Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The mysterious dodecahedrons of the Roman Empire

atlasobscura.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 103 posts

Re: The mysterious dodecahedrons of the Roman Empire

#21

Post by arbitrage »

Jarmsy wrote: post #19
detrites wrote: post #16

One of the suggestions was as a mounting point for metal or wooden poles. This suggested, to me at least use as a joint for scaffolding. The holes of differing sizes accommodating pole diameters suited to each purpose for a given scaffold. On the outside the protrusions could have been used for tying ropes that secure the joint to the pole. Could have been very strong if also threaded inside the dodecahedrons as well…

Regular dodecahedra don't tile space, so these wouldn't make much sense as scaffold nodes. For regular space frames with identical nodes, truncated octahedra are more useful.

Utterly straight-forward and to-the-point insight. I find your argument really compelling.

Re: The mysterious dodecahedrons of the Roman Empire

#22

Post by dragontamer »

malloci wrote: post #18

I always find it interesting that objects like these must have had to have a purpose. Why couldn’t it have been a piece of art simply for decoration?

I can only imagine some archeologist looking at the Filipino giant spoon/fork hanging on our kitchen walls and wondering what it would be used for.

It's not like anyone actually writes down house decoration theory. You just sorta pick up on it based on visiting a bunch of people's homes in a community.

Re: The mysterious dodecahedrons of the Roman Empire

#24

Post by arbitrage »

jameshart wrote: post #13
swayvil wrote: post #11

That dodecahedron featured in the first pic is swank af. Hats off to the ancients. I've crafted a few in various media. Getting it right is tricky. Really makes you appreciate 3d printing.

If they’re tricky to produce well, that suggests another possibility - maybe they were a journeyman piece for bronze crafters. Does it require combining a number of different techniques to produce? Would deficiencies in particular techniques manifest in obvious flaws in the finished artifact? Or maybe they’re more like fizzbuzz for gallo-Roman bronze artificers. You show up at an interview and they ask you to knock o…

> maybe they were a journeyman piece for bronze crafters

If this were the case, shouldn't there be makers' marks on them? Something to identify them as being the work of a journeyman level artisan hoping to use it to prove their worth? Otherwise, one could fraudulently present someone else's work as there own, and undermine the system.

I feel that if they were really part of a 'graduation portfolio' for crafters, it would be much more obvious. Something like an inscription that says "crafted by Albertus in the 14th year of the Emperor Foo".

I like your fizz-buzz theory. If the object is a one-and-done throw away, then you might not bother to put your mark on it.

Re: The mysterious dodecahedrons of the Roman Empire

#30

Post by Gordonjcp »

firstlink wrote: post #4
l1n wrote: post #2

Elsewhere: https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2022/08/04/fiber-arts-myster... disagrees on the glove hypothesis

I thought the bit where knitting hadn't been invented yet was pretty illuminating on the dodecahedron hypothesis.

Knitting predates the Roman empire by a comfortable margin.
Post reply on HN