A mysterious Roman object unearthed in an amateur dig has baffled experts as it goes on display in Britain for the first time.

The 12-sided object was discovered in Norton Disney, near Lincoln, in 2023, and will go on display at Lincoln Museum as part of the city’s Festival of History.

Richard Parker, secretary of the Norton Disney History and Archaeology Group, said it was a “privilege to have handled” the dodecahedron, but was still at a loss over what it was.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    Oh is that why the fraudulent archaeology group I’m on started talking about this weird meme that seems to think that the Romans understood the concept of knitting and that these would be practical to manufacture for that task.

    We’ve been having a good laugh about it, although it’s the typical “what do you scientists know about anything” story that way too many people believe.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        7 months ago

        If it was done with prior knowledge of Roman textile making (i.e. the Romans actually did know how to knit), it would be an okay archaeological experiment, and experimental archaeology is a valid form of archaeology.

        But this was not that. This was some lady who knew how to knit, saw one and said, “that could be used to knit gloves.”

        And the knitters who are part of the group have chimed in and let us know that it is far less practical than a knitting frame anyway.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            They didn’t know about it because it hadn’t been invented yet. Their textiles were mainly produced through weaving. We have plenty of Roman textile samples to know how they made them.

            • quindraco@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              Hmmm, interesting. I always assumed knitting was about as old as sheep shearing.

    • Adderbox76@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      7 months ago

      As someone with a BA in Archaeology, the idea that the Romans didn’t understand the concept of knitting, is the dumbest thing I’ll read today.

      FFS, they weren’t cave men…

      • tal@lemmy.todayOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Hmm. Yeah, it seems like it’d come before weaving.

        googles

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_knitting

        Knitting is a technique of producing fabric from a strand of yarn or wool. Unlike weaving, knitting does not require a loom or other large equipment, making it a valuable technique for nomadic and non-agrarian peoples.

        It does say that the oldest known stuff was from 11th century Egypt, but I assume that that’s because it’s a cloth artifact, not metal, ceramic, or stone, so less survives.

        The oldest knitted artifacts are socks from Egypt, dating from the 11th century.[2] They are a very fine gauge, done with complex colourwork and some have a short row heel, which necessitates the purl stitch. These complexities suggest that knitting is even older than the archeological record can prove.[3]

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      So this leads me to another “might be” kind of answer.

      A weight to heave lines

      I know that monkey fist and similar other knots to help casting a line to a dock or whatever als frequently have weights in them, the nubs and holes could help keep it from getting lost.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          7 months ago

          Just spitballing on my part. I’m not sure what the context of the find is. I’d assume if it for knitting it’d be found near other tools for yarn craft. (distaffs, drop spindles, or whatever they used. and the, uh, yarns.)

          I’d assume if it was for tent poles, it’d be found stored near tents, Similarly, if it was for casting lines… it’d be near ropes- though rope would have needed to be tossed for a variety of tasks beyond purely naval interests.

          another potential is as some sort of lampshade for a candle/oil lamp. Though that’d probably be pretty self-evident, with soot and all.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            7 months ago

            A candle holder has been one of the possibilities suggested because a couple of them were found with wax inside, but some of them don’t have any holes at all. They aren’t all uniform in size, some have holes, some don’t. Some have knobs, some don’t. The only thing they all seem to have in common is that they’re dodecahedrons.

        • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          7 months ago

          That link mentions that finger knitting was practically prehistoric. Are we confident that there was not some rudimentary form of knitting being practiced?

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            There are a great many Roman fabric samples from dry areas like Egypt, along with stone carvings of people making Roman textiles and writings about Roman textile-making and none of it suggests they understood the concept of knitting.

            More to the point, these objects would be less practical than a knitting frame anyway.

            • Fisk400@feddit.nu
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              7 months ago

              And it doesn’t answer all questions about the object. Why is the object polyhedral if you only use one side to do the knitting. If it’s a mundane item, why did they make it stupidly complex when a simpler shape would do. It also ignores why the wholes are different sizes when the size of the holes doesn’t affect the knitting.

              • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                Are you sure the hole size doesn’t affect the finger size? It would seem to change the stitch size. If so, having one object that could make different finger and thumb sleeves might be useful, and the shape makes it easy to hold and find.

                Or maybe it’s for measuring how much spaghetti to put in the pot!

                • FaceDeer@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  The hole isn’t used in the process of knitting with these things, just the knobs on the corners.

  • Boozilla@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    7 months ago

    First thing that pops into my head is that it was used to lash poles together for tents, awnings, military banners, etc. I am no doubt wrong. But for some reason I think they would work nicely for that purpose, and make the whole kit portable and easy to set up and tear down.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      7 months ago

      That might actually have been a good guess.

      I’d go with some sort of game- like jumping jacks, maybe. Or some sort of weird bocce ball.

    • Boinkage@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Why make such a complicated ass shape when a rope or thong of leather would serve the same end?

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        7 months ago

        Also, they’re commonly found stored with people’s valuables - coin stashes, jewelry, etc. They were clearly valuable. Many of them don’t appear to have any wear on them either, so if they had a utilitarian use it likely didn’t involve lashing stuff together.

        • catloaf@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          7 months ago

          My guess is just a good luck charm type of thing. The Romans had a lot of those.

          • FaceDeer@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            They weren’t cave men, they had plenty of metal stuff.

            These dodecahedra are vastly over-complicated for “utilitarian” uses. As Boinkage says, if you need something for fastening some ropes together just to lash stuff, why use an intricate forging like this? All those knobs, the complex hollow shape, the variously-sized holes, those are features that took a lot of work to add. If it’s a utilitarian piece then those features need to be for something. Otherwise we’d be finding examples of simpler versions that lacked those features.

            The “they could be for knitting glove fingers” idea, for example, could be just as easily done using a hunk of wood with five nails driven into it.

  • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    “The imagination races when thinking about what the Romans may have used it for. Magic, rituals or religion - we perhaps may never know.”

    Yes, magic, ritual, or religion—the only conceivable purposes for anything archeologists can’t immediately identify.

    • Fisk400@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      And by immediately you mean hundreds of people working full time for decades trying to figure it out.

      • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        It didn’t take them decades to come up with the idea that they were for magical use, it took them decades to fail to arrive at a better consensus.

        • Fisk400@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          It took them decades to thoroughly and methodically rule out other explanations to make sure their initial estimation is accurate.

          Archeologists are highly educated professionals that spends a lot of time and effort into research. I don’t know why you want to portray them as bumbling idiots that make shit up when they dont know.

          • Chickenstalker@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            He’s saying that archaeologists have a tendency to grandiously assign religious or ceremonial purposes to uncovered objects when they should start with mundane purposes first. This object looks like a dice. Therefore, the first potential purpose should be a dice, not a mystical device to contact the Goa’uld.

          • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            I’m not portraying archaeologists as making shit up—I’m saying people in general jump to “magic rituals” when archaeologists can’t provide a definitive answer. The person quoted was explicitly speculating, not providing a professional opinion.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      That is certainly one possibility, although I think the idea that these were some sort of worship object or fortune telling device by the Neoplatonists is the most likely answer, as the dodecahedron was an especially sacred object to them because it was to Plato.

      A Midplatonist work attributed to the Timaeus of Plato’s dialogues discusses it-

      According to “Timaeus” the universe has two causes: Mind, which governs rational beings, and Necessity, which governs bodies and all irrational beings. Interpreting Plato literally, “Timaeus” affirmed the temporal creation of the cosmos, and while stating that the cosmos is capable of being destroyed by the one who created it (the Demiurge), he denied that it would ever actually be destroyed, since it is divine and the Demiurge, being good and divine himself, would never destroy divinity. In what is possibly a later addition to the text, “Timaeus” assigns numerical values to the various proportions produced by the mixture of the Same and the Different (these being the two opposing forces, productive of all motion, growth, and change in the cosmos, as discussed in the Timaeus dialogue). The substratum of all generated things is matter, and their reason-principle or logos is ideal-form. “Timaeus” then proceeds with an account of the geometrical proportions of the cosmos, finally declaring that the image of the cosmos is the dodecahedron, since that is the closest approximation to the perfect sphere, which is the image of purely intellectual reality.

      https://iep.utm.edu/midplato/

      Neoplatonism was a pretty big deal in the Empire in the third century.

      Either that, or the Romans manufactured and buried them in order to confuse people 2000 years later.

      • CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        The number 12 was really significant to early Mesopotamia and continued on trhu the Roman age. Babylonians used Base12 instead of Base10, gregorian calendar has 12 months, etc

        If it was religious in nature, why wouldnt there be any manual or depiction of it in any of the existing art and structures?

        IMO, the answer is because it was too mundane, like a shoelace or a paper clip to us. Someone above mentioned as possibly being for tying tent poles and the like together, which is now my new favorite theory 😃

      • OldManBOMBIN@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Seems pretty simple to me. Everybody loved to gamble, so they needed to be sturdy, and also big shiny metal trinkets are cool. They have different sized holes to denote the different values of the sides, and the knobbies make them bounce and roll in unexpected ways and keep them from rolling once they come to a rest.

        • tal@lemmy.todayOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          We do have companies like Chessex that make blingy dice for the D&D and tabletop gaming crowd today, I suppose.

          I’ve wondered before whether a similar, but more-rollable looking strange set of artifacts that were also found in Britain might be dice:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carved_stone_balls

          Those are far more ancient than Roman artifacts, though.

          • OldManBOMBIN@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            Actually, on second glance, they do appear to have “numeric” engravings at all the places that might settle facing up or toward you. Very interesting.

          • OldManBOMBIN@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Those are actually for butt stuff.

            No, but seriously I could see them being used in some sort of “marbles” -type game. Or, like, maybe some kinda twisted mini-croquet.

          • OldManBOMBIN@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Dude, I got it! These were the original “tricky” golf balls. Golf probably started as rolling a rock into a hole, but when that got too easy, they started going “bet you can’t get that weird shaped one in there,” and then that got popular enough that people started making their own.

            Of course, there were always the purists that believed the rocks should remain round and the hole should be the thing that moves.

            That’s why we have golf and mini golf.

  • Darkonion@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    My completely uneducated guess would be some sort of test piece for new smiths. Or a Thneed.

    • sexual_tomato@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      This is my guess. Kinda like making a cube on a lathe is a test for machinists, and making a captive cube within a hollow cube is a more advanced version.

  • OfCourseNot@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Ok I got a theory and I think it’s a good one. I would say that’s a measuring tool, like an ancient tape measure, or at least I think I could use it for that. If you chose a zero knob, roll it a certain way, and know how to read the knob it finishes at, you can measure something pretty fast, the holes tells you which knob you are at and measure the fractional part to a 1/12 of the knob distance precision. It certainly must have a bit of a learning curve though.

  • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Why does it have to have a use? Someone might have wanted to make one such thing because they found the geometry/crafts of it interesting and entertaining.

    • numberfour002@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      7 months ago

      Strictly speaking, it doesn’t. But this isn’t a “one of” thing, numerous examples of them have been found throughout Europe. It’s been awhile since I’ve read about them, but in some instances, they’ve been found in situations that imply they had some kind of special value or significance to their owners.

      And at the end of the day “use” is pretty open ended. Even if they were considered art pieces, made while training to build other things, some unknown religious decoration, or just a status symbol – that’s all still a use.

  • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    I like to think they’re just random tchotchkes that an artist made to sell. Like random doodads you might put on your desk that have no function or reason to exist other than for its aesthetic appeal, and mass produced for someone to make a buck on.