That, or they have ritual significance. Which, yes, is the go-to explanation for anything archaeologists don’t understand… but it has to be right at least sometimes.
So the mail on the other fingers wasn’t sturdy enough and said fingers had been sliced off at work? 
I (think I) know what you meant, but that sentence just struck me funny.
No, it implies they are the only versions - that they don’t “do” anything but sit there.
I’m looking forward to it.
Yes! One of Tripolar’s suggestions was that they could maybe be a fad like the pet rock. I believe that they originally came with a little attached scroll detailing the care and feeding of the pet dodecahedron. Also, the tricks you can train it to do. I’ve checked the photos, and they appear to be very good at “stay”.
The scrolls, of course, did not survive.
That’s the beauty of it!
They might be like the slightly more useful weather-predicting pet rocks.
You hang your dodecahedron outside your window.
If it’s moving around, it’s windy. If it’s wet, it’s raining. If there’s frost on it, it’s cold outside. If you can’t see it, it’s night.
If it’s no longer there barbarians are nearby, if when looking for the missing dodecahedron it suddenly hits your forehead at great speed and you hear someone cussing at you in an incomprehensible language they are Picts.
From googling, apparently the three-finger design is a lot less common than the full glove, but it looks mistly like this (except mine has a blue wrist band with velcro and doesn’t have a second band).
Huh, I was picturing something like a mitten-glove hybrid, where two fingers went in each glove-finger. That design seems reckless in its exposure of the last two fingers.
Thinking about it, since they are all different sizes and the holes are not consistent, it does seem to rule out any measuring or technological devise. I’m coming around to the ritual idea.
If not quite a ritual use, maybe the embodiment of a philosophical concept? In the Timaeus, the five Platonic solids (tetrahedron, cube, octahedron, icosahedron, and dodecahedron) were respectively associated with the classical elements (fire, earth, air, water, and the universe, with the 12 faces representing the 12 signs of the zodiac.)
I don’t know why this would only have been restricted to the Gallo Roman region, and not the whole of the Roman Empire, though.
If they were for ritual use (religious, fortune telling, etc.) I would expect there would be symbols on them.
There are, if you count concentric circles.
Thing is there, we’ve found a whole bunch of dodecahedra, one singular icosahedron that may or may not be related, and no cubes, tetrahedra, or octahedra at all. It really looks as though, whatever their significance was, it was for dodecahedra specifically, not Platonic solids as a group.
(My personal hypothesis for the icosahedron is that, after their original use (whatever it was) had passed, they became used as meaningless knickknacks, and it was in this era that some young smith decided that, since he had a dodecahedron, he’d make a full set of Platonics, made the other “interesting” one, and then lost interest in the project.)
Crosses, ankhs, or pentacles are ritual objects, and don’t necessarily have additional symbols on them. They are the symbols. If a dodecahedron is itself the symbol of something, like the universe or the heavens, maybe it wouldn’t need additional symbols on it, either.
The Arloff icosahedron in the Rheinisches Landesmuseum makes me think of an anti-dodecahedon. The Gallo Roman dodecahedrons have 12 flat sides, 20 knobbed vertices, and different sized holes. The Arloff icosahedron has 12 knobbed vertices, 20 curved sides, and it’s the knobs that are different sized.
(Maybe Sauron made the icosahedron to rule all the dodecahedrons.)
When I see the examples of these, I immediately think of a ritualistic use comparable to praying the rosary. They need to be durable enough to be handled as part of the ritual and small details (actual size, difference in holes, etc.) really aren’t that important.
But that’s just me.
They’re definitely not like a rosary. The idea behind a rosary (or other similar strings of prayer beads) is that you want to say a simple prayer a bunch of times in a row for meditative purposes, but you don’t want to use brainpower on keeping count, because that would be anti-meditative. So you hold the first bead in your fingers, say the prayer, then switch to the next bead and pray again, and so on, and when you run out of beads, you know you’re done.
Rosaries can have other forms than strings of beads, but all forms of a rosary have a simple linear progression of some sort. At every bead, or knob, or groove, or whatever, there’s another bead or knob or groove that’s the obvious next one, that you don’t have to think about at all. The dodecahedra don’t have that.
Yes, but I was thinking of rotating the object for similar purposes. How one kept track of which side is “up” or what the significance is, I can’t know. Painted markings? Size of hole? But a sequence of 12 (or 24) seems reasonable and they can be set in any one of 12 different positions. There are rituals in many religions where an object is used to enumerate the steps/stages required.
A dodecahedron doesn’t easily lend itself to being a sequence. But I think the point that it needs to be durable enough to be handled is a good one. And also the point that the small details aren’t that important.
I still think it’s plausible that its intent is to produce sound that is different depending on which node is fixed. Whether it’s a type of divination: pick a node and interpret the sound. Or meditative: listen to the sound of a node, then listen to the sound of another node.
Copper alloys have been used to make sounders for a long time, but I don’t know the history. I’d love to hear the take of someone familiar with ancient bells and other sounders.
I’m sure it would ring to some extent, just because small/thin castings of bronze generally do unless they happen to be constructed so as to dampen resonance. I would not think it will sound different depending on which node it hangs from, since the idea of hanging a bell is just to isolate it and let it resonate so if you’ve done that, it will just ring in whatever way is natural (if any) for it as a whole object.
If you want an object that rings differently depending on how you treat it, you’d design something like a tongue drum or just a set of different bells.
Bells are designed to be rung while fixed in a particular way. Have you ever rung a tuning fork while holding one of the fork tines instead of the stem? You’ll still get the designed tone from the remaining free tine. But you’ll also get a tone from the stem which is free to resonate. And a different tone from the fixed tine because it’s not free.