# \[Roman\] 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:** 47
**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:** [June 6, 2025, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/921 "2025-06-06T16:44:15Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > just a set of different bells Which the Romans definitely had and used. ---
**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:** [June 6, 2025, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/922 "2025-06-06T18:49:35Z")
Sure, but you’re hypothesising a bell that has multiple resonant modes, each with its own nodes, which happen to be the knobs. I think that is an enormously unlikely explanation for this object. I think if the thing were intended to be suspended by one or more of the knobs, the knobs would instead be rings. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2025, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/923 "2025-06-06T20:22:45Z")
It’s possible that by rotating the dodecahedron and keeping track of the holes, that this allowed the Roman to more easily work with the A5 group. ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2025, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/924 "2025-06-06T21:03:40Z")
Maybe they just needed more cowbell. ---
**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:** [June 7, 2025, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/925 "2025-06-07T06:46:16Z")
It is interesting how reluctant we all are to accept an explanation of ‘its purpose is merely to be the thing it is’ - and yet to this day humans fill their lives with objects that have no particular utility value beyond ornament, sentiment, ceremony or status. It’s not strange that this might just be a curiosity, ornament, trophy or some ceremonial knickknack. ---
**Author:** ![ZonexandScout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zonexandscout/32/544_2.png) [@ZonexandScout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZonexandScout)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2025, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/926 "2025-06-07T13:18:35Z")
Hmmm…did the AA-equivalent organizations at that time have a 12 Step Program? Seems might coincidental. ---
**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:** [June 7, 2025, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/927 "2025-06-07T13:31:54Z")
Well, not _all_ of us. That’s the explanation I favour. ---
**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:** [June 7, 2025, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/928 "2025-06-07T17:23:36Z")
That’s certainly a plausible explanation, but as mentioned, it’s also a sort of cop-out; the default explanation for anything that is not understood is that is a ceremonial object (brilliantly parodied in [Motel of the Mysteries](https://www.amazon.com/Motel-Mysteries-David-Macaulay/dp/0395284252?asin=0395284252&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1)). In the case of the dodecahedrons, various aspects of the design like the knobs and the slightly differently sized holes are consistent across all examples and just SEEM like they serve some practical purpose. ---
**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:** [June 7, 2025, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/929 "2025-06-07T18:53:22Z")
They do, and that’s the compelling thing that drives all of this discussion I suppose. I think the details of the knobs and holes are probably meaningful or necessary in some way, maybe just in the same way that the large, squarish heads of Funko Pops are apparently a necessary detail of the design choices of those doodads, but as discussed, the dodecahedra can’t really be tools because where are the simpler versions, the precursor versions and the examples made from other materials (and the worn/used examples)? ---
**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:** [June 7, 2025, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/930 "2025-06-07T19:01:40Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > It is interesting how reluctant we all are to accept an explanation of ‘its purpose is merely to be the thing it is’ - and yet to this day humans fill their lives with objects that have no particular utility value beyond ornament, sentiment, ceremony or status. It’s not strange that this might just be a curiosity, ornament, trophy or some ceremonial knickknack. You may be forgetting how precious manufactured objects were before industrialism and mass production, when most things required the time and work of a skilled artisan. Knickknacks might be made of wood or clay but bronze wasn’t cheap; copper was valuable enough to be the basis for minor coins. ---
**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:** [June 7, 2025, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/931 "2025-06-07T19:17:41Z")
I’m not sure what your point is; bronze was used for ornaments by the Romans; the fact that these objects are found _only_ in bronze may indicate that the material was a necessary detail (like the knobs are a necessary detail, apparently) - that is, being made of bronze might have been an important part of making it what it is, whatever it is. Just not sure what you think I might be forgetting? ---
**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:** [June 7, 2025, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/932 "2025-06-07T21:03:44Z")
> [@markn\_1](#): > > it’s also a sort of cop-out; the default explanation for anything that is not understood is that is a ceremonial object This is not actually how it works in archaeology, but even if it were the case - an awful lot of stuff even up to the fairly recent past really _were_ ceremonial objects of one sort or another. Because ceremony and ritual consumed an awful lot of human time. > [@Lumpy](#): > > Knickknacks might be made of wood or clay but bronze wasn’t cheap; copper was valuable enough to be the basis for minor coins. Roman Imperial bronze coins (they didn’t have copper ones AFAIK. ETA - scratch that, I see the _as_ was later copper not bronze) were not bullion coins, they were token coins. Their worth wasn’t tied to their metal worth the way their gold and silver coins (nominally) were. The Romans used bronze for lots of relatively cheap things. ---
**Author:** ![Retzbu\_Tox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/retzbu_tox/32/11829_2.png) [@Retzbu\_Tox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Retzbu_Tox)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2025, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/933 "2025-06-07T21:23:54Z")
Some of the theories are so weird, it makes me want to come up with my own weird theory. They were eel sorters. They stuck eels through the holes to gauge their size. They were made of bronze to resist corrosion from repeated contact with wet eels. Eels are soft, so they didn’t cause wear to the dodecahedrons. The knobs raised the dodecahedron off the sorting surface so the eel-slime could drain off. Case closed. 😀 ---
**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:** [June 8, 2025, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/934 "2025-06-08T01:24:50Z")
I like the cypher explanation upthread, though I wonder what was suppose to happen if an enemy soldier caught a messenger (or more than one messenger) with a dodecahedron and yarn. “Oh this? It’s a ritual object.” ---
**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:** [June 8, 2025, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/935 "2025-06-08T02:00:49Z")
As noted before, IMHO there are. There are concentric circles that do show up in many of the Dodecahedrons. [![](https://thequantumrecord.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Dodec-4-Norton-Disney-dodecahedron-e1709153579324-1024x767.png) ](https://thequantumrecord.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Dodec-4-Norton-Disney-dodecahedron-e1709153579324-1024x767.png) The closest to that are the concentric circles that I have seen in Roman dice. [![](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c4/99/4c/c4994c711fa7f80034191136f36ab3a1.jpg) ](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c4/99/4c/c4994c711fa7f80034191136f36ab3a1.jpg) AFAGAIR (As far as Google AI reports 🙂 ) in ancient Rome, concentric circles held symbolic meaning related to eternity, cycles, unity, and protection. And as noted earlier, in one rare Roman Icosahedron, the circles around peeps do show up too) [![](https://thequantumrecord.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Dodec-14-Icosahedron-2.png) ](https://thequantumrecord.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Dodec-14-Icosahedron-2.png) ---
**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:** [June 8, 2025, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/936 "2025-06-08T03:03:30Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I like the cypher explanation upthread, though I wonder what was suppose to happen if an enemy soldier caught a messenger (or more than one messenger) with a dodecahedron and yarn. “Oh this? It’s a ritual object.” I like that story, too. Although “ritual object” or “popular knock knack” seen at least as likely. But the cypher one is cool, and pretty plausible. ---
**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:** [June 8, 2025, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/937 "2025-06-08T13:41:29Z")
One thing I am still curious about - and it was a detail that was contributory to my adherence to the notion of these being an apprentice’s test piece (don’t worry, I’m not going back there); does Latin share the same ambiguities as English in the following respect: Note the engraved/embossed markings on these two different examples: [![](https://static.toiimg.com/thumb/msid-109724191,imgsize-689142,width-400,resizemode-4/109724191.jpg) ](https://static.toiimg.com/thumb/msid-109724191,imgsize-689142,width-400,resizemode-4/109724191.jpg) [![](https://imagenes.elpais.com/resizer/v2/RAIOPIDA6ZDDZFCVZGFZQEIP2A.jpg?auth=7d5fee128f63b02665c0cc5a014004a3f89112df0a89f7b66659ef3ec40519e7&width=1960) ](https://imagenes.elpais.com/resizer/v2/RAIOPIDA6ZDDZFCVZGFZQEIP2A.jpg?auth=7d5fee128f63b02665c0cc5a014004a3f89112df0a89f7b66659ef3ec40519e7&width=1960) In English, either of them could be described as: ‘each face having a hole of different sizes, surrounded by engraved circles’ or endless variants of that sort of description (ie encircled by/bordered by/arranged around etc), such that, English is ambiguous about this by default, unless additional qualifiers such as ‘concentric with the hole’ in the former case or ‘between the centre of the face and each vertex’ in the latter. Is Latin similarly ambiguous for any set of reasonable written or spoken, terse descriptions of these objects? As I say, I don’t adhere to the apprentice-piece explanation any more, but I am wondering if it’s possible that some of the examples were made according to a verbal description rather than a model or drawing. ---
**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:** [June 8, 2025, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/938 "2025-06-08T15:12:37Z")
Are the dodecahedra solid cast with the circles engraved/embossed onto them? Or does it appear that they were cast as a framework with the circles welded into the frame? ---
**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:** [June 8, 2025, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/939 "2025-06-08T15:20:07Z")
They are cast with faces - I think I am right in saying that it’s not abundantly clear whether the holes were cut after casting or merely refined; same with the engravings I believe. ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2025, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459/940 "2025-06-08T16:19:37Z")
I can certainly buy the “ritual object” theory. But those knobs look like they have a utilitarian purpose. In other words, _without_ the knobs, the object would have been deemed to have a lesser purpose. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459.md?page=46) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-dodecahedrons/980459.md?page=48)