement—an area that is classified as an Area of Archaeological Interest but has no formal protection due to its remote location. Dave doesn’t know this, though; he’s just out for a bit of treasure hunting, using his top-of-the-line detector in the hopes of finding a few coins, or maybe something more valuable.
As the day goes on, Dave’s luck turns: his detector starts to beep steadily over what seems like a large metal object. He digs down, anticipating something simple like an old buckle or a tin can, but what he uncovers is far more exciting—a beautiful, ornate Roman brooch, almost perfectly preserved, along with a few silver denarii coins scattered nearby.
Excited, Dave doesn’t stop there. He digs deeper, finding more artifacts, pieces of Roman pottery, fragments of decorative items, and eventually, an entire buried Roman chest. The chest is filled with hundreds of coins, some of which are extremely rare. The rush of adrenaline overrides any rational thought. Instead of reporting his find to the local archaeological authorities as required by law, Dave decides to keep it a secret. He’s thinking of cashing in on the loot, selling the coins on the black market, or to collectors who would pay a premium for rare items, far above their value in museums or academic circles.
He packs everything up, but in the process, damages several of the items—scratching delicate pottery shards, cracking the brooch in his haste. The chest itself is dragged out of the ground, causing even more structural damage to the surrounding soil and the objects inside. This causes irreplaceable contextual evidence—like the arrangement of the coins or any inscriptions—to be lost forever.
Then comes the worst part: Dave, thinking he's in the clear, doesn’t stop at the one chest. He starts scanning further around the site, uncovering more pieces, including what looks like part of a Roman tomb. Fragments of bone, pottery, and some delicate burial objects are also disturbed as he continues to dig, oblivious to their historical significance. The objects are left exposed to the elements, deteriorating from the lack of professional care, while Dave hastily packs up the relics he thinks are worth money.
In the coming weeks, he tries to sell a few of the Roman coins through an anonymous online auction site. However, one of the items gets traced back to him, and a sharp-eyed archaeologist notices the peculiar wear patterns and recognizes the provenance of the objects. The authorities are notified, and a full investigation begins.
When the site is finally excavated properly by professionals, it’s clear just how much damage has been done. The field had been home to a well-preserved Roman settlement, with multiple burial sites and valuable artifacts left in situ. Dave’s hasty and unauthorized digging has irreversibly altered the context of the site, and much of the archaeological evidence that would have told us about the life and death of people from that era is gone. The chest of coins, for example, had been buried with specific artifacts in a ceremonial or ritual context, but now it’s all just a random collection of items, stripped of its historical meaning. The destruction of the burial area means that we can never know exactly how that community lived or died—knowledge that could have been critical for understanding Roman Britain.
The Consequences:
Loss of Context: The single most damaging aspect of the find is that Dave disturbed the context of the artifacts. In archaeology, where something is found is just as important as what is found. By removing these objects without documenting their positions, Dave robbed archaeologists of the chance to study the broader site as a whole.
Damage to Objects: The haste and lack of proper tools meant that items were damaged beyond repair. This includes a rare Roman brooch that could have been a key piece for studying trade routes or fashion trends, but now it’s simply a ruined fragment.
The Tomb Disturbance: By uncovering and damaging part of a Roman burial, Dave potentially destroyed evidence that could have given us insights into Roman burial customs, social status, or even health. The human remains and associated items were likely beyond saving once exposed to the elements.
Legal Trouble: Dave's failure to report the discovery and his attempts to profit from it will bring severe legal consequences. Under the UK's Treasure Act 1996, failing to report a find of archaeological or historical importance is a criminal offence. He faces heavy fines, possible imprisonment, and certainly a lifetime of banishment from metal detecting.
Ethical Breakdown: Perhaps the most damning aspect is the complete disregard for the ethical responsibility that comes with metal detecting. While there are many responsible detectorists who report finds and work with archaeologists, Dave’s story shows the potential for destruction when the temptation of personal gain overrides the need to protect heritage.
Interestingly, I did not ask it to make the list of consequences, it seems ChatGPT takes a dim view of irresponsible detecting. I also wonder where that bit about the "cracked brooch" came from - there is a post on this blog that talks about such a thing from a case I discuss.
For the record, I asked the same thing about a story about a british archaeologist, but the story was extremely long, not very plausible but equally stereotypical and revealed that ChatGPT does not have access to materiial on how archaeology actually works.
.jpg)
