UK Museum Theft

 

in the early hours of Tuesday 7 May, Ely Museum was broken into. Thieves stole the East Cambridgeshire gold torc and a gold bracelet, both dating from the Bronze Age.

British Archaeology and Duodecahedral Mystery Fever (I): The PAS Boost Their Recording Statistics

  Conversation Kenge @fen_ken

As an archaeologist, can I just say
that I am not interested in Roman polyhedra?
11:33 AM · May 6, 2024 ·

Fen Ken is almost alone however, suddenly Roman dodecahedra seem to have become the topic de jour over on Britarchy social media over the past few days. It all started (they say) last Monday with a BBC article by David McKenna and Gemma Dawson that proclaimed that an object recently found by some community archaeology volunteers "has left experts baffled". A professor is quoted saying:

"It has to be one of the greatest, most mysterious, archaeological objects I've ever had the opportunity to look at up close [...] There are so many mysteries in archaeology that remain to be solved. The overwhelming range of responses to it from the audience shows just how these ancient riddles can capture the public imagination."

There is a lot of media noise about this discovery and it is all unhelpfully object-centred and irritatingly mostly revolves around the connundrum that has "left the experts baffled":

"Is this the answer to the Roman dodecahedron puzzle that has archaeologists stumped? Guardian readers speculate on the purpose of a mysterious object unearthed at Norton Disney, near Lincoln" (Guardian)

"Beautifully crafted Roman dodecahedron discovered in Lincoln – but what were they for?" (the Conversation)

"The Norton Disney Dodecahedron One of Archaeology's Great Enigmas", (local archaeology group who found it)

"12-sided Roman relic baffles archaeologists, spawns countless theories" (Washinton Post)

The problem I have with this is the framing of archaeological enquiry only as a trivial pursuit of cluless boffins larking around like Scooby Doo trying to solve (object-centred) "mysteries", moreover the reade r too can join in with this archaeology lark, and have a go themselves at guessing the answer ("'oo needs experts, eh?"). And then we wonder why the publis - and lawmakers do not understand archaeology. They never will if all archaeology seems to offer them is trivial dumbdown entertainment. 

But it gets worse. There is a Portable Antiquities Scheme Database entry for the "responsibly-reported-by-the-finder" dodecahedron (but NO OTHER FINDS from this site).

DODECAHEDRON
Unique ID: LIN-BC9890
Object type certainty: Certain
Workflow status: Published Find published
A complete cast copper-alloy dodecahedron dating to the Roman period (c. AD 43-410). Type 1b.
This object was discovered during a controlled archaeological investigation by a local History and Archaeology Group and Allen Archaeology and was recovered from a pit described by the excavators as a quarry infilled with debris as a midden. Other finds include a box-flue tile fragment, grey-ware pottery, roof tile debris and animal teeth. Photographs and information were kindly provided by Lorena Hitchens who is currently undertaking a PhD on the topic of dodecahedrons. The object has not been handled by the recorder. Photographs are the copyright of Lorena Hitchens. [...] Discovery metadata
Method of discovery: Controlled archaeological investigation (stratified)
Current location: Norton Disney History and Archaeology Groups / Allen Archaeology
General landuse: Cultivated land

Well, I'm not going to use those photos here (though PAS has a confusing attribution on the PASD - more about this later). 

But what on earth is going on here? The PAS database is not for reporting material recovered by organised excavations. Normally I would say that this is taking up time for all that recording metal detectorists' finds that they don't do... but here the FLO  says explicitly that she's not even had this thing in her hands - and yet in the PASD she is listed as the author of this entry (yeah- they are now anonymised to avoid taking responsibility, but there is a way around that). This is a repetition of the situation of the "Too-Bad" horse harness brooch recorded by PAS DENO for Hansons just before the sale - there the PAS lady just copied bits out of the auction catalogue and used photos supplied by the auction house. Something like that has happened here. Why?

Just look at the published PAS "description" of the object. Bear in mind the PAS record is supposed to be professional "preservation by record" of items most of which are in private hands and will soon disappear into the collectors' market. Maybe that is not the case here (if the landowner agrees, and the status of tehe xcavation archive is unclear to me), but then the PAS database records should be to the same (high) standards of consistency. Is this one? I'd say, absolutely not. Cutting out all the narrativisation crap (NB exactly what you'd find in a dealer's catalogue), this is what we get:

[...] The casting is of high quality, with no cracks, gaps or voids from manufacturing are visible.[...] object is decorated on all 12 faces. Face A, with the largest hole, has one ring. Face J, the face with the smallest hole, has three rings; all other faces have two rings. There are no other markings or stamps inside or outside the object. The holes on the faces are graduated with slight differences in size
Measurements
Height: 80 mm, Height (without knobs): 70 mm; Width: 86 mm[,] (without knobs) 75 mm; Weight: 254g. Side length of faces: 27 mm. 

there is a metal analysis, according to which it is a highly-leaded bronze (but there is a figure of 18% lead, and not 25% in another source online, so that needs verifying). 

I do not know what the PAS think, but I think that is a pretty useless decription, most of the words reflect what you can see in the photos - or would be able to if they were better lit, properly oriented (with a scale for God's sake) and not so fuzzy and utterly lacking depth of field as the one on the PAS website (who taught this person photography?). 

I do not see anywhere a discussion of how it was made (cire perdu investment mould? Brazed together from individual elements?), any tool marks, presence or absence of traces of wear on the holes or knops. The dimensions of the holes on each of the faces should rather be given (and she mentions faces 'A' and 'J', but the photo is not labelled or described in those terms). The object is hollow, are there any marks inside that reveal details of the assembly of either the polygon itself, or the mould? Any remnants of the mould core? Tool marks, or damage inside? Is the metal of all the faces the same thickness, what is the thickness of the bronze? The collars around the holes vary in width and profile, were they cast in, or cut out after casting (and if the latter how, if the centre was missing)? Why are some of them uneven, is that corrosion? Were all the knops cast integrally with the object, or were some or all of them brazed on afterwards (and if so how)? [also I think the PAS should in their descriptions - an official report of their professional examination of the object - be informing the finders/landowners that the object has bronze disease, as the photos seem to suggest this one does].

The apparent main author of this text, Ms Hitchens does not come over very well on social media. Primarily this is due to a recent pompous and rather patronising thread on this find apparently prompted by journalists asking somebody else to talk about  "her" dodecahedra instead of her.* She announces herself: "Hello. I'm @dodecahedragirl, the leading expert on Roman dodecahedra in the UK. [sic] let me be clear, no one has personally handled and evaluated more dodecahedra in the UK than me. [...] I find it very disappointing that the media doesn't do a little more homework in choosing "experts" to interview in my very narrow field". So, I'd like to know, despite all the bluster, whether her notes on all the other UK ones are as scanty as her description here for the "record" of this item in the PAS database. 

But what kind of an excavation was this? Why are finds from it appearing in the PAS database? I was intrigued by what could be read in one of the press accounts (Tom Metcalfe, 'Roman dodecahedron uncovered by amateur archaeologists in the UK' Live Science January 19, 2024) [is this the earlier text that Hitchens seems to be bitter about?]:   

The dodecahedron [...] was found this past summer during a dig in a farmer's field [...] metal detectorists had already found Roman coins and broaches in the same field, said Richard Parker, the secretary of the Norton Disney History and Archaeology Group, an organization of local volunteers.[...] Parker was making a cup of tea nearby when a shout went up from some of the volunteers, who'd just unearthed the dodecahedron in one of the trenches the group made at the site for the two-week dig.
"It was our second-to-last day of the excavation, and up pops this dodecahedron in Trench Four," Parker told Live Science. "We were completely surprised by it. We weren't getting many metal [signals] at that point, but all of a sudden there it was."

Does what Mr Parker says indicate this was a metal detectorists'  dig, which is why the finds appear in the PAS record? But then, if this is what it was why were they digging down below ploughsoil?

I attempted to ask the local archaeology group about this record, why it was on the PAS database, and the background to the investigation that produced it. It very quickly became clear that, while happy with the five-minutes-of-fame from the media coverage of their wonderful "mystery object", they did not actually want to talk about the archaeology:

So, I would just have to find out about it from other sources, which is a shame. Archaeologists do not "own" the past, and in my opinion, real archaeology should be about sharing information and not sitting jealously on it and hiding from frank and open discussion. It seems from their reaction that the Norton Disney History and Archaeology Group cant agree to that (see part two).

*Ms Hitchens also had a go at me for taking an interest in the PAS record and (in connection with that) the circumstances of the object's excavation and all the sudden object-centred publicity, dismissing my interest with: "You're not very informed about this find" - which could be, young lady, why I am trying to find out more...

British Archaeology and Duodecahedral Mystery Fever (II): The Archaeology Group Struts its Stuff

(Contd from Part one)

Puzzled by the reference to metal detecting in the text about the discovery in Live Science, and since the good folk of the so-called Norton Disney History and Archaeology Group did not actually want to discuss how one of their finds ended up in the PAS database, it turned out that if I wanted to find out more, I'd have to look at the material in the public domain about the third season (2023) of their (apparently) privately-funded excavation (7th-20th June 2023)  of the Potter Hill Dig site. It was there, in a feature in Trench 4 on Thursday 15th June, that the dodecahedron is reported as having been found. 

Apparently, something called  "Allen Archaeogy" [@allenarchaeo] is in some way involved in this project. It is not clear what the formal status is or how that is organised and funded or what its role actually is, but it is worth noting that on their own website, Norton Disney does NOT figure in its presentation of their "projects". So that is another thing that is unclear. 

So who was directing this dig? What are the research aims?  

The information I found online was profoundly disturbing. We do not know how many diggers there were, but the photos suggest that on a good day there were c. 15 of them. And we know the digging was planned for ten work days. Whoever was in charge decided that this was enough to open not one trench but FOUR, on a Roman site, across deep stratigraphy (a pebble floor stratified in one section, pits and ditches already known from geophys). There is no site plan in the Group's materials, but it seems from the photos those trenches are (by eye - not a ranging rod scale anywhere in the whole series of site photos) four metres-plus (five? metres) across and more than 20m long.  To my mind, that is simply irresponsible, there is no way that (unless the trenches were utterly sterile) that is enough people to deal with an area that size properly in the time available. 

So the result is what we see. There are no grid pegs for planning, nor any equipment for surveying /measuring visible in the photos. There are no planked barrow runs, no wheelbarrows, if its too far to the spoilheap from where somebody is digging, loose soil is just heaped on the ecavated area. There are spilt earth and trample all over the excavated surface. I dread to think what the site photographs look like. But then, in the dig diary there is no mention of cleaning up the area around a feature for a photo, or a general site view.  Wroxeter Baths Basilica this is not. 

Attention is drawn to a number of cases where one one day in the photo of a trench there is no socking big hole in it, but a photo taken a day later shows a large cubic volume of archaeological (one assumes) deposit has been removed, apparently in one go. It is difficult to see whether a half-section of these features was attempted. The whole dig gives the impression of having been done in a huge hurry. Why?  In addition, the site is a disgusting mess - apart from anything else a site in that state is a huge risk of alien material appearing to come from layers it has not - ie of contamination. Where did the volunteers doing this learn to excavate? Where is the site discipline?

There are vague mentions of a "surface" (seen in the photo as having been cut through, rather than exposed and planned) a "[quarry] pit" and "ditches" - but there is no site plan to show that any length of any of these features was traced anywhere. The photos show that little box-trenches were dug by the trench-edge baulks (crooked, not vertical or for the most part not cleaned back), but it is not clear what they represent. No photographs show any of the layers as labelled in the field. 

Trench 4 of the Potter Hill Dig  (photo:Trench 4 of the Potter
Hill Dig (photo:Norton Disney History and Archaeology Group
- fair use for criticism, comment, news reporting and teaching)

It is against this sorry background that we should discuss the dodecahedron find. There is no mention of the find in the so-called "dig diary" online, but there is a photo of what "Richard, Richard and Julian" were doing on that day in that hole... and basically one can only remark, "what the ****?" What is the excavation strategy here? Three blokes digging randomly down at different depths. What's going on here, where is the edge of the feature? The baulks are all over the place, on day nine, the spoil heap is right on the trench edge and part of it is sliding into the excavation (I use the term loosly). There is a shovel lying blade up, a hoe (for some reason) lying in the hole. 

I cannot really see what those three blokes are doing in that hole. It is entirely possible that a large feature like that has several phases of filling, but digging it like that, the excavators would be hard-put to identifying them (or any intrusive features or post-depositional effects), and therefore the actual context of the dodecahedron. So it may well be one of the few from an excavated context, but from what we can see so far of this excavation, that really does not count for much.

In the dig diary intended to inform the wider public about what was done and how by this group of archaeologists, most of the photos are not of the site and the features found and explored, but people holding pieces of pottery, or finds trays full of pottery (mostly the big bits - no sieving here apparently, though the soil looks ideal for it). The dig diary throughout talks of getting more and more "finds" but little about the contexts. The whole text reads as if this "archaeology group" thinks archaeology is just about "digging up old things" (23 kg of them apparently - they weighed them). The impression this archaeologist gets from looking at the material they have produced and publicised so far is that this is basically just an artefact hunt. This is the legacy of the PAS in action. 

BUT, unlike what I was expecting from the earlier write up, no metal detectors in sight. I am not sure here however that this is a good thing. No mention was made of a single coin being found. No 'Constantinian grots', no barb. rads. If that is the case, how carefully were they digging? 

In the event, after just ten digging days, these holes were backfilled without, it seems from the presented account (and as may easily have been predicted), any of them having been fully examined and it is not stated which research aims were fulfilled. If their shoestring funding stretches to a return to the site, will it be possible to return to them and pickup where they finished off? I'd say the apparent lack of evidence of a fixed planning grid, if that is the case, is going to make it difficult.  

With my Polish archaeologist hat on, I would say that - while there are also huge problems in Poland - a case like this demonstrates the value in several ways of the permit system (Valetta Convention art. 3 that the UK rejected) and the oversight of standards of fieldwork by an external body (the regional conservation services to whom fieldworkers have to report in the interests of conservation of the archaeological record). Perhaps cases like this show the need for a rethinking of this?

As I said, since the archaeology group refused to discuss this with me, in order to understand the background, I am perforce having to use the material they themselves put into the public domain to show what they are capable of and what they were doing. This raises more questions than had been my nitial intent to discuss, but what the documentation seems to show is highly concening. It looks to me that the site is being unneccessarily damaged. From what I can see, there are a few doubts about the archaeological context of the site's most famous find, and about the quality of the information this "dig" is producing in general. The word "amateur" does not have to mean "bad", from what we can see, there is a LOT of room for improvement here. 

I do hope the "Dig Diary" is misleading and the site and excavation process did not really look like this. But then, if that's the case, what is the point of any of this? 

British Archaeology and Duodecahedral Mystery Fever (III): This is Mine!

 

Bonkers does not even begin to describe the situation over the Norton Disney dodecahedron - part (as we say) of the common archaeological heritage of us all. Except it is not... says the "Responsible Finder" who reported it to the PAS so it could be recorded for public benefit. Look at this public record funded by public money to record for public benefit items ripped out of a common resource .

DODECAHEDRON
Unique ID: LIN-BC9890
Object type certainty: Certain
Workflow status: Published Find published
A complete cast copper-alloy dodecahedron [...]

Notes: Enquiries relating to the creation of 3D Models.

Please note that a license from the private owner of that object is required before creating and distributing a 3D model of the dodecahedron. However, the owner is choosing to remain anonymous. There will be a published report that will be submitted to the Lincolnshire Historic Environment Record (HER) although again the report will still be copyrighted by its author(s), so again, permission is required to use that [sic PMB] data for any models.   [...]  

This raises so many questions. 

The Note does not cite the legal basis for that, nor the precise circumstances referred to. It is very questionable whether there is such a basis. The intellectual property rights and copyright of the creator of the object itself have expired. The guy died a millennium and a half or more ago, as have any folk he could have transferred those rights to. 

But at any rate, if this object came from an archaeological excavation, who here is claiming those rights? The dig director, the volunteer who mattocked it out of the ground, the lady who made the teas in the tent, or the landowner? (The latter can hardly be anonymous, we know who they are.) 

The mention of a "published report copyrighted by its author [...] permission is required to use [those] data for any models". What kind of 3-d model data of the excavated finds are going to be in that report? Usually though, when you submit a text to somebody who will use it, you also sign a form assigning to them the rights. So not the "authors" but administrators of the LHER.  What the PAS have published is nonsense. 

Why are 3-d printouts of artefacts a problem to the PAS? I think it is a really good idea, everyone can have a printout of the Venus of Willendorf, a Clovis point, or some Mesopotamian cunies with the Flood story, or a cylinder seal ("showing the Aneki and Nibiru" - or whatever). There are quite a lot of them on eBay and Etsy, a lot of them with "Biblical" associations.  I see nothing wrong (if they are good quality and accurate) with people collecting them instead of collecting real dugup ones, indeed I would even commend it, and encourage their production.   Museums all over the world sell casts, electrotypes or impressions of objects in their collections so people can enjoy them at home (The BM where the PAS is, does a nice line). We remember also the case of a purported scan of the Nefertiti bust in the German museum (that Egypt alleges was removed from the country dishonestly) that you can now buy to print out to have one yourself. Now an official version is also available (nota bene through a 2019 challenge to precisely the same kind of restrictions that the BM's PAS is trying here to enforce).  

I am not clear what "data" the PAS are referriung to. Has somebody 3d-scanned the Norton Disney dodecahedron and then somebody stole the files? Is that what this is about? Or are they talking about somebody taking flat 2-d photos from the public domain and through creative jiggery-pokery turning the shades and highlights into contours that are then used with a bit of geometry to assemble a 3-d model? I would argue that, if the latter, the resultant model is the creation of its creator (duh) rather than infringing on the rights of any anonymous finder or the creators old geometry teacher. 

It so happens that there was what purported to be a scan of the Norton Disney dodecahedron out there. There is this one by a bloke called Chris that WAS on a Czech tech site, but for some reason has been taken down recently.

There are others. This one (not very convincing) has been constructed from measurements (also "protected data" PAS?) of one found in Tongeren, in the Gallo-Roman Museum, Tongeren. This nice-looking one is a metal cast made from a  mould that was either created from a scan or a constructed model. A less nice one, 3-d printed. A London Museum resin cast one is nice-looking but sold out. And so on... somebody has gone to a lot of trouble to make these and in my view, it is not as easy as it looks at first sight.

I really see nothing wrong with this. As we saw in the first post, certain people in archaeology seem to think (IMO, wrongly) that it is really  jolly good to get the grockles guessing "what this mystery object that has archaeologists baffled could be".  They can do it from pictures of course, or much more effectively they could have a 3d printout in their hand to heft, look at from different angles, squint through the holes, poke things into the holes and so on. Nothing like hands-on experience. Now this is what PAS-gatekeepers want to restrict. First they encourage "public involvement" (GUESS WOT THIS IS!!??), then they add, "yes, but only in the way WE tell you you can". 

I wish they'd apply the same approach to digging holes in sites to hoik out collectable artefacts, somehow the PAS can't seem to do that. 

Granite Vase Fantasies: Rubbish In, Rubbish Out

The guy claiming on social media that super-accurate measurements with extremely sophisticated machinery of 'ancient' stone vases with sophisticated geometry and technical parameter are evidence of some Lost Ancient Knowledge are back:&nbsp

;Matt Beall @MattbLimitless The CT scan report on thin walled granite artifacts is back! The X & Y axis of the lip and width vary by less than 1/1000 of an inch, making it perfectly round. Also, IT WAS LATHED. the surface deviation proves that. This is the first time that we can conclusively prove that with data (more data will be released in the coming weeks/months). So either [sic]
1.) The Egyptians made this and we don’t know how or what tools they used (same as pyramids/serapeum etc)
2 a more ancient civilization made this and the other precision artifacts
3 it’s a modern forgery

Previously, we had pointed out that his vases could not be considered evidence because they were unprovenanced (ungrounded) items from the antiquities market and thus were probably fakes. Now he's showing unprovenanced (ungrounded) items from the antiquities market with COAs (!) "Here’s the certificate of authenticity". Read it. Who's going to tell him?

I'd also like to know which Egyptian rose granite is this? it does not look like any of the types currently commercially available from Egypt. So if there are no more outcrops that could have been exploited, where did the raw material come from, how and when?

The Teddy Kollek collection is a storied provenance. We are told that some 56 years ago a Barakat bought it, kept it in a storetroom for half a century before selling it to the current owner. The questiuon is, can it be proven that it was from the Teddy Kollek collection? Mr Beall refuses to answer my question of whether there is anything written on this vessel  or an old collectors' label. A shame. Then again, if Mr Kollek (who collected mainly Israeli pieces) acquired this from somebody, how did he ascertain that it was an authentic antiquity <1968? Is there an Israeli export documentation showing how it got to London? 

Mr Beale lightly mentions that in his opinion, the dealer he bouighht it from might have been mixed up in illegal activity. Of course I do not believe that for a second, but here for the record is what he wrote, clutching at straws to make it seem more likelly this vessel is ancient: "There was the 6 day war in 1967 where Israel occupied Egypt and is said to have stolen artifacts. Barakat was based in Jerusalem at that time and would have been THE place to offload the loots. I’d be happy to return it to Egypt if it can be verified as genuine and stolen. A few of my others have 1968 Provence and Uzi Narkiss as prior owner. He was the general who occupied Egypt on the ground".

Look at this: 

William Wallace Welker @Will_W_Welker ·13h
Nice to have proof but anybody who has used a lathe and examined these jars already knew that. Modern forgery is unlikely due to the extremely high number of these jars that have been found.

Mmmm. There were a lot of them, but one cannot assume that the undocumented ones on the antiquities market are the same as the body of examples in excavation storerooms. These are two separate bodies of material and cannot be studied in the same way. 

Dodecahedron "Mystery" Brings in Money for the Dealers

According to the Antiques Trade Gazette a Roman dodecahedron of unknown origin

was offer   ed for sale on the open market at Wilkinson’s in Doncaster on Dec. 3 2022. The estimate was £800-1200. No information regarding its provenance was included in the catalogue and auction house and buyer were keeping tight-lipped about its collection history and any documenatation related to it. In the end, the object sold for £33,000.

Heritage Watch Watches

                        An Edwardian castle?              

Hooray, hurrah, hwre:

Gwent Police | Rural Crime Team @GPRuralCrime · 9h
#RuralCrimeTeam investigating a report of illegal #MetalDetecting on a protected #ScheduledMonument in #Monmouthshire today #PartnershipWorking with @CadwWales we investigate all reports of #NightHawking activity on our #Historic sites

What does that actually in real (not fluffy-wuffy talk) mean? Go along look at the site, see/not see traces of overnight digging, and.... what? The offence has three components (a) entering private property, (b) digging holes in itm, and (c) making off with artefacts. What Britain needs for combatting (a) is a system like the one being introduced in Poland next year by a new law whereby through registering using their phones, active metal detectorists give the authorities their phone details, so they can be tracked using phone data and their presence on a particular field at a particular time can be documented. As for (c) it is an easyt matter to identify finds in a seized private collection that do not have any legitimising documentation, such as protocols signed by teh landowner assigning ownership to items from their land. Are Gwent police investigating that? Doubt it. Who can see a flaw in both of those measures? This reveals that a proper discussion of these issues is the only way we can stop faffing about and get a truly effective system in place to protect the archaeological record from looting by irresponsible and law-breaking actors.

Reference:
Paul Barford, 'An App, a Map, and a Reward: Promoting and Enabling Artefact Hunting in Poland', The European Archaeologist 78 (October 2023) (mirror here)