Instead of a dice used to randomly determine a number/zodiac sign/etc. it could be a marker that could be turned to show a chosen number as a move in a game.
This is like a doubling cube used in backgammon. It’s a six-sided die with different numbers on each side yet it is never rolled, just turned to show the number the player has chosen.
I believe if the dodecahedron’s purpose was functional then the knobs were simply legs for it to stand on leaving space at the bottom, regardless which side is up.
If they were art or ritualistic the knobs may be just ornamental. But they are not too fancy so maybe practical legs is more likely?
Why have a multi-holed phial heater/holder where only one phial can be accommodated at a time? I would thing the heating or holding device might be more similar to a classic test-tube rack holding idk—6 or 10 at a time?
And if you only have one phial to heat/hold then why have a multi-holed form at all? For different sizes? But what about the dodecahedrons that have identically sized holes?
Why knobs, and not just pointed extensions of the corners, in that case? That would be much easier to cast completely than knobs with a narrowing part.
The notion (in that version of the hypothesis) is that you might have an assortment of different sized vials in your collection, so it would be a (somewhat) universal stand for any one of them that you needed to use. It’s one thing to carry, that fits multiple options - like one of these: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/JO4AAOSwgW1kd2MJ/s-l1200.webp
Easier to cast (or at least less likely to fail in casting) if they are just continuous extensions of the corners, but harder to make the wax form. Sticking a ball on each vertex is comparatively easy.
(Quoting this list for convenience. )
Is there any reason to think the dodecahedrons had only one purpose? It seems to me that it was designed for more than one purpose and the limited distribution across the empire was because other regions preferred not make use of that combination.
Is there anything (like a small scroll of parchment or paper) that would need to be tightly rolled up before tying or sealing? Or a bundle of something that would similarly need to be constrained before tying? A device with a variety of hole sizes might make that easier to do single-handed.
(Although let me be the first to point out that one of these would still seem to be needlessly elaborate for such a purpose - a board with different holes in it would suffice)
Easier than just pinching the corners, or attaching small cones? I disagree. Remember, they’d be using soft beeswax, not the harder plastic stuff you used. Beeswax goes very soft just from body heat.
Pinching the corners wouldn’t buy you much of a standoff without taking a lot of material from the faces and perhaps distorting them
Attaching cones is easier than attaching balls? OK. I mean, let’s disagree again.
That’s a reason to make ball shaped feet. Not pointy ones. If you make pointy feet out of soft wax. They deform when you set the wax model down.
We don’t know why there are knobs on. They might be feet. They might be intended to push through something like a buttonhole. They might be intended to have something lashed or tied around them individually or severally. They might have some other function that suits the shape, or all of those things, or none of them, or something else, or maybe people just liked things with knobs on.
You can always add more wax.
With softer wax? Yes - bigger area of attachment.
You just put it down on something.
That gets my vote.
I found some replicas on Etsy for about $200.
Surprisingly you can buy some real antique Roman dice for not much more than that. Apparently there are many many of those found.
Yes, but don’t some of these dodecahedrons have center holes that are all the same size?
As far as I know, different sized holes are a pretty standard feature
Could be. Now come up with a use for these that means you can’t just sit it flat on one face.
EDIT: Come to think of it, how coplanar are the knobs? If you make something with more than three legs, if you’re not careful, you end up with something wobbly. Are these wobbly? If so, that says that wobble when sitting was acceptable to their use, and if not, it says something about the care used in making them. Either way would seem to be significant.
So not ‘just pinching the corners’ really.
I mean, you’re right in a general sense; if the protrusions are just feet, then there probably wouldn’t be such consistency as there is - for the same reason that we are having this argument right now - I would probably make little balls and stick them on because that’s what seems easy to me; you might do something else that seems easiest to you - we wouldn’t both make the same thing if the function was simply to give it feet.
They are, I think, knobs for some reason that requires them to specifically be knobs on the finished article and not simply any old protruding shape.
It does appear that the goal was for them to be coplanar - in the better-quality images of the better-preserved examples, it looks like they are.
Not that my own tinkering counts for much, but when I tried to make one of these, I assumed they had to be coplanar, and that was one of the most difficult parts to get right - it might seem like all you have to do is to place it in each possible orientation and press down a bit, but doing so deflects the alignment of the knobs around other faces, which you then have to adjust, but that cascades to more misalignment. - or I would get them coplanar, but the plane was not parallel with the face. It ended up being more of a case of trying to comprehend all of the necessary adjustments at once.
All of that can be avoided by greater precision in the manufacture and assembly of all of the pieces of course, but relatively small errors are magnified when you start putting them together. Maybe this wasn’t an issue for the craftspeople doing this as their day job.
Edit: OK - it looks like maybe they didn’t always nail it (if indeed they were necessarily trying hard - here’s an example with one cocked foot https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/columnists/2024/01/12/TELEMMGLPICT000362366394_17050752353750_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqGuA9eGIfqop_MVWPxTukYwj59qsgmNSmN7WdgQ8um84.jpeg?
If I were making a lot of these, I’d make a sort of cradle of the inside surface of three faces, meeting at the appropriate angles, and then I’d press one corner at a time down into that cradle. But then, we don’t know if this was something that any given craftsman would be making a lot of: If it was a proof of skill level, or if it were something for which there was just a low, long-tailed demand, then you might end up with no one craftsman making more than one or two.
One thing I haven’t been able to determine is whether the inscribed rings encircling some of the holes are the same diameter as the holes on the other faces - that is, did they make a bunch of identical faces with concentric rings marks on them (for example from the same plaster mould), with the rings indicating where to remove material for each different face?
Has anyone come across a non-paywalled list or catalog of approximately all 130ish dodecahedrons that have been found? A few times I have come across links that purported to lead to such a list, but it turned out to be part of a journal article or academic paper which I could not open. Any lists that I have been able to read only include maybe 30 or so entries, and include dodecahedron-adjacent artifacts like the 12-sided zodiac dice from Geneva or the Pompeiian jewelry/sorcery kit. If there are 130 true hollow knobby bronze Roman dodecahedrons, why does it seem difficult to find a record of all of them? References that mention the year and location the dodecahedron was found, and what museum it is in, make it much easier to track down photos for comparison.
