Here’s an actual Roman candle holder.
~ Appropriate candle sized hole - check
~ Stable base - check
~ Reservoir to catch excess wax (so it doesn’t run all over whatever you have it sitting on) - check
And when the candle burned past the top, it would fall over creating a dangerous fire hazard.
The Romans also had elaborate multi-armed candelabras. Used for religious celebrations, like Saturnalua. The design of the dodecahedra has nothing in common with those.
Some of them do.
This is just a nonsequitur; the dodecahedron has nothing in common things it doesn’t look like.
I have no idea what you are visualising, but it’s clearly not what I tried to describe.
Also, the fact that some of the examples look like they would be most unsuitable was the entire point of the discussion about there being an early, functional form, then a later, decorative form.
They never made bronze candelabras?
I think “design” and “material” refer to different aspects of an object.
Ah, I consider material choice a part of the design.
This implies that the different-sized holes are intended to be upwards at different times. Probably.
I don’t see any reason they couldn’t be for candles or lamps. In fact, I’ve always thought they would look cool with a flame flickering inside. I know we would have found evidence of fire or wax so probably not for lighting of the day but it’s as good a use as any.
Speaking of stupid and pointless and difficult to explain without context, how about the paper bag luminary display? Open flame, poorly protected that still blow out with any wind, paper bag to catch fire and/or soak, some people put sand in them which predictably busts through the soggy bag, and those are the ones the neighborhood kids don’t kick over. In any case, it all goes right in the trash the following morning for an archeologist to try to sort through in 2000 years.
You’re proposing that it had a function (cultic candleholder) in common. How is pointing out the complete lack of physical commonality a non-sequitur?
Material =/= design. I’m talking about form and decoration.
Not in the sense I was using it. But understandable confusion.
I’m proposing that it had a function, and also perhaps needed to have a very particular form; any other form, and it wouldn’t have been the thing the people who made it, wanted it to be,
Pointing out that it’s not like other candlesticks is meaningless, if the entire original purpose of the thing was to be different from regular candlesticks.
Some examples have traces of wax on them.
It has been suggested that this could just be residual wax from the lost wax casting process; I think that’s unlikely, for a couple of reasons:
That all seems way less likely than the wax having been deposited on the objects after they were made. That still doesn’t absolutely prove they were used in any direct connection with wax or candles - it could be coincidence, or they might have been used/displayed alongside candles.
The people who ended up with these things might have used them as candle holders without that being their intended purpose. The intended purpose is already known to be obscure because we haven’t found many of them, there’s no other indications of their existence except the ones that have turned up so far, nothing like it made of anything else or even a different design like holes of varying size in a piece of wood or clay. The surviving pieces were likely kept because they were cool looking, not their original purpose if there was one other than that.
That’s a fair point - ‘repurpose antique thing as lamp’ is a thing people do.
Maybe it’s already been answered, but has anyone tried ringing the dodecahedrons? Something like hanging one by a knob and then lightly striking another knob?
You mean other than the ones listed above? Also, it’s unlikely that Roman dodecahedrons were used as candle holders due the small size of many of the dodecahedrons found, along with the lack of consistent wear patterns.
Mangetout’s theory that they could re-purposed is an interesting idea but there is nothing that suggests this is the case. Further, it does nothing to help discover the original function, which is the thrust of this thread. I have no idea what they are for, but some theories like knitting devices or candle holders just seem a bit too far fetched. YMMV
I’m recording my official vote for posterity as being a knitting/weaving/cording type of device, like for netting together wire or leather strips for clothing, armor, barding, etc.
Otherwise, based on the mysterious indispensible junk in the back of my dad’s truck growing up, it is for fly-fishing.
For the people suggesting knitting, I discussed that upthread
Basically they would be too cumbersome to use for spool knitting, and the smallest ones are way too small.
Also, there would be some items made with one, and that hasn’t been seen in the time period they are from
And I’m pointing out that the very people you’re talking about, for the same purpose you’re proposing, are known to have used a very different form indeed elsewhere.
So, the onus is still on you to explain why that is the case - why not use the candelabra and candlesticks we know they used in other cultic activities, and use this less suitable form?
It’s all very well to say this is different somehow, but you’re not saying how it’s different.
