It’s a non-issue. We know they had those things and that’s supported by a wealth of physical evidence.
If the dodecahedra are coin gauges, then the only important feature is the holes and their sizes, which makes the artifacts pointlessly elaborate and at the very least we should expect simpler variants.
Of course they did- coin changers, etc had them. That doesnt mean that in the field some guys invented a quick and dirty meathod that didnt require a delicate instrument and a set of carefully measured weights.
But you see- no answer that anyone has come up with survives all criticism.
However- this is not my idea-
Several dodecahedra were found in coin hoards, suggesting either that their owners considered them valuable objects, or that their use was connected with coins—as, for example, for easily checking that coins fit a certain diameter and were not clipped.[29]
No indeed, if fact you’re not even the first person to suggest it in this thread:
Yeah, it was 15 years ago.. I know…
No, the guys in the field would definitely not want a delicate instrument and a set of carefully measured weights. Instead, they’d go for something simple, easy, rugged, and durable, like a balance and a few coins.
I’ve always heard that when paleontologists don’t know what something is for, they say it’s a fertility symbol. But I haven’t heard anyone saying that about the dodecahedra. So I’m just going to throw that out there.
They’re fertility symbols.
Or “it’s for ritual purposes”.
Which, much though I hate to admit it, does look like the most likely explanation for these things.
Yeah, Roman style balance scales are capable of being precise without needing to be really delicate or fussy.
A quick and dirtyethod would be a flat plate of brass with assorted holes in it. You could even engrave information next to each of the holes. The Roman dodecahedron is not a quick and dirty solution to anything.
I think this is the factor that points to the thing not having a practical purpose.
The practical things people have to do are fairly constant throughout history - things need measuring, cutting, bashing, etc. we can’t fit this exactly to a practical purpose because all attempts to do so fail on the same grounds - that it’s awkward or overly ornate or overly complex for the task, and that if there was such a task, there should be simpler or at least different versions of the object (there are many different varieties of knife or hammer or spoon or hat).
We can’t fit it to a practical purpose. It probably doesn’t have one. This might seem like an argument from absence of evidence but it’s not a simple dismissal out of hand. Every explanation anyone (including me, including in this thread) has given for it being a practical too, fails to be very practical.
How is a one-off custom lost wax casting in any way, shape or form “quick and dirty”?