Roman dodecahedron: 12-sided object has baffled archaeologists for centuries

Knitting / textile tool hypothesis

• One camp insists these are tools for making glove fingers or knitted/“loom-knit” tubes (wool or metal chains).
• Supporters claim the varied hole sizes fit different finger or chain diameters, that a multi-face object is a convenient multi-size tool, and that northern find spots align with colder climates where gloves were needed.
• Some argue “loom knitting” or nalbinding could predate the usual “invention of knitting” date, so chronological objections are overstated.

Counterarguments to knitting theory

• Multiple commenters stress there is no firm archaeological evidence; it remains one speculative hypothesis among dozens.
• Objections:
  • No wear marks where yarn or wire would rub.
  • Earliest known knitting appears centuries later; Roman textiles are overwhelmingly woven.
  • Only five pegs per face and hole geometry don’t match how knitting/loom-knitting actually works.
  • Similar icosahedra exist; hard to reconcile with a glove-tool story.
• Several call the “grandma solved it on YouTube” narrative pseudoarchaeology that journalists repeat uncritically.

Other functional tool ideas

• Coin gauge: dodecahedrons found in coin hoards suggest a size-checking tool, but ancient coins varied by weight more than diameter, and simpler gauges would suffice.
• Surveying/range-finding: differing hole pairs could give fixed sighting distances, but lack of markings and decorative knobs weaken this.
• Chain or chainmail tool: wrapping wire around corner balls to make chains; disputed as hard to detach and again lacking wear patterns.
• Glove templates: personal sizing jigs for outsourced glove-making.

Status symbol, amulet, or game

• Some favor a “masterpiece” or craft test object: difficult bronze casting that proves skill. Critics ask why they’re regionally clustered and often buried with women.
• The article’s “cosmic symbol / amulet” idea is noted; others add generic “ritual object” skepticism but admit lack of practical explanations.
• Several propose toys, puzzles, or gambling devices; one likens them to ancient fidget spinners or novelties.

Manufacture, distribution, and evidence gaps

• Likely bronze lost-wax castings; high craftsmanship and cost suggest non-trivial value.
• Found mainly in Gallo‑Roman areas (France, Britain, etc.), not Italy or the East, and in graves (both sexes), coin hoards, camps, and refuse.
• Variability in size and lack of standardization argue against a calibrated measuring system.
• Broader discussion notes how much everyday practice goes undocumented, and how our own digital culture may leave similar mysteries.