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...