32 ms·

I think the major argument against this theory is the map, as the article states. Most of the theories for their use are actually invalid simply by looking at t

I think the major argument against this theory is the map, as the article states. Most of the theories for their use are actually invalid simply by looking at the map of finds. Fishing, toys, music, games, things that were global in the roman empire. What the map shows is that it was used in the colder parts of the empire.

akiselev 3y ago
That map looks exactly what I would expect it to look like if it was passed on from master to apprentice metalworker as part of a graduating project. These wouldn't have been products sold to customers and traded, they would have been symbols that the individuals had achieved mastery within a specific lineage of artisans restricted to that region. Almost all knowledge was communicated via oral means because scribes were very expensive and most people were illiterate - there's zero reason to expect a wide distribution throughout the empire.
- detourdog 3y ago
  I think metalworking also has the longest history of sophisticated development in current day Northern Europe. The dispersion on the map I think re-enforces both that history and the notion of a portfolio piece.
- INTPenis 3y ago
  Ok but that means there would be more such objects, for every level before mastery right? And also such objects would be much more rare. Imagine all the objects that have been found and melted down during the last 2000 years. For us to have found over 100 of these so far is already an indication that it was a lot more common than an apprentice piece.
  - akiselev 3y ago
    > Ok but that means there would be more such objects, for every level before mastery right? What levels of mastery? Roman historians didn't write much about the ins and outs of their metalworking industry so we don't know how intricate the process was but apprentices graduating is rather universal (their teachers get tired of them or die eventually, after all). Besides, just because it's an "apprentice piece" doesn't mean that it's made by an amateur, but by a skilled artisan to prove they're ready to go out on their own. > And also such objects would be much more rare. Imagine all the objects that have been found and melted down during the last 2000 years. For us to have found over 100 of these so far is already an indication that it was a lot more common than an apprentice piece. Finding only a hundred of these makes them extremely rare. Check out Wikipedia's non-exhaustive list of museum collections of ancient Roman and Greek artifacts [1]. The collections number in the tens of thousands of objects each and that's just the stuff a few collections felt was worth keeping - there is tons more Roman artifacts on the antiquities market and huge troves are still discovered on a regular basis [2][3]. From [3]: > This guy even got his grubby hands on a Roman dodecahedron, an extremely rare artifact (only 100 are known to exist) whose purpose remains an archaeological mystery to this day. A total of 13,246 artifacts were seized in the raid on his home and from several safety deposit boxes he rented in Lorraine. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_museums_of_Greek_and_Roman_antiquities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_museums_of_Greek_and_R... [2] https://www.ksl.com/article/24751877/10k-roman-artifacts-found-in-lost-london-river https://www.ksl.com/article/24751877/10k-roman-artifacts-fou... [3] https://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/60269 https://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/60269
    - INTPenis 3y ago
      But you can't really compare any artifact with a metal object, metal was valuable and often melted down. The ones we know about were the ones not found by battlefield scavengers and other opportunists. Even gravediggers would take metal objects and melt them down.
      - akiselev 3y ago
        The bulk of artifacts that survive to this day are pottery, jewelry, and metal Roman coins. Two of those three categories were mostly metal objects that could have been melted down but weren't. Collections of Ancient Roman artifacts are full of metal objects that are orders of magnitude more common than these dodecahedrons. We have many more examples of Roman weapons made up of much more valuable metals that survived.
  - xtiansimon 3y ago
    “Ok but that means there would be more such objects, for every level before mastery right?” If bronze is expensive, then poor quality versions could simply be melted down to raw material. I like this idea. And I struggle to imagine the scenario, because it seems like it would also have social aspects which we can’t know without written testimony. If the metal is expensive, how is to valued compared to other goods? In the modern world we have tons of stuff, but to what degree is this the same in the ancient Roman world? Who pays it’s cost? If you’re an apprentice could you afford to keep it—especially if you’re not very good (haha).
arp242 3y ago
> Fishing, toys, music, games, things that were global in the roman empire. I'm fairly certain that every-day practices for all of these things were far from universal across the empire; it's a huge assumption to think that, especially considering that we don't actually know all that much about some of these thing and that we don't know what we don't know (e.g. it was only a few months ago that they found evidence of gladiator fights in Britain; it's entirely possible – even likely – that there were wide-spread well-known games in some regions that we just don't know about). I'm not saying it can't be related to heat, but I wouldn't be so quick to jump to that conclusion based solely on the location where these things were found.
DoctorOetker 3y ago
There may be more arguments besides the map. Each object has 12 sides, so 12 holes. For hundreds of exemplars thats thousands of holes. The holes are described as having different sizes on the same dodecahedron. For being an object of mystery, one would assume a catalog of features to have been constructed, but I am not aware of any. I believe they were used to test coin sizes (could be used by both scrapers and verifiers), see my comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35946841 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35946841 Such a hypothesis should be testable: catalog the hundreds of dodecahedra, one row per item, and 12 columns for the radii. Collect all occurring thousands of radii and sort, and observe density peaks and compare age of item and coins of era with radii.

akiselev 3y ago

That map looks exactly what I would expect it to look like if it was passed on from master to apprentice metalworker as part of a graduating project. These wouldn't have been products sold to customers and traded, they would have been symbols that the individuals had achieved mastery within a specific lineage of artisans restricted to that region. Almost all knowledge was communicated via oral means because scribes were very expensive and most people were illiterate - there's zero reason to expect a wide distribution throughout the empire.

detourdog 3y ago
I think metalworking also has the longest history of sophisticated development in current day Northern Europe. The dispersion on the map I think re-enforces both that history and the notion of a portfolio piece.
INTPenis 3y ago
Ok but that means there would be more such objects, for every level before mastery right? And also such objects would be much more rare. Imagine all the objects that have been found and melted down during the last 2000 years. For us to have found over 100 of these so far is already an indication that it was a lot more common than an apprentice piece.
- akiselev 3y ago
  > Ok but that means there would be more such objects, for every level before mastery right? What levels of mastery? Roman historians didn't write much about the ins and outs of their metalworking industry so we don't know how intricate the process was but apprentices graduating is rather universal (their teachers get tired of them or die eventually, after all). Besides, just because it's an "apprentice piece" doesn't mean that it's made by an amateur, but by a skilled artisan to prove they're ready to go out on their own. > And also such objects would be much more rare. Imagine all the objects that have been found and melted down during the last 2000 years. For us to have found over 100 of these so far is already an indication that it was a lot more common than an apprentice piece. Finding only a hundred of these makes them extremely rare. Check out Wikipedia's non-exhaustive list of museum collections of ancient Roman and Greek artifacts [1]. The collections number in the tens of thousands of objects each and that's just the stuff a few collections felt was worth keeping - there is tons more Roman artifacts on the antiquities market and huge troves are still discovered on a regular basis [2][3]. From [3]: > This guy even got his grubby hands on a Roman dodecahedron, an extremely rare artifact (only 100 are known to exist) whose purpose remains an archaeological mystery to this day. A total of 13,246 artifacts were seized in the raid on his home and from several safety deposit boxes he rented in Lorraine. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_museums_of_Greek_and_Roman_antiquities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_museums_of_Greek_and_R... [2] https://www.ksl.com/article/24751877/10k-roman-artifacts-found-in-lost-london-river https://www.ksl.com/article/24751877/10k-roman-artifacts-fou... [3] https://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/60269 https://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/60269
  - INTPenis 3y ago
    But you can't really compare any artifact with a metal object, metal was valuable and often melted down. The ones we know about were the ones not found by battlefield scavengers and other opportunists. Even gravediggers would take metal objects and melt them down.
    - akiselev 3y ago
      The bulk of artifacts that survive to this day are pottery, jewelry, and metal Roman coins. Two of those three categories were mostly metal objects that could have been melted down but weren't. Collections of Ancient Roman artifacts are full of metal objects that are orders of magnitude more common than these dodecahedrons. We have many more examples of Roman weapons made up of much more valuable metals that survived.
- xtiansimon 3y ago
  “Ok but that means there would be more such objects, for every level before mastery right?” If bronze is expensive, then poor quality versions could simply be melted down to raw material. I like this idea. And I struggle to imagine the scenario, because it seems like it would also have social aspects which we can’t know without written testimony. If the metal is expensive, how is to valued compared to other goods? In the modern world we have tons of stuff, but to what degree is this the same in the ancient Roman world? Who pays it’s cost? If you’re an apprentice could you afford to keep it—especially if you’re not very good (haha).

arp242 3y ago

> Fishing, toys, music, games, things that were global in the roman empire. I'm fairly certain that every-day practices for all of these things were far from universal across the empire; it's a huge assumption to think that, especially considering that we don't actually know all that much about some of these thing and that we don't know what we don't know (e.g. it was only a few months ago that they found evidence of gladiator fights in Britain; it's entirely possible – even likely – that there were wide-spread well-known games in some regions that we just don't know about). I'm not saying it can't be related to heat, but I wouldn't be so quick to jump to that conclusion based solely on the location where these things were found.

DoctorOetker 3y ago

There may be more arguments besides the map. Each object has 12 sides, so 12 holes. For hundreds of exemplars thats thousands of holes. The holes are described as having different sizes on the same dodecahedron. For being an object of mystery, one would assume a catalog of features to have been constructed, but I am not aware of any. I believe they were used to test coin sizes (could be used by both scrapers and verifiers), see my comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35946841 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35946841 Such a hypothesis should be testable: catalog the hundreds of dodecahedra, one row per item, and 12 columns for the radii. Collect all occurring thousands of radii and sort, and observe density peaks and compare age of item and coins of era with radii.