321–330 of 403 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Along these lines, if you haven't ever seen it, check out _Motel of the Mysteries_ by David Macaulay. (Yes, that David Macaulay!)
I remember "reading" that as a kid, when I was too young to really understand the text, and thinking it was a horror story.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the archaeologists saying, “Nobody knows for certain how the Romans used them,” and offering a variety of competing theories, while people on this thread are trying to finesse the facts to support the theory they like. So saying, "archaeologists are doing it" is demonstrably untrue here.
There are plenty of academic papers written by historians and archaeologists speculating about Roman dodecahedrons. That's where most of these ideas are coming from. You just won't find them in HN comments for obvious reasons.
You incorrectly stated that's a tradition in archaeology, as if that would make any difference. It's not how theories are meant to be formed from evidence, regardless of whether or not you think it's a tradition in archaeology (which it isn't.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really buy that theory. There's no explanation for why it needs to be this very-hard-to-cast bronze dodecahedron, instead of just a wooden board with pegs and holes, which is all that would be needed for the video above.
Why not? If it was a common item, it would be natural that there a deluxe versions for e.g. the royal household. The cheap and simple versions would have rotted away by now.
I don't really buy that theory. Do we have any other examples of fancy decorative versions of working class tools?
I like the theory that it's an examination piece to qualify as a master metalworker. Casting a flawless dodecahedron could have been a way to demonstrate your skill. The shape is somewhat arbitrary: anything that's both difficult to cast and easy to examine for quality would work, but once people started making dodecahedrons that's what people expected and it became a kind of standard.
The equivalent today would be 3Dbenchy boats -- "we found an identical boat toy design in multiple sites made of different plastic materials, colors and sizes. It is spread universally around the World cities, found in sites of crafts, leading us to believe it is an idol of a new 21st century religion predominant among workers of the arts and crafts"
https://victesting.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/img_031...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As is tradition in archaeology.
It's the archaeologists saying, “Nobody knows for certain how the Romans used them,” and offering a variety of competing theories, while people on this thread are trying to finesse the facts to support the theory they like. So saying, "archaeologists are doing it" is demonstrably untrue here.
Explicitly so, given that the root of this thread is saying it is a theory that they 'like', not that they think is objective truth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. "Common Era" instead of "Anno Domini". More religiously neutral.
It’s start date is still a religious event, so I’m not sure it’s more neutral as much as it’s more obfuscating.
Just because a measuring device is not standards referenced does not mean it can not be used to measure. If I need a peg to match the size of a drill bit, any collection of 12 holes is likely to have one the size of the drill bit that lets me tell my peg maker to "make the pegs this size." Handymen are just cussed enough* to not label any of them, and to expect the FNG (new guy) to remember which of the 12 unlabeled…
Not sure about "grapefruit-sized" when compared to the hand holding the object in the picture. Assuming it's the one they are writing about. I'd say it's closer to the size of a lime. Unless that person has a uniquely large hand of course. Really interesting find though, never heard of these artefacts before.
Much better to stick with silly old normal and sensible measurements. This thing is roughly 0.9 linguine across - https://www.theregister.com/Design/page/reg-standards-conver...
Standards are important, that's why we have so many of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Board games are much older than the Romans, though possibly not older than writing - and texts give us a bit of a clue that some early ones were part recreation part ceremonial. By Roman times pure recreational games were common and reasonably often referenced in their literature. They definitely used cubic dice with numbers on for games (and gambling). The icosahedral dice usually have Greek letters rather than numb…
Greek letters were used as numbers during the time of the Romans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_numerals also, sorry to be that guy, but D&D hasn't had a thief class since 3rd edition came out, in 2000.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They wouldn't be recycled if they were also used as a credential for quality of work. If you're a metal worker who wants to migrate to a new town, and wants to work at my forge, how do I know you can do quality work? Sure, these could be stolen but I'm assuming a master metal worker knows the right questions to ask to verify it's legitimate.
You're right that the master metal worker should be able to sniff out a fraud, but then what role does the dodecahedron play? It would be like me applying to a programming job by showing up with a ZIP file of some code I'd written in the past, which of course I promise I didn't steal from a better programmer. You'd probably give it very little credence compared to either personal references or work done in front of y…
Having one of these in your possession would be enough to get you in the door, as well as giving your potential employer a quick and easy way to judge the quality of your work. The alternative would be to require a prospective employee to make a dodecahedron in front of you, which doesn’t really provide all that much of a benefit in the long term.
