# \[Roman\] Dodecahedrons **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 27, 2023, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459 "2023-02-27T21:46:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 38
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2025, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/741 "2025-02-14T16:34:59Z")
OK. It’s an interesting idea, but I think the equivalence with the medieval examples is dubious. The construction has almost nothing in common bar the dodecahedral shape ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2025, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/742 "2025-02-14T16:38:05Z")
Of course, as they are AFAIK, wooden inside, there is no place to add weights, like the ancient Roman dodecahedrons . And so, the recent dodecahedrons are labeled and sold now as their use is: as paperweights. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2025, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/743 "2025-02-14T16:44:12Z")
Do you have any links to images/details of originals of the later examples? The one linked upthread is modern ---
**Author:** ![scudsucker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scudsucker/32/14101_2.png) [@scudsucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scudsucker)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2025, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/744 "2025-02-14T16:46:37Z")
Being by no means an expert, but based on tbe studs, I wonder if they were “[french knitting](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spool_knitting)” style toys? Expensive toys, sure, but rich people pay for such things. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2025, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/745 "2025-02-14T16:49:31Z")
That’s the basis of the hypothesis that they were used to knit gloves; the main flaws in that idea are: The objects pre-date that form of knitting by centuries They wouldn’t be very good for that purpose - in loom knitting, the number and spacing of the pegs is what determines the girth of the knitted tube - not the size of the hole in the middle ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2025, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/746 "2025-02-14T17:08:20Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > but I think the equivalence with the medieval examples is dubious. That is why I said that the modern, wooden, leather covered dodecahedrons, with the leather piece hold in place by the metal studs; could not be related to the ancient dodecahedrons. Those were mentioned only to show how the Ancient Romans/Gauls could had used the knobs. Now I do see those modern examples as a kind of “convergent evolution” A type of independent evolution of **similar** features in _devices_ of different periods or epochs in time. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2025, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/747 "2025-02-14T17:09:35Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Now I do see those modern examples as a kind of “convergent evolution” A type of independent evolution of **similar** features in _devices_ of different periods or epochs in time. Agreed; I think maybe we only disagree on whether that was convergent evolution of _purpose_ or merely of general form/shape. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2025, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/748 "2025-02-14T19:33:00Z")
Facebook just showed me a post from yesterday from a group called Beginners Metal Detecting: > Roman Dodecahedron - Bronze > Found in my Nan’s garden some time ago, in England. > > These are from the 2nd - 4th Century. No one knows exactly what they used for. > > They are pretty rare, only around 100 found across Europe. Most are found in fragments. Last one sold at auction for around $50,000 a couple of years ago. > > Recently joined, thought I would share. [![](https://i.imgur.com/AQsfX6O.jpeg) ](https://i.imgur.com/AQsfX6O.jpeg) ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2025, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/749 "2025-02-14T20:02:38Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > The dodecahedra appear to correlate with Roman army posts. Another thing that correlates with Roman army posts are the locations of _Mithraia_, the “churches” of the cult of Mithra. If you compare maps showing the locations of find of dodecahedra and those of Mithraia, there’s a pretty good overlap – except that Mithraea appear to have been found in more places that Dodecahedra have (notably the Iberia Penisula and Turkey. Maybe the Dodecahedron-searchers haven’t been looking hard enough). Or it could be that the overlap simply indicates that both dodecahedra and Mithraism were both associated with the Roman Army, and don’t have any direct correlation at lall. In the plus column [the Roman Mithra cult](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism) had secret rituals and no written narratives or theology of the religion survive.In the negative column there are a _lot_ of extant inscriptions, monuments, bas-relief sculpture, and archeological sites, but no reports of dodecahedron imagery to my knowledge. I did notice a medical-related image, complete with medical tools but no dodecaherons, unless you want to count the cross-hatched oval in the bottom right corner. [ETA: wait, what’s that thing on top of the guy’s head?] [![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Leontocephaline_at_Ostia_Antica_by_Franz_Cumont.jpg) ](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Leontocephaline_at_Ostia_Antica_by_Franz_Cumont.jpg) According to wiki, Roman Mithraic sites featured a god slaughtering a bull, while that aspect was absent in Persia, where the cult originated. So I wouldn’t worry about a lack of dodecahedron in Turkey. But I also see no dodecahedron finds in modern Italy itself, which suggests more local cultic origins for dodecahedrons. Italy is well excavated after all. * * * Separately, all of the knobs look like something was meant to attach to them. Sure, they are engineered to be a platform for the dodecahedron in any orientation. But none of the examples to my knowledge have straight edges. > [@MrDibble](#): > > While their _purpose_ is a mystery, _as bronzework_ these items are not all that. If they’re supposed to be any indicator of bronzeworking skill, they are not very good ones. > > I had several posts above about the topic of what actual masterworks looked like, as well as links to actual fancy Roman bronzeworking. Would they be an indicator of apprentice or newly minted journeyman skill? If you consider my store-of-value contention we would expect something workmanlike, but not at all exceptional. That’s not to say I have a complete explanation (I don’t). It’s more like a small piece of the puzzle. The objects were too fragile, unwieldy, and non-standard to be considered a form of currency: they are more like a precious or rather semi-precious object. At any rate, we would want to explain the funerary-hoard-military siting of the objects. ---
**Author:** ![Folly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/folly/32/3219_2.png) [@Folly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Folly)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2025, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/750 "2025-02-14T20:17:24Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > [ETA: wait, what’s that thing on top of the guy’s head?] Snake head. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2025, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/751 "2025-02-14T20:20:49Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Would they be an indicator of apprentice or newly minted journeyman skill? If you consider my store-of-value contention we would expect something workmanlike, but not at all exceptional. That’s not to say I have a complete explanation (I don’t). It’s more like a small piece of the puzzle. The objects were too fragile, unwieldy, and non-standard to be considered a form of currency: they are more like a precious or rather semi-precious object. At any rate, we would want to explain the funerary-hoard-military siting of the objects. That’s an idea you’ll find me discussing upthread. The objects have sometimes to me looked like they could have been an exercise or test - not that they’re necessarily the most difficult thing one could make, but they have a number of features that seem highly specific. I’ve also argued that a possible explanation for their variability could have been that they were interpretations of a set of instructions that had no illustration - thus a phrase like ‘holes in each face, encircled by engraved rings’ could be interpreted as having the rings concentric to the holes, or just smaller engraved rings, encircling the perimeter of the holes. Even the isocahedron could concievably have been the result of someone just not properly visualising the thing being described. I’m not going to try to defend that interpretation, or any interpretation, here, now, but it is an enticing one. ---
**Author:** ![markn\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@markn\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/markn_1)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2025, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/752 "2025-02-14T20:32:26Z")
Almost all of the Mithraic iconography relates to constellations or other astronomical figures: a scorpion (Scorpio), a dog (Canis Minor), a snake (Hydra), a raven (Corvus), the Sun, etc. The most important Mithraic image was the Tauroctony, in which Mithras is depicted killing a bull (Taurus). There’s an attractive theory that the whole cult sprang from the discovery of the precession of the equinoxes by Hipparchus in 128 BC. The idea that the whole universe was in motion, in a way previously unknown, may have been so (literally) earth-shaking that it inspired this new religion, which proposed a new god, Mithras (identified with the constellation of Perseus in this theory) who was capable of moving the universe. At that time the spring equinox was in Aries, but due to precession was previously in Taurus. So Mithras was “killing” the constellation that held the old equinox and moving the universe to a new one. If the dodecahedrons are related to Mithraism, one would expect them to have some relation to astronomy like the other Mithraic iconography. That the 12 faces could have corresponded to the 12 signs of the Zodiac is suggestive, but the fact that they are unmarked and indistinguishable is a problem for that theory. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2025, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/753 "2025-02-14T20:40:47Z")
Yes, I got that explanation directly from Mangetout. * * * I briefly wondered whether the object could have been an understructure for some sort of costume, but I doubt whether that explanation would survive sartorial scrutiny. Here’s another image from a dissertation on Italian Mithras artifacts. The thing on the top of the medical guy’s head indeed appears to be a skull. [![](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:kem5cevl5sjpizk4s27cbyig/bafkreigmt243mw4zrccyk2lnzm3i3cipmnnpmzn35nbs25vlz6rscpbg3q@jpeg) ](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:kem5cevl5sjpizk4s27cbyig/bafkreigmt243mw4zrccyk2lnzm3i3cipmnnpmzn35nbs25vlz6rscpbg3q@jpeg) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2025, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/754 "2025-02-14T21:43:06Z")
That is because the part with the markings was very likely removable. And made out of leather or other soft material held by the metal knobs. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2025, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/755 "2025-02-14T23:05:49Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > > [@Mangetout](#): > > > > Olive oil is a solid substance in an unheated room in a typical British winter. > > I’ll also point out that ancient candles aren’t quite like what you think of today. I had a candle made in the “Old Country” fashion by my grandmother out of rendered-down beef fat. It was ugly and discolored and smoked a lot. Most people don’t realize that modern candles actually benefitted from two chemical inventions in the 19th century – the separation and use of stearin and the development of paraffin. Before 1800, candles were softer, smellier, and smokier. Unless you went to the considerable trouble of keeping an apiary so you could make beeswax candles, or boiled down something like bayberry, your candles wouldn’t be very pleasant. I was going to say, converse to oil lamps being unsuitable for a British winter is the unsuitability of tallow candles for an Italian\* summer. \*or Iberia, or Greece, let along the middle East or north Africa. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2025, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/756 "2025-02-15T00:34:15Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Separately, all of the knobs look like something was meant to attach to them. A lot of them look quite fragile, given the knobs are pinned on, not integral, in many examples. That to me is an argument against them taking any tension or force. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Would they be an indicator of apprentice or newly minted journeyman skill? Like I said before - first present a case that that kind of thing was something the Romans did in _any_ trade. They had apprenticeships (often elaborately-delineated ones) but last time this came up, I couldn’t find mention of that kind of thing in writings talking about apprenticeship contracts, or in the writings on _collegia_ (analogous to, _but not the same as_, medieval guilds). IOW, who were they proving themselves to? Their master would already know their skill level and abilities. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2025, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/757 "2025-02-15T01:44:25Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > But the notion of them being used like _dice_ is just sort of weird. I’m comfortable ruling out dice. The Romans had functional dice. These would not have functioned well as dice. Too large. Too heavy. Too fragile. I like the idea of using them in augury somehow. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2025, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/758 "2025-02-15T06:22:51Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > I like the idea of using them in augury somehow. That’s basically the same as saying they’re cultic or religious objects. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2025, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/759 "2025-02-15T10:15:01Z")
It could be useful to have some sort of timeline for the objects; are the rough, less-decorated ones early or late examples compared to the finer, more-decorated ones, or were they all around at the same time? ---
**Author:** ![dtilque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dtilque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dtilque)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2025, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/760 "2025-02-15T19:26:19Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > It could be useful to have some sort of timeline for the objects; Unfortunately, most were not discovered in archeological digs, i.e. _in situ_. So they aren’t rigorously dated. At best, they’re dated to within a century or two. That’s not good enough to put them in a timeline. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459.md?page=37) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459.md?page=39)