I don’t think there is a problem on these items being a part of ceremonial scepters, I’m open to other options like yours. However, then the Romans did add complexity for no particular reasons to ceremonial scepters like the dodecahedron items being discussed here.
The point here is that we are dealing with an object that looks to be already unnecessarily complex. It may be that the missing pieces are simple in design but the complexity was the added rituals for a toss that was very consecuential for them.
I think my biggest issue with it being a die is just that cast metal objects with thin hollow form and protruding small knobs on are generally just unsuited to being thrown about. Cast bronze is not very ductile. A die that breaks the third time it’s used doesn’t seem like it would be manufactured a couple of hundred times.
And the smaller examples that look like they perhaps would stand a bit of knocking about, look less like dice.
Actually, for the time they’re found, they are in the places Rome had already conquered, and mostly conquered quite a bit (At least a century or more) before. Places that were already largely Romano-Gallic/Romano-British/Romano-Germanic in culture, well within the settled provinces not just at the limes:
That would fit with the idea that they were a religious item, used only in special occasions, and maybe only used once, with the favored general or lord keeping the dodecahedron.
If they were ceremonial scepters, I think they would had continued making them in that shape, I think they were a fad with religious, gambling and military factors, that was not continued as other ways were deemed to be less complicated.
Mostly true (there are examples of mace heads that just have a through hole), although the smaller dodecahedra look very mountable. The larger ones, having neat, opposing holes of different sizes, would be very easy to mount on a tapered shaft end.
Even if it were used only once, it seems it would be very bad for an important ritual object to break during use. A bad omen, if you will. And if the goal was to attach wooden faces to the knobs before use, what are all the holes for if they’re just going to be hidden during use? It seems that a solid object would suit the purpose better. Sure you can handwave away any weird design by saying “ritual object”, but these things certainly give the impression that the decorated holes of several different sizes are important to the object’s function.
That goes without saying, Romans were willing to know their probable “fate”, even if it was a bad one. Although, IIRC Romans did not even see a bad omen like that as the end. There was always room to reinterpret the seemingly bad omen.
That bit, if I’m kinda more correct, was to show a symbolic correlation with the fortunes obtained with regular dice, those decorations around the holes do look like the circles added around the pips of the ancient roman dice.
I thought so too, and there are gaming tokens or pieces with similar concentric markings, but this could just be a function of how simple it is to inscribe a circle around a point.
None of the potential ceremonial or decorative purposes of some examples necessarily preclude a related or merely parallel or completely different utility function for other examples. Consider for example alien visitors sifting through the ashes of human civilisation and finding these objects:
And also this object:
We could imagine an argument breaking out between those who asserted these are tools for measuring distance and angles, and inscribing marks on surfaces, and those arguments being dismissed by others pointing at how the supposed tools on the latter object are all made in one piece and therefore all of these objects are clearly for some unknown ritual purpose.
True. It’s hard to tell from the photo I picked but some of the faces are hexagonal, some pentagonal. Fairness is not a factor though, if the players use the same dice. So what if the 1/6 sides come up 20% more often than the others so long as that’s true.
I would think d100s like this one in 1000 years will make Professor Farnsworth in Futurama wonder how crazy, and over complicated, humans where in the early 2000s
I have a hard time believing that. I’m aware of the symmetry issues–but with this number of sides, my intuition is that manufacturing inconsistencies play a dominant role, and even tiny density variations, out-of-true-ness, etc. will make it highly unfair. Has anyone tried rolling one 100,000 times?
