Edutainer thinks it's time for What he calls "Toxic Archaeology" to End [UPDATED]

Over in Texas, USA, Luke Caverns ("Degree in Anthropology: but now an Expeditionary Historian making videos on ancient civilizations")* with 39.2K subscribers on You Tube thinks "It's time for Toxic Archaeology to END", though in talking about it, he comes over pretty toxically himself:

In today’s video, I examine the modern day battlegrounds of archaeology (this platform) & address how Academics can be just as Toxic and petty as what they claim to be fighting against /In this video, I break down an article posted by an archaeologist on X/Twitter refuting the Pre-Dynastic Vase research. This is, in my opinion, how NOT to argue against "Pseudo-Archaeology".

He admits he's writing this on behalf of Matt Beall, his friend, collector and businessman, who bought a stone vase from a certain dealer and whom I allegedly "attack" by questioning whether what he has subsequently done with it actually has much sense [my post  Granite Vase Fantasies: Rubbish In, Rubbish Out - and yes, there are typos in it; previous one on same topic here]. The video is here:

..Posted on You Tube by Luke Caverns May 12, 2024

Those of you who are too busy to watch it all, I'll save you a bit of time, there is a preamble to here, then after saying "I wanted to draw to light (sic) one of the worst examples...") the guy procedes to rather boringly and monotonously read out (almost) my whole post aloud [but without citing his source i.e., posting the LINK to my post]. He stumbles over intonation and a few words, pausing a couple of times to complain he's found some uncorrected mistypings. This goes on to here. Then there is an ad hominem swipe, noting that an archaeological colleague has "a tough time" writing English. The actual nitty-gritty of his video is at the end -  the bit after that. 

I'll just address a couple of the comments he made:

1) He says he does not believe that friend Matt Beall is mistaken and that he does not believe the vase in question is a modern fake because... "there would be a duplicate". I do not really understand the reasoning here. The originals if one of a group deposited in a tomb or used in a palace would more likely be made in sets for storage etc, a fake could be a one-off. In the same way as a lathe-turned wooden bowl could be. What's the problem? Did Mr Caverns do lathe-turning in his woodwork classes at school? Did his bowl look like the one the other boy before him produced? (Apart from his of course being the most perfect, having no mistakes, no doubt.) The fact the same lathe is used does not mean (of course) that every object turned on it would be a duplicate of the one made before. Bonkers.

He also says that in his opinion, it is not a fake because "so many ["tens of thousands"] were dug up" - yes lots of things have been dug up and dispersed from ancient Egypt and the classical world in general - so by Luke Caverns' reasoning,  there will be very few fakes of any artefacts like that on today's market, oil lamps, Greek vases, terracotta figurines, shabtis, scarabs, faience amulets - anything. Yes? I beg to differ. The market is full of fakes, some sold by dealers with shiny galleries and expensive suits.

Above all, whatever Mr Caverns thinks, it is not "pseudoscientific" (sic) to point out that given the current state of the antiquities market, an artefact that cannot be tied to an excavated context (grounded) is "probably fake".

On the basis of what he says, I would question what Mr Caverns understands as a pseudo-scientific approach. My approach here is source-critical. Where does that evidence come from, can it be associated with 100% certainty with the archaeological record? Mr Caverns on the other hand does not bother about that, he says  "there is an insane amount of artifacts up on these legal markets prior to the late 1900s that you can still buy today and nobody's looking at them and saying oh those are probably fake". So his is not source critical, more like wishful thinking. But that is not what we can base conclusions on. 

In any case, I'd like to see him define "insane numbers". Most big London auction houses can include about two of these vessels in a big antiquities sale, that (and their price) does not mean that if they are on that part of the market, they are two-a-penny. Maybe Mr Caverns is happy to look at them and nod his head that they are "probably real", the discerning buyer would do well to exercise caution when the paperwork is less than complete. Big auction house have expertise that 'should' cut out the fakes, but ... I happen to have my own thoughts on that. [caveat emptor and all that].    Let's leave aside the legality of a market that handles items without gettimng the paperwork that show an object has been acquired and moved between countries fully licitly, but Mr Caverns, if the object was "dug up in the 1900s", how do you know you are buying one dug up in the 1900s if you've not got documentation of the collecting history instead of assumptions ore a dealers nod-nod-wink-wink-assurances? 

Note that Mr Caverns omits in his reading the loaded sentence, why does he do that? Is it because he understands "what the author might have had in mind", or because he dismisses what he does not understand, because he's not read any discussion of the antiquities market on my blog except to pick holes in the spelling? Huh!

Mr Beall claims his item is OK, both in terms of autheticity and legality because he has a nice printed COA that says it came from a specific, named, collection. This is interesting, because that collection is well-known, and also something is known about the way that particular owner marked his objects. I have unsuccessfully been trying to get an answer from the new owner whether the vase that he has has that feature - and he has steadfastly refused to answer. The ABSENCE of that feature would raise further questions about where the dealer got that vase. So if Mr Beall is sure that the COA accurately gives the penultimate stage of the collection history, let's hear about how it is labelled.

2) Mr Caverns thinks it is nit-picking (sic) to question whether the raw material of an object claiming to be an ancient Egyptian sone vase is actually from Egypt. It is quite a distinctive stone with some big felspar crystals (that as we see in the video when the walls of the vessel are thin and you shine a light inside are translucent... uh.... could that, uh...?). I point out that such a stone should therefore have an identifiable quarry source somewhere (you know, archaeology looks at technology and raw material sources, and yes, we start off with simple visual comparison whether it be flint, stone axe material or building stone). Ancient Egyptian hardstone quarries were in the deserts (Western or mostly Eastern) and organizing quarrying and transport of the materials was not easy. We also know quite a lot about the quarries, it has been quite well studied. Since I gave a link that suggests that the main outcrops of rose granites in use in Egypt do not have the same macroscopic petrology as that vase, I'd say the onus is on the guy who claims it is an ancient Egyptian product, if he wants us to believe him, to show us where that raw material comes from. That is not nitpicking, it is a fundamental issue. 

3) The storerooms under and around the Pyramid of Zoser at Saqqara are NOT a "pre-dynastic" context.   

4) Mr Caverns says: "I agree with Matt that there's not really a lot of material in here I mean what did he say, you don't have providence for it so therefore we cannot take it seriously at all, even though there are tens of thousands of other artifacts found in Egypt that look almost exactly like this? If I had a little alabaster figure that supposed, that somehow had some really precise cuts on it but I could couldn't I couldn't produce where exactly it came from because it was looted in the late 1700s, I don't really know that anybody would come after me saying that no this 100% did not come from Egypt because it's probably more in favor that it is real than it is not real cause there's such an abundance of them out there and I'm with Matt on this one". [BTW alabaster - gypsum - is quite soft] To me, it seems Mr Caverns and his mate Matt, miss the point. There is not supposed to be any material, I make just one simple point, if Mr Beall cannot demonstrate that the vessel is from an ancient context, from an archaeological /historical point of view, it does not matter how nicely it is made. That's all, yet he's making a huge meal out of trying to explain aeaway the issue. I do not get the point he is making about an unprovenenced figurine, it has as much evidential value as an unprovenaced vase, the alleged finger bone of St Vincent, or Cabrera's Ica stones. 

The rest of his text (11.31 on) seems to me to be full of the ad hominems he (falsely) accuses me of using, he questions the "thoroughness" (or alleged lack of thouroughness) of my research as an archaeologist, speculates about my "personal life",  and so on. He ends with: "articles like this from a professional are just unacceptable and it's very juvenile".  

UPDATE 14.05.2024
* Mr "Spellchecker" Caverns has now got rid of the meaningless pretentious crap, it now reads: "I'm Luke Caverns. With a degree in Anthropology, I have taken to Education-entertainment to continue my studies of Early Civilization. "

And if you were wondering, the figure lurking behind him in the dark seems to be a Naja Turtle cosplay oufit. Seems appropriate. 

Discussing Artefact Provenance

Expeditionary Historian making videos on ancient civilizations

In the post above, I respond to Luke Caverns' reaction to me pointing out that in discussing archaeological artefacts, provenance is important; ending: "articles like this from a professional are just unacceptable and it's very juvenile".  That told me. Anyway, I was glad to see I am not the only archaeologist who thinks context is important, and there are problems in using artefacts from the market as a source (Flint Dibble @FlintDibble 6h):

A few notes on this. Yes, people have been looking at the antiquities market forever and revealing how many fakes are there. Go follow Erin Thompson (artcrimeprof). She has many, many threads on the fakes and fake certificates on the market. As well as looted material. This is a big deal. Archaeologists have stopped studying material without a context because it is unreliable. And we are holding people who do these scans to the same bar.

It is scientific to say that if you are making a big claim about the past that the evidence you use needs to be demonstrably reliable. It needs to be proven to be archaeological in nature and not possibly a forgery. Most academic journals ethically wouldnt even publish these stone vessels from the art market whether I submitted the paper or unchartedx. Studying these sorts of materials is a big no no and it's one of the points I'm trying to teach my following (including you)

In fact, the ethics behind this are one of the largest reasons to argue against it on Twitter.

I see pseudoarchaeologists supporting the purchase of antiquities. This one was supposedly certified as legal. But most others aren't. The one unchartedx put in a video. Nope.

Most objects without provenance on the antiquities market are either recently looted (illegal) or forgeries. Many of us are working to educate the public about this issue. If everyone goes and buys an 'Egyptian stone vessel' from who knows where. That either supports forgers or looters. This is bad and we want people to be aware of these problems

Ditto with breaking and entering on archaeology sites. This is bad and harmful and illegal

I don't fight pseudoarchaeology for shits and giggles. I try to educate people about archaeological ethics and to have a more respectful attitude towards cultural heritage around the world. It's not just there for fun speculation but it's relevant and matters. And Paul's blog is largely about the antiquities market and looting. He is an expert in it. To make light of these topics and that expertise shows a big hole in your thinking, Luke. These topics matter

Last point, Luke. You talk about an 'army of academics' in the replies... wow, they are dwarfed by the army of alternative folks who flood my mentions with real nastiness. Call me nastier names than one could imagine. And then screenshot and make fun of me for blocking them for being nasty

Same goes for US coin collectors and dealers, US antiquities activists, US metal detectorists. But UK metal detectorists are in a league of their own. On top of the abuse have been physical threats, both with a history going back more than two decades (and in Britain, archaeologists do not criticise detectorists, but pat them on the back, say "well done", and pay them a reward for digging stuff up from archaeological sites). Then the Polish ones, I challenge Mr Caverns to get an online translator onto some of the stuff they have been writing about all of my colleagues, despite fruitless years of trying to bridge the gap with the ones that want to search legally and responsibly. Maybe he could do that before next time writing proposing as some kind of a fresh new idea "hey guys, group hug, let's just work together".



.

Milo Rossi: You Tube Pseudoscience Commentator "Miniminuteman" [UPDATED]

The popular You Tube personality "Miniminuteman" (Boston, Massachusetts-based Milo Rossi) came to my attention through the recent discussion on Graham Hancock's controversial (in more ways than one) Netflix series "Ancient Apolcalypse". In point of fact, he came to my attention from Hancock's ungraceful reaction to having his theories discussed in this way (see the post below). Rossi has produced 181 You Tube videos (totalling 465,772,185 views), has 1.85M subscribers and seems to be doing very well for himself. He describes himself as "Archaeologist, Environmental Scientist, Author, Conspiracy Debunker". He started his activities on TikTok, where he has six million followers. 

 He does a lot of stuff, most of it concentrates on debunking pseudoscience and misinformation. What interests us here is the series of "Awful archaeology" videos that he's been doing since 21 Dec 2021. Mr Hancock and his acolytes may have been annoyed by the three videos "I Watched Ancient Apocalypse So You Don't Have To" (Part 1), (part 2), and (part 3) which have some 4mln+ views despite their length. I've watched them and think they are very good examples of the genre and show what we, archaeologists, should be providing more of. 

 
 For the record, in my opinion, Milo Rossi does an excellent job presenting the difference between reasoned, evidence-based, argument and pseudoscience. To be totally honest, as somebody from a somewhat different generation and background, at the beginning I was rather put off by his long hair, the biker image, the swearing, and loud in-your-face American brashness [rather too reminiscent to me of a North American guy I once had the misfortunee to share a flat with], but... as I watched the videos and was drawn into the narrative (and his online 'persona'), these prejudices of mine became easier to overlook. 

Rossi is articulate, has some good arguments, does not suffer fools and grifters lightly, but above all he is genuinely funny and entertaining. Rossi can also sometimes surprise with a totally fresh and sober take on some of the tired old tropes marshalled as their "proof" by pseudoscientists. He provides links to where the viewer can check what he said or find further information. His videos are presented to look very low-key and 'home-made' and personal, done on a shoestring, and sometimes look like chaos ... but he actually seems to spend a very long time preparing for them, they are carefully scripted, and overall strike a really good balance between providing information/ asking pertinent questions and sheer entertainment. They are IMO eminently watchable. He can produce a two-hour video on some abstruse points and get an audience to settle down and watch it and not get bored. That is a gift. Oh, and he has a big ginger cat who sometimes makes an appearance.

Take a look and decide for yourself. This one somebody sent me a link to is a good sampler of the presentation style (though less visually attractive than others, and cat not present).*  Maybe not to everyone's taste, but he obviously is reaching a wide audience who do want the information presented in this way and benefitting from what he presents. 

Nota bene, there are a lot of producers of similar content of various quality, but it is worth drawing attention to the fact that this kind of popular-science debunking of pseudo/para-science is largely a US genre, British archaeologists, for example, don't do this nearly so often. To be honest, I cannot imagine a single Polish archaeologist I know (and I know quite a lot of them) who would even attempt something like this - or be able to carry it off.  There are not a lot of them in social media in general. 

* one segment of this makes reference to the way that pseudoarchaeology is used to attract readers to Russian misinformation dissemination sites showing that this kind of clickbait has a more sinistewr role than just confusing people about the past. 

UPDATE 13.05.2024

THIS I think is well worth a watch right through to the end: Pseudoarchaeology and the Pseudoscience Pipeline - Milo Rossi LIVE at Virginia Tech

Graham and Holly Take on Archaeology

 

                     Holly Lasko Skinner, pen for sale

.

Above, I discussed the YouTube debunker of psedoscience Miniminuteman and his series of "Awful archaeology" videos . As noted there, one of them was his major effort concerning a recent well-produced blockbuster six-part Netflix series "Ancient Apocalypse" written and presented by Graham Hancock. Rossi's videos were titled: "I Watched Ancient Apocalypse So You Don't Have To" (Part 1), (part 2), and (part 3) which have some 4mln+ views despite their length. I've watched them (and the Netflix series) and think Rosi has provided a good evidence-based critique of the programme in an entertaining format. Also showing that you can produce good TV with a much lower budget than Netflix expended on making the original film.  

Recently there was also a debate on the 'Jo Rogan podcast' between Hancock and archaeologist Dr Flint Dibble that also was based around an evidence-based presntation that was confronted with Hancock's suppositions, "what ifs" and "looks-like" meanderings about a hypothetical/(imaginary) "Lost Civilisation" in which Hancock emerged rather badly and weakly. Hancock objects to this kind of writing about the past without a strict theoretical methodology being treated, not as legitimate archaeology [the word after all means just 'study of the past'] but something that apes the way that enquiry is conducted today - in other words it is a para-archaeology, a pseudo-archaeology. There was a very distasteful moment in the middle of the debate when Hancock tried to react to it having been pointed out that Diffusionist explanations of cultural change brought about by "superior" cultures "bringing the benefits of civilisation" to "inferior" ones willing to acknowledge their position by adopting teh new models is at its core a racist one. Hancock apparently does not accept /understand this, though it is commonplace in discussions of archaeological theory. 

On 19th April 2023 on Graham Hancock's personal website a huge verbose text appeared  called: "Will the real Pseudoarchaeologists Please Stand Up! (sic) The institution of North American archeology is racist to the core and must be “rebuilt from the ground up” say antiracist archaeologists". Wow. Much of the last third of this is a hit-job aimed at.... Flint Dibble. Coincidence? The text is poorly-organised and thus pretty unreadable, it is ajumble of assorted quotes by various people taken out of their context that the author (AI??) was unable to into coherent text that actually gets to the point. The author of this text fails to grasp that, as in any discipline, there are factions in US archaeology, critical of others. This does not mean that what they say and postulate can be used to generalise about all US archaeology at home and abroad. Also is US archaeology more, or less, "racist" thau any other segment of US society, a country where allegedly black people fear being killed in the street by a cop just because they are black?

According to Graham Nancock's website the author of that text, one Holly Lasko Skinner, "is a freelance writer, researcher and editor based in London, UK [...] with a first class degree in history". So far so good, but we also learn: "as a strong believer in social justice, she's worked with Graham Hancock to decolonise and democratise our understanding of the past since 2015". Wow. It is unclear what form that took, as there do not seem to be many publicaltions on that, or any other, theme online, at least. 

But then, a new text by Ms Skinner has just appeared on Graham Hancock's webpage, 18 days later, on May 7th. This was prefaced by a tweet by Hancock: "Thanks to brilliant freelance researcher Holly Lasko Skinner, who I've worked with for many years, for looking into this phenomenon at a time when my energies have been focussed elsewhere". This "phenomenon" was an ad hominem attack called  "Investigating YouTuber Miniminuteman" (Graham Hancock website 7th May 2024).

Investigating YouTuber Miniminuteman
The archaeological community have upheld Rossi as a bastion of archaeological integrity. This article investigates who Miniminuteman really is.[...]
Ch. 1: "Milo Rossi is not an archaeologist" [...]
Ch. 2: “Milo Rossi is a pseudoarchaeologist" [...]
[...] Ch. 5: “Miniminuteman is a conspiracy theorist”

I was not aware that anybody has been "holding Rossi up as a bastion (sic) of arechaeological integrity" - where did she read that? Anyway Holly Lasko Skinner has either self-appointed herself or been asked by the website owner to "investigate" him.

 This is a nasty text. I understand that Mr Rossi's online persona may not be to everyone's taste, and that his arguents and style in which he presents them may be uncomfortable to a certain body of writers/ media producers, but I think that Mr Hancock and his hired proxy pen have gone much too far here. Furthermore, to me, this text gives the impression of the outpourigns of an obsessed stalker. Look at the effort she's gone to to dig up the dirt on this guy - hours and hours of research. 

Again we get the same verbose mudslinging composed of large chunks of quotes from other sources, all selected with the sole intent, far from "investigating" a subject, of blackening his character. Yeah, we all of us make mistakes (I disagree about the one with the archaeologist getting precious about surface-found sherds by the way) but this is so obviously done with the sole intent of discrediting an uncomfortable critic.  

In all of this, there is not a single case of Ms Skinner actually addressing the points about the lack of evidence for this imaginary "Lost Civilisation" - but if she was "investigating" the views of Mr Rossi, that is exactly what should be here. And that is exactly what she has avoided doing. Is Mr Rossi an archaeologist? I have no idea what his formal qualifications are, and neither do I care. 

As far as I am concerned: "an archaeologist is somebody who applied archaeological methodology to interprete the physical remains of the past" (I am aware that this is NOT a good definition - because it raises the question of what that "archaeological methodology" is, but then what is NOT an archaeological methodology, on the one hand also needs defining, on the other perhaps not). Now, I'm pretty grumpy and critical about what is good archaeology. It seems to me that Milo Rossi is applying archaeological reasoning (grounded in a knowledge, appreciuation of and experience with sais methodology) to the wquestions he is discussing. So yes, even if he was a landscape gardener or pharmacist by avocation, what he is doing here is by that definition archaeology. I have no problems with that. And I do not give a tinker's cuss for what Holly Lasko Skinner thinks about that. Whether you, dear reader thinks it is relevant is up to you. But base it on what Rossi says and not what she says. Go to the source, a mouse-click away.  

And Hancock's image as an affable articulate guy "just asking questions" and "just trying to find out" bursts here like a bubble with his publication of this text.  

 

Heritage in Danger: Hammer-Wielding Fanatics in Museum Gallery

Harry Low, 'Magna Carta case damaged by Just Stop Oil protesters at British Library' BBC News 10.05.2024 14 hours ago

Two Just Stop Oil protesters have been arrested after damaging the case around the Magna Carta at the British Library. Reverend Sue Parfitt, 82, and Judy Bruce, 85, a retired biology teacher, targeted the glass enclosure around the historic document on Friday. The pair then held up a sign reading "The Government is breaking the law" before gluing themselves to the display, footage posted online shows.

The BBC thought it was then newcesary to explain to its British readers "What is Magna Carta?". Hmmm. At a time when the British Museum's ability to look after teh heritage objects it has stashed away increasingly comes under question, the issue is how this couple got a hefty hammer and cold chisel through the metal detectors and security checks at the Libray's entrance" Imagine if, instead of attacking a glass case these attention-seeking fanatics had taken a left and gone into the Egyptian Sculpture galleries, or thwe ones with teh Assyrian palace reliefs - or the Parthenon gallery? Since the British Museum demonstrably really cannot protect the objects it holds, maybe all these things should now be returned to their countries of origin?

More on those Hyper-Precise "Ancient Lathe-Turned Vessels" from the Antiquities Market

The US collector who bouught an "antiquity" on the market and assumes it is what the COA says it is has now begun to get abusive when evidence is pointed out that he cannot accept:

Matt Beall @MattbLimitless
There we have it folks, Flint Chisel Dibble. By hand lol! That’s hilarious. The tool marks on the interior don’t indicate that it was made by hand. They indicate that it was turned on a sophisticated lathe[...]. Hopefully that’s the most ridiculous assumption you’ve had in a long time. This is to within a microscopic amount of perfect roundness. Of course it was turned and not made by hand. [...] Aren’t you a Greek Bronze Age person? Have you ever handled even one of these to have a clue how they were made? 12:31 AM · May 11, 2024

then

Ryan @RWrxghtyyy · 18m
He doesn’t understand it because he doesn’t have the trained eyes to see the evidence of machinery in this artefact. As a engineer and like many other engineers we all say this is machined by a CNC with precision. It’s only the untrained archeologists that are in denial.

wardamnjay @wardamnjay · 1h
Those vases are racist aren't they Flint

and it just goes on:

JeklHunter

@Jekl84

·

May 9

you cannot explain because you are a retarded tribalist who is pissed that people don't respect your overpriced piece of paper and that you may be wrong in your beliefs; so you are lashing out against those that make you look like a fool

then

Flint Dibble @FlintDibble
1. Your stone vessel from the art market has no archaeological context. So tell me how you know when it was made?[...] I'm done with this conversation. Good luck. I hope you read more actual archaeology and stop buying looted artifacts

reply:

Matt Beall @MattbLimitless · 1h
Flint, thanks for the advice but you dig up people’s graves for a living and you steal their possessions from their final resting place. I’ve purchased these legally, after they’ve been looted by archaeology.

I guess it is some special kind of uninformed that considers that anything bought from a London antiquities dealer with a COA must have been exccavated by archaeologists who then sold them off onto the market. This is why (and the ad homimnem abuse) there is little point in discussing the finer points of archaeology with people that do not actually understand some basic things about source criticism.

Meanwhile:

Bastet @Bastet545169547 · May 8
That particular vase does not look authentic. The sharp vertical top/lip doesn't match any from the pre-dynastic period. They tend to be either rounded or turn outwards - never straight vertical. I've looked at countless vases in the Arnold Meijer collection and none have this.

Bastet @Bastet545169547
The link below is an excellent resource of AE vases. I've pretty much viewed every one and none have that sharp vertical top. None either have such sharp "perfect" features. Hand work and imperfections are obvious in pretty much all the originals.

arnoldmeijer.nl Stone Vessels
Predynastic to
the Middle Kingdom From the art market - 988 images
Museum collections - 460 images
12:09 AM · May 9, 2024

and 

and

Bastet @Bastet545169547 · May 9
[...] The vases this rich dude with the channel has snapped up all look very modern to me. The ones he analyses at least. They all seem a little too perfect compared to the originals.

Obviously, in order to provide convincing evidence to support his thesis of a "lost technology" Mr Beall needs to get access to excavated (grounded) examples - but he could face an uphill battle isf all he can do when challenged is get abusive and aggressive.

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.