I like the idea that the dodecs were normally covered in leather or cloth. Most likely leather. And that the knobs were there to anchor the leather. Holes in the leather at the appropriate spots would let the leather be stretched across each face. In other words, the dodecs are just an interior framework for the object. The holes being different sizes would be irrelevant, since they would be covered in normal use.
Noted, apologies.
Why would a leather dodecahedron need an internal frame? And if so, why always and only hollow bronze? Why would you decorate the surface of the dodecahedron with circle designs if you were going to cover it? And why have we not found any of these leather coverings, not even scraps, even in situations where other organic stuff was preserved alongside the dodecahedra, like Thames or well finds?
Because leather doesn’t form a dodecahedron on its own.
The hollow part is easy: metal of all types was expensive back then, so they’d want to minimalize the amount. That would also help explain the holes. The metal drilled out could be remelted for other purposes. Why always bronze? OK, that’s a weakness of the idea.
OK, another weakness. But those circles seem to be rather minimal decorations, so it’s not like they spent a lot of effort on decorating.
AIUI, most of the dodecs have no provenance. That is, we don’t know what situation they were found in, what else was near them, etc. People who found them were not archeologists, so they had no reason to document their find. So there could have been some leather scraps that were disposed of by the finders.
Another thing is that we don’t know what happened to the dodecs over their history. They could have passed through several people’s hands before being ultimately disposed of in burials or whatever. The later possessors may not have put leather on them, just kept them as interesting trinkets or something.
It very well can…
Most. But none have been found with even a trace of leather scraps on their knobs or leather coverings anywhere near them, and no leather covers that would fit a dodecahedron have turned up..
There could also have been a complete instruction manual for Care and Feeding of Your Dodecahedron that we’ve lost. Argument from absence is not actually a valid one here.
I notice a certain amount of sewing there, in addition to the leather. Perhaps the leather coverings were only placed on the dodecs when in use for rituals, but stored without the leather otherwise. The knobs would allow this to be easily done, whereas sewing the leather would not. This would also explain why no leather scraps have been found with the dodecahedra.
But then it can not be changed, to offer other fates to different customers.
However, finding an very early example or a brooch with so close of a style ** to the dodecahedrons, and related to clothing or tunics, that points to a similar idea used for wearable items. Items that could be exchanged.
Notice that I have several theories going on there, I’m willing to drop some once more evidence comes in.
.
.
.
** Yes I do take into account what you said, earlier and different centuries, but we are talking about a civilization that just aped many ideas from conquered nations, and borrowed sculpture, architecture, and even gods from Greece from centuries earlier, I would not be surprised that they stole a similar setup/design from an earlier culture.
Yes, that’s usually how you make shapes out of leather.
Why? Why would you keep putting these covers on and off rather than just leaving them on?
And if that was the procedure, how come the knobs don’t show wear-marks? leather is tougher than string.
Or anywhere else.
So there are multiple leather covers per dodecahedron now, but none, not a one, ever found?
I think you’re seeing way more of a closeness in style than I am. And only on one fibula - none of the other knobbed fibulae I’ve linked to have the concentric circle decorations, just the knobs.
The fibulae are - nothing indicates the dodecahedra are related to clothes - no fabric scraps, no wear marks, no pins. No need either, because - get this - the Romans had … fibulae.
You do know what a Gish Gallop is, right? Because that’s what you’re basically saying you’re doing.
.
The Roman Empire never conquered that Phrygian culture, they never even encountered it, it was gone long centuries before the time of the dodecahedra.
The Romans certainly adopted some Phrygian culture items, like the Phrygian cap and Cybele. The path for their adoption of both of these is hardly obscured (both came via the Greeks, not direct conquest) so why would the fibula->dodecahedron transfer be?
And - the question we keep returning to - why only in that part of the Empire?
But only in Gallo-Roman areas, and not actually for fibulae, and without any actual similarity in construction…
You really can’t just look at a completely unrelated artifact with some superficial decorative similarities that were common to lots of other artefacts, go “Aah, they’re both old-timey stuff” and think that makes any connection possible. Once again, I’ll repeat myself - One thousand years and a thousand miles of separation, and no bridging artefacts. There’s absolutely no reason to think these things are related. This is “Mayans built pyramids, Egyptians built pyramids, they had to be related” - level thinking
The object is described as an accessory not a bracelet. Note that the thread supporting the accessory is monofilament. The find is legit, but the provenance of the object lacks detail. Could the small dodecahedrons be free standing or otherwise not related to the accessory?
I found the nodules on the dodecahedrons intriguing: they imply that the Chinese artist had some exposure to Roman dodecahedrons (or Asian copies of original Roman dodecahedrons) and moreover that their customer did as well. Not 100% to be sure, but probable I think.
If the dodecahedron were military code cyphers, what were they posing as? What’s the messenger’s cover story? I’m thinking ritual object rather than game: they seem a little large to be dice, even if they are fake dice.
This was discussed before in this thread too, leather is unlikely to survive under the conditions most of the buried dodecahedrons where found.
And yet we have multiple bits of leather from Roman finds, and other organic matter was found with some of the dodecahedra.
Ok, I can grant they were not conquered earlier, but they were a part of the Roman empire by the 2nd century before the common era, I can point to the ways of those days regarding design: reusing themes and styles from the past was also a thing.
Some of the nodes look a lot more something to hitch a string to than something to support an external cover like leather or cloth:
The find from the Gallo-Roman Museum in Tongeren, Belgium has varying sized holes and visible decoration limited to lines on the edges of the object.
No. the region of Phrygia was eventually part of the Empire - (but definitely not in 200 BCE - I’ll leave you to figure out why that might be)… Phrygia the culture was long gone, absorbed into the Persian Empire centuries before.
Look, I don’t mean to be rude, but it’s screamingly obvious that you’re just running a new Google search every time I respond to you with actual archaeological facts, all to try and defend an original thesis of connection based on nothing of any substance. How do you feel that’s actually adding to the discussion?
I’m not arguing that cultural recycling wasn’t a thing - I’ve pointed to examples of it myself in this very thread.
That kind of thing leaves distinct traces and a transfer path. We can see this for Phrygian caps - a whole story of transmission through the centuries. There’s NOTHING like it for the fibulka to dodecahedron case - no chain of artefact from Phrygia to Gaul you can point to at all.
One idea that was proposed, similar to the idea that it was used to make wool gloves, it could had been to weave leather.
I proposed another idea: It was used in a fancy way to decorate (with a connection with ornamental clothing) and/or to keep leather pieces in place for special military occasions, in a style that was only peculiar for the region.
Jesus, that Medium article is completely ridiculous, and clearly written by someone who has never actually done any leatherwork in their life.,
I mean, this reads like parody:
Modern artisans use tools that closely resemble the Roman dodecahedron:
Oh, yes, I totally see the resemblance. So close.
Also, there’s absolutely zero evidence of roman woven leather armour. That’s some fantasy bullshit.
I did point to that item because, as it is pointed elsewhere, other minds can help, not only with the ID or more context. After all, one does not know everything, but you have to notice that I do take what you say into account, a design that not only appears in that Phrygian Artifact was for sure used later in turkey, because it is really less likely that so peculiar a design was only used in Phygia and then remade just almost like that with the dodecahedrons.
The point was that that was just one idea, I thought the context showed that I did not agree with that. And just to be sure: I don’t agree with the idea that the dodecahedrons where used to make gloves either.
Gallop, gallop, gallop.
Why would you post something with what is a painfully-obvious AI picture that doesn’t actually look like a real dodecahedron? I mean, the thongs are passing through holes in the knobs, FFS. Never mind that whatever insanity is happening with the dodecahedron is completely unrelated to the “woven leather armour” next to it - they’re just magically linked. Never mind that from what I can tell that idiot thinks lorica segmentata was made of shaped leather.
All it does is muddy the waters. Seriously, don’t just C&P the first thing Google shows you as though it was contributing to the discussion. It’s not. “Throw shit at the wall and see what sticks” is not how archaeological research is done.