It was one of the good news archaeology stories of 2024 and even earned a slot on the BBC’s premiere archaeology magazine programme, “Dig for Britain” presented by Professor Alice Roberts. However, the internationally famous Norton Disney Dodecahedron, an enigmatic Roman period object in cast bronze, is now facing a fresh set of questions, this time not about the actual function of the object, but instead whether the established, and professionally supported, community archaeology project which announced the find is “gatekeeping” information about the object to the extent that an entry for the dodecahedron on the publicly available, publicly funded Portable Antiquities Scheme [PAS] database, has been removed. This is a situation which raises troubling questions about the integrity of the entire PAS database if an individual or group can have a significant, in this case regionally important, find removed without notice and above all without explanation.
The removal of the PAS entry for the Norton Disney find only came to light after thePipeLine began to investigate a widely reported, so called, copyright strike made by the Norton Disney History and Archaeology Group against a maker in the United States who had placed a model, purporting to be of the Norton Disney find, on the market website E-Bay. The object was advertised for sale using photographs owned by the Norton Disney project and it was alleged no permission to use the images had been asked for or given..
Undoubtedly a breach of copyright of a kind which would draw sympathy from many creators and copyright holders who have had their work similarly reproduced online or in publications without permission, or even a credit, the issue appears to have been picked up in what the group described in an interview with the BBC as a routine search for mentions of the dodecahedron.
However, the copyright strike appears to have triggered a reaction from the Norton Disney Group which appears to have gone far beyond merely having the E-bay sale taken down.
An archived copy of the of the Norton Disney History and Archaeology Group web page describing the find of the dodecahedron shows that at some point prior to 12 April 2025 the line relating to the Portable Antiquities Scheme database entry for the object, which
included a link to the entry itself, was removed.
At the same time the entire entry relating to the dodecahedron on the public Portable Antiquities Scheme database under the unique PAS ID LIN-BC9890, appears to have been removed also.
Previously openly available under a workflow category of green flag, published, searches of the Portable Antiquities Scheme finds database on 12 April 2025 by the Watching Brief podcast, using the terms Norton Disney Dodecahedron, and the PAS unique ID for the object, now only returned a status of unavailable and “quarantined”.
A wider search for Roman dodecahedrons on the PAS database undertaken at the same time returned fourteen records, none relating to the Norton Disney find.
Originally published on the database in early 2024, to coincide with the public announcement of the find, the Norton Disney Dodecahedron has effectively been “cancelled”, become un-object, it has ceased to be.
Unless, that is you visit the NDHAG website, or visit the Civil War Centre at Newark in person where the Norton Disney Dodecahedron is currently on display to the public as part of what is effectively a tour of regional museums which will last into 2026.
Confusingly the NDHAG website offers the media use of photographs of the dodecahedron in return for a donation, but the situation facing users of the PAS database was not apparently so straight forward.
First of all the entry carried a note that the recorder of the find, most likely the Finds Liaison Officer [FLO] for Lincolnshire, had not actually handled it in person.
This is not unprecedented, but it is unusual with FLO’s normally offering advice, subject expertise and quality control regarding entries on the database.
But then also there appeared also to be some confusion as to copyright in the photographs used to accompany the PAS database entry.
In the March 2024 the Rights Holder was listed as Lincolnshire County Council, under a Creative Commons licence. However, other archive copies of the record shows the photographs were attributed to researcher Lorena Hitchens who is understood to be making a study of dodecahedra for a PhD and who appeared on the BBC package on Dig For Britain. Certainly in February 2025 the photographs were attributed to Ms Hitchens.
However, by that time the entry had gained some additional text with a note relating to the construction of 3D models of the object.
The note stated,
“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 data for any models.”
It is clear that the owner of the object is not the NDHAG, otherwise why not say they did own it, so was the actual owner making sure their rights were protected, for example by suggesting that even the use of information such as dimensions, taken from the final published report, could not be used to create replicas?
The fundamental question, articulated by a number of archaeologists, was how could anyone claim copyright over the dodecahedron when in the UK copyright in intellectual property such as an original object lasts for seventy years following the death of the creator, and the creator[s] of the Norton Disney dodecahedron have been dead for at least seventeen hundred years?
Respected archaeologist and expert in metal work of this period Dr Tess Machling suggested on Social Media and subsequently on her blog, that what the Norton Disney Group was attempting amounted to “gatekeeping” the object. That is an attempt to control access to an object for prestige, exclusivity, or even financial, reasons.
Dr Machling argued that such attempts to control access to archaeological objects, and to limit the availability of photographs to researchers, especially those wanting to publish their research, for example by claiming rights over photographs of objects rather than the objects themselves, was both increasingly common and was setting a dangerous precedent for researchers whereby it is becoming increasingly difficult for researchers who do not have deep pockets to pay reproduction charges, which is most researchers, to undertake and publish comprehensive research studies.
Similar arguments have been had in the art historical world where Dr Bendor Grosvenor has a long standing campaign to require organisations like the National Gallery to place high quality images of their collections in the public domain for scholarly use.
However, the latest iteration of the Norton Disney website suggests that the group may have softened its position.
As well as stating that the object is available for academic research, and the subject of PhD research, presumably that of Ms Hitchens, the website says this,
“As a group we are happy to see many people excited about our group and finds. If you would like to use our photos then please get in touch, especially if they contain members of our group. Normally permission will be given and it’s normal if you do use them to give a credit to our group.
“Those wishing to create 3D replicas of any finds may do so, but should only use your own photographs.”
However, this apparently more permissive regime only adds to the mystery as to how the PAS entry came to be made and why the entry was then taken down?
It is possibly significant that while the entry in the PAS database included the key dimensions of the Norton Disney Dodecahedron, while as currently published the NDHAG website page about the object does not, so the message is perhaps not just to use your own photographs, but to take a tape measure to obtain your own measurements too?
Meanwhile, the issue of the beneficial ownership of the object remains.
The Norton Disney History and Archaeology Group appears to control some levels of access to the object, but behind this administrative fact lies the involvement of a contracting unit Allen Archaeology which supported the original excavation in 2023 and in overall control of the dodecahedron is the anonymous “private owner” of the object mentioned in the Portable Antiquities Scheme entry, described also as the landowner.
There is no suggestion anyone has behaved illegally, but in the absence of a detailed description of the work undertaken in 2023 which led to the discovery of the dodecahedron it can be said fairly that there has been at least a lack of candour.
This means that it remains possible that, while the site of the find was excavated archaeologically subsequently, that the original find was made by a metal detectorist and it is this which could be complicating the issue of ownership, intellectual property rights and access to the object.
When the story first broke in 2024 the prolific blogger and long term critical observer of the metal detecting scene Paul Barford, pointed out that the description of the find offered to the website “Live Science” allowed that the dodecahedron could indeed have been a detectorist find.
Mr Barford pointed out that the Secretary of the Norton Disney History and Archaeology Group, Mr Richard Parker, told “Live Science”,
“It was our second-to-last day of the excavation, and up pops this dodecahedron in Trench Four, We were completely surprised by it. We weren’t getting many metal [signals] at that point, but all of a sudden there it was.”
Subsequently Mr Barford looked at the dig diary published on-line by the NDHAG and he concluded the while photographs of the work at the time of the find did appear to show open archaeological trenches and no metal detectors in use at the time the pictures were taken, they pictures themselves were not that informative.
thePipeLine has also looked at the dig diary, which remains online and the images shown certainly support Mr Barford’s interpretation, but equally, they do not exclude the possibility detectorists were involved and, if they were, on what terms did they have permission to metal detect?
Meanwhile the reference made by Mr Parker to “metal [signals]” suggests that, at the very least, metal detectorists had been active across the area of the site where the dodecahedron turned up.
It is also the case that, to date, no in-situ photographs of the find, or even of the location of the find and its archaeological context seem to have been published.
Mr Barford pointed out that if it was the case that the initial find at least was made by a detectorist, then that would account for another anomaly in the story, the fact that the dodecahedron had appeared on the Portable Antiquities Scheme database in the first place.
The PAS states it exists for finds made by members of the public, mostly metal detectorists. It does not record artefacts from organised archaeological excavations where it is assumed detailed reporting will be undertaken by the excavators as a matter of routine.
Meanwhile, in the absence of any definitive statement about the ultimate destination of the Norton Disney dodecahedron, some archaeologists have pointed out the possibility also remains that it might eventually be sold by that anonymous owner.
Following concerns about a possible sale being expressed online, including in social media, NDHAG added the following statement to their website.
“The Norton Disney group is entirely funded by grants and donations. The group is not subject to any kind of contract or agreement relating to the commercial value of the find. Nor are there any plans by the landowner to sell the Norton Disney Dodecahedron.
Nor are we or the landowner ever going to sell 3D models of the find or seek to profit in any way.”
However, if the Norton Disney History and Archaeology Group are not the ultimate owner of the find they cannot guarantee this position indefinitely, if at all and it must be noted having “no plans” is the tried and tested formula used in public relations to provide breathing space shortly before announcing the controversial action, for which there were “no plans”, is announced.
For context is necessary to state that if that anonymous owner of the object, whoever it is, does choose to sell it in the future the financial stakes are high.
In December 2022 another Roman dodecahedron was sold by an independent auctioneer, Wilkinson’s of Doncaster in Yorkshire.
Sold without a provenance, collection history, or substantial documentation, with an estimate of £800-£1200, the enigmatic object realised a hammer price of £33,000.
The Norton Disney History and Archaeology Group and the Portable Antiquities Scheme have both been approached for comment about the questions and issues raised in this article.
The Norton Disney History and Archaeological Group did not answer our questions directly. However, as this article was being finalised the NDHAG website was amended once again and now carries the following statement.
“We are aware of a concern about the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) Record. The Norton Disney dodecahedron was not a detectorist find. It was found during a professionally supervised excavation.”
The NDHAG then attempted to shift focus regarding the mysterious deletion from the public database from the group itself to the Portable Antiquities Scheme at the British Museum stating,
“Please note the group does not make entries into PAS and none of the images and data came from the group itself. Please refer to PAS if you have any questions.”
The fact remains therefore that somebody almost certainly known to the Norton Disney Group and with access to all the relevant data, thought they had the authority to submit an entry regarding the Roman dodecahedron to the Portable Antiquities Scheme and did so, including photographs and detailed measurements and that the Portable Antiquities Scheme accepted that entry, albeit without actually handling the object itself and published it.
The entry then remained on the publicly available PAS database for months with no problem and was even linked to by the Norton Disney History and Archaeology Group on its official website, implying that the group was quite happy with the publication of their, by now internationally famous, find.
Yet that entry has now been removed and we still do not know why.
For the sake of trust in the Portable Antiquities Scheme, and trust in the ability of the Norton Disney History and Archaeological Group to manage its regionally important find, and potentially others to come, many archaeologists will hope that both parties explain definitively what has happened and what lessons have been learned to prevent such confusion in the future and that they offer those explanations soon.
However, to the time of publication the Portable Antiquities Scheme has not responded to our questions either.
UPDATE
The archaeological community has however responded to the mysterious disappearance of the Norton Disney Dodecahedron from the public domain.
Across the Easter weekend archaeologists posted a series of detailed photographs of replica dodecahedrons, complete with diagrams and methodologies.
The #DodecaBakeOff provided plenty of deliciously satirical food for thought about the whole affair in chocolate of various types, even Maltesers and it was all in the public domain.
If you have information about this story, or anything else in the world of archaeology and heritage you think archaeologists and the public should know about, contact thePipeLine in confidence at Proton Mail <PipeLineNews@protonmail.com>
Or via the end-to-end-encrypted App Signal on +44 7958 543518
Featured Image: Archaeosoup Productions
thePipeLine is free to read and we promise it always will be, but researching the kind of story you have just read costs time and money.
If you think it is important that archaeology and heritage has an independent voice speaking truth to power please buy us a Ko-fi
