Old Man's Beard

The surprising truth about multi-faceted dice

Wed, 08 Apr 2026 13:57:20 GMT

The surprising truth about multi-faceted dice

The first dice were knuckle bones, small bones from the feet of herd animals like sheep or goats. Their consistent shape means that when thrown they fall on one of four sides. The oldest are 7 000 years old and were used for divination as well as games.

Then in Mesopotamia we find the first pyramid dice, made of four equilateral triangles. The ones from a grave site in Ur are over 4 500 years old but unlike modern dice they don’t have numbers. Each one has a white spot on two of their points, several die would be thrown at once and counting the spots gives the number. The game they were found with is either the ancestor of modern Backgammon or a closely related cousin.

Around the same time, we find the first 6-sided dice, discovered in the 1920’s on an archaeological dig in Tepe Gawra in Iraq. Holes had been made in all six sides to represent the numbers, but the order was different to a modern die. There is a reference to a distillation devices found on this site too which could indicate a connection between dice and alcohol which I find very pleasing.

Then two thousand years later, in 500 BCE we see the first 8-sided shape, an octahedron made of eight equilateral triangles, two of the four-sided added together. We also find the dodecahedron, a 12-sided shape with pentagonal faces. There are Roman 12-sided die with Roman numerals or the signs of the zodiac on them. Fools-gold, pyrite, which is often found in a similar shape, is a possible inspiration for this dice.

The last shape made in the ancient world was the icosahedron or 20-sided shape. This shape does not occur in the natural world, it was invented; someone worked it out. Later the Greeks, using mathematics and geometry proved that there could only be five platonic solids, the 4-, 6-, 8-, 12- and 20-sided shapes. These are the first dice, and this knowledge is thousands of years old.

How to choose a tour

Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:26:34 GMT

How to choose a tour

Let’s assume you’ve already found a tour that sounds interesting and sits comfortably within your budget. The next step is to look at three key things: the guide, the content, and the company .

1. The Guide

First and foremost, think about the guide. Are they enthusiastic about the subject? Do they present well and tell great stories? Are they experienced enough to anticipate the needs of the group? And—crucially—can they adapt when things change, adjusting the route yet keep everyone engaged?

In my early working life, I learned a simple truth: having the knowledge is one thing; presenting it is quite another. I once worked with someone who knew an extraordinary amount, but they didn’t know when to stop. Another colleague stumbled over their words, filling every pause with an “um”. Compare that with a curator who could tell a vivid story who stopped an entire room when he recited an Anglo-Saxon poem in Old English. Everyone was transfixed—listening to this otherworldly language, like something out of The Lord of the Rings.

That’s what a good guide does. They bring the past to life and fill it with sound and colour.

2. The Structure and the Content

Next comes the material itself. Is there a clear theme? Is the story coherent? Is the content genuinely interesting and worth sharing?

I’ve been on tours where the guide has simply memorised someone else’s script, and you can tell they’re bored. Others rely on the same old tourist tales—the ones everyone knows aren’t quite true, but they get repeated anyway. I don’t mind a good story, but I do mind when it’s dressed up as fact.

Yes, the past is often only partially knowable. Even so, I think we should aim to present the most accurate understanding we have.

3. The Company

And finally, the company behind the tour. How easy is it to book? Can you cancel if your plans change? Will you get clear instructions on where to meet? And if you can’t find the meeting point, will you have the guide’s number?

This often comes down to attitude: do they genuinely want you to have the best experience, or are they just after your money? I’ve worked for companies on both ends of that spectrum. I’ve seen bus drivers finish a tour early because they wanted to go home, and staff sell more tickets than they had space for. I’ve also seen bus crews go to extraordinary lengths to reunite a German family with their passports, left in a bag at a bus stop.

Some of this you can pick up from websites and reviews, but not all of it. In the end, you make a choice and hope for the best. Fortunately, most companies do try to get it right.

If you have never been to London before, the open top buses are a good introduction, you can travel around and get off to investigate things plus it lets you get an idea of where everything is, best done in the summer though as it gets a bit cold and wet in the winter.

Also take a river cruise, they are great, seeing London from the river is very cool and historical. Taking a boat from Westminster Pier to the Tower of London is a good option and if you do, Westminster pier was where everyone arrived before the advent of flying.

I rarely do London walks but these folks come highly recommended, London Walks, https://www.walks.com/ . They have been around a long time and have great guides.

I also like the folks at Fun London Tours, https://funlondontours.com/ . I used to work with their founder many years ago and he is one of the good guys.

An informed choice won’t guarantee perfection, but it does increase your chances of hitting the mark.

There's nothing to see at London bridge!

Thu, 22 May 2025 20:18:18 GMT

“Why take a walking tour, listening to someone spout off holding an umbrella and upsetting the locals?

Why spend all that money when you can just walk around navigating with Google.”

comments about tours from the internet

While I was looking up visitor comments about London walks I came across a few people complaining about London Bridge. How there is nothing to see there and that it wasn’t worth visiting.

On the surface that is true, the modern bridge does not have much in the way of decoration and could be considered a little dull. And therein lies the value of a guide, because there is a lot here if you know where to look.

Here are four of the many items that a good guide would know about the bridge.

The modern bridge, opened in 1973, is the only hollow bridge across the Thames and it has heated pavements to keep the ice off in the winter. It was built in huge and heavy sections and floated down the river to be fixed in place. These sections were built on either side of the old bridge, with traffic diverted from one side to the other. There were only two bridges across the river at this point so they could not afford to close one of them for the duration of the build.

The south side of the modern bridge rests on the remains of Rennie’s bridge which opened in 1831. This bridge, or the facing stones at least, were sold and are now in Arizona, crossing Lake Havasu. You can still see one of the original arches without having to go across the Atlantic by walking down the steps on the southwest side. Turn left under the arch to get a sense of the older bridge.

If you found the Blue Plaque nearby it would tell you that in the novel Oliver Twist, Bill Sikes murdered Nancy on these steps. A great story but not entirely true. In the novel Bill thinks she has betrayed him and murders her in their room.

The steps do feature in the story however, as this is where Nancy talks to Oliver’s benefactors. A spy is listening and reports back to Fagin who sets in motion the events that lead to her unfortunate end.

And finally, where was the old London bridge, the one with all the buildings and the heads on spikes? If you look across to the north east side, you can see the church tower of St Magnus the Martyr. The pedestrian route across the river started directly under that tower which allows you to pinpoint exactly where the Medieval London bridge was. This bridge, which stood for 600 hundred years was not demolished until 1831. Rennie’s bridge built a little way upstream so that traffic could continue across the river whilst the new one was under construction.

So, there you have it, four items that a guide can bring to life around London bridge.

Also I never spout off nor do I bother the locals with my small group tours.

My morning routine

Thu, 03 Apr 2025 08:37:07 GMT

A small morning thought.

I get up early to get ready for a Change of the Guard tour, there is blue sky and sunshine already. Everyone is asleep so I can do some writing and look at my notes. Writing every day is good but reviewing my notes, is that a bad habit? Does that foster not being able to remember them? Or do I remember more each time?

On my last tour I couldn’t remember the name of Henry VIII’s first wife, so I looked it up, it was Catherine of Aragorn. She was an interesting lady. After the Evil May Day riots, many participants were arrested and led in chains to the gate to Whitehall Palace, there to be judged by the King. Traditionally those arrested would be executed.

One source says that Catherine got on her knees to beg the King to pardon them, how could the King refuse?

Perhaps that was why she did it.

Do you tell lies?

Wed, 05 Mar 2025 12:06:17 GMT

"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said." Voltaire, 18th century French philosopher and writer.

This is a question that I wrestled with when I started working as a London tour guide. I worked on the open-top buses, giving a tour and a potted history of this lovely town. It was a general London tour, and we had a script to learn. Then we drove around on the double decker bus, and I had information and stories for each place that we saw. The problem was I couldn’t leave it at that. I wanted to know more about the subjects I was talking about and so I began to research.

Sadly, I soon discovered that many of the great London stories are not true. They are just tales that have been repeated over and over. “If the crows leave the Tower of London, then the monarchy will fall”, a Victorian invention. “These pelicans are descendants of ones given to Charles II”, not blooming likely.

Could I in good conscience continue to use them? If I did not, would I have enough material? Do people expect to hear these stories. In the end, I decided that some of them are required. It’s just part of a good London tour and so I would qualify myself by saying, “Well, this is the story…”.

Much later in my career I have a similar dilemma taking people on tours of the Natural History Museum. The galleries are full of fabulous ancient monsters, the dinosaurs. Some of which could fill a large room, with necks that reach to the ceiling, they are extraordinary to see.

But when you read the information boards and the labels, you discover that most of them are not real. They are not ancient bones turned to stone; they are models made of plaster.

Should I tell people? If they don’t notice and assume they are real, what do they gain by letting them into the big secret. I like to be right but I’m not sure they gain anything from the telling. If they ask, I will tell them but if not, we get to look, and I tell them stories about these wonderful creatures.

“Not everything true should be said.”

Changing times

Fri, 24 Jan 2025 10:01:57 GMT

Henry VIII and the new church

The early sixteenth century was a time of great change for religion. Many people felt that the rites and practices of the Roman Catholic Church had become bloated and mercenary. Martin Luther, a German priest, found the selling of “indulgences” particularly galling. These had become a way for people to pay to have their sins forgiven. He nailed his concerns to the church door in 1517 and those issues, now known as the “95 theses” were copied and translated across Europe.

The ensuing debates and controversy eventually led to Martin Luther’s excommunication, and he had to take refuge in a castle. He was effectively an outlaw and subject to arrest or even execution if he left. While there he translates the Bible into German for the first time. Ordinary people could now read it in their own language, only priests or learned people could read the Bible in Latin. People began to make up their own minds about Church matters

In England a series of laws were passed which gradually separated us from the Catholic Church. First money that used to be paid to the Pope was stopped and then Henry is confirmed as Supreme Head of the English Church. Next, a formal gathering of church officials decides, that as Henry was the Supreme Head of the Church, he could disregard all further requests and orders from the Pope. This ends our association with the Roman Catholic Church and sets off a chain of consequences that are still being felt today.

Two years later schoolmaster and scholar, Thomas Lambert, is accused of heresy and imprisoned. Hoping perhaps that Henry VIII shares his modern views he appeals to the King for justice. That sets the scene for what follows.

Thomas Lambert was educated at Cambridge University and had come to believe some of these new religious ideas. Perhaps fearing persecution for believing these things he moved to the city of Antwerp, Belgium. He didn’t go far enough though as a few months later he was arrested and brought back to England to stand trial. That trial was abandoned when his chief accuser, the Archbishop of Canterbury died and perhaps Mr Lambert should have left the country again.

Instead, he left the priesthood and set up a small school in London teaching Greek and Latin. He could not or would not keep his views to himself, after all this was important stuff and a person’s eternal soul was at risk if things were not done right. After church one Sunday, he started a debate with a local priest and was asked to submit his views in writing. That writing damned him and he was arrested for heresy.

Henry VIII decides to hold a debate with him in Westminster Hall. The Hall was set up for a public hearing, with Bishops in attendance and raked seating for the audience. The King opened the proceedings and then left it to his Bishops to argue the case. After five hours of debate, when it became clear that Thomas was not going to change his mind, he was sentenced to be burned alive.

Henry asked for his agony to be extended as a warning to other heretics. So as Thomas’s legs began to burn, he was lifted high on pike staffs and held there to die more slowly.

What was the crime that he committed, the crime that required this most cruel public burning?

He denied the literal presence of Christ in the bread and wine of the communion ceremony.