Hired.

  • hansolo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Y’all, it’s just a cool thing, and a status symbol.

    You’re really going to tell me that a species that has/had things like decorative paper weights, necklaces, rings, statues, fidget spinners, funko pop figures, and little tiny versions of buildings you flew 8 hours to see for sale near the actual building isn’t going to be the same one that in ancient times, was all over a little bronze thing that looks objectively cool once some metal worker figures out how to make one?

    It’s like none of you have ever met a human before. It doesn’t have to do anything. That’s the point.

  • jdr@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    8 hours ago

    These are candle holders for when you want to send light in all directions by using candles of various widths. All knowledge of them evaporated because all the users died in mysterious fires.

  • im_fine_sandy@nord.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    20 hours ago

    My preferred theory is that it identifies the bearer as belonging to a group something like a smithies guild.

    If there was a practical function someone would have figured it out. It’s a lame candle holder, coin counter, and glove knitting template. It’s function is symbolic.

    It was hard to make, and the materials were costly.

    It has specific features that can be described like “it has 12 flat faces with holes” but would be difficult to construct if you had never seen one.

    They have often been found with caches of coins, but often found alone as though forgotten or discarded. They had value to some people but they were not treasure.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      12 hours ago

      I’m just imagining a thousand years from now some archaeologists is trying to understand the technological purpose of the fidget spinner.

    • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      16 hours ago

      In other words, they were masterpieces in the original meaning of the word. Masterpiece originally meant not just some great or acclaimed work, but something much more specific. It was the work a guild artisan would use to demonstrate their ultimate skill and earn the title of Master. It was the craftsman equivalent of an academic dissertation. For a specific historical example, see columbine cup.

    • Zarobi@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      17 hours ago

      In 1000 years if they discovered Newton’s Cradles, they’d be similarly baffled on their functional use case. My theory is that it’s just a cool decoration thing

    • Shindo66@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      18 hours ago

      I really like the “you cant actually make one from a description” angle. That actually makes a lot of sense. Like, you couldn’t even make it from memory, you’d have to copy it.

      • im_fine_sandy@nord.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Yep, in a way this has similarities to modern cryptography.

        In cryptography you can share a public key, which can’t be used to create the private key but can be used to identify the correct private key.

        With this object, you can share a description which can’t be used to make the object, but can be used to identify the object.

        Its obviously not infallible security, but it would take some effort to overcome.

      • TrackinDaKraken@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        21 hours ago

        There are far, far more things that cannot be a weapon than can be.

        For instance, a single grain of sand.

        • Sarah Valentine@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          21 hours ago

          a single grain of sand.

          In space, accelerated to sufficient relative velocity, that’s more than adequate as a weapon.

          • Impound4017@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            21 hours ago

            Iirc that’s actually the premise of how a lot of guns in Mass Effect work. A mass effect field is induced with Element Zero (unobtanium plot device) which allows you to alter the apparent mass of things inside the field and then, using essentially a grain of sand shaved off a block as a projectile, said projectile is accelerated to relativistic speeds in place of a bullet.

            • ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              15 hours ago

              I just hate the explanation for adding force fields to create impact force because the unshielded projectiles had no stopping power and would just pass right through a target.

              I fully understand the significance of stopping power but if you could change how much of that force is applied you could turn it off and shoot through walls/cover and still kill your target

        • zarathustrad@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          18 hours ago

          With enough velocity it will still kill you.

          Also gather more and heat them up.

          “They built copper and iron shields, put sand into them, and heated them over hot fire so the sand became red-hot. By means of some mechanism they threw this sand at those who had fought bravest… The sand penetrated through the armour into the shirts, burned the body, and it could not be helped… they died, going mad with horrible pain, in sufferings piteous and unquenchable.”

    • chunes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      20 hours ago

      It’s the most likely use, IMO. They could be mace heads intended for personal protection. The different holes would be to accommodate different handle diameters, making it easy to swap to another handle if it breaks.

  • Atelopus-zeteki@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Roman Dodecahedrons - my favored theory was that they were used to make wool gloves. Indeed, when I looked into it, someone had done this. AFAIK, cool as they are, and as many of them as have been found, no one really knows what purpose they served.

    • saltesc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      edit-2
      22 hours ago

      I think it’s pretty obvious they’re for playing Tullianums et Dracones. Probably editio III since it had the most d10 use.

    • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      There is no evidence of knitting in the Roman Empire, which if it was there is weird when you consider how much art they made that shows other parts of their daily lives and how many deities they had for every aspect of life.

      The solid ones would also be completely useless for knitting gloves. And why are these typically found in hoards of money if they’re a part of domestic life? It just doesn’t fit the available evidence. I don’t think it’s a bad idea, but it doesn’t work to explain all of them.

    • im_fine_sandy@nord.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Nah the knitting / weaving idea doesn’t add up.

      Basically, they can be used to weave a tube, but that isn’t really evidence that they were created with that intention.

      The bronze would be polished up around the knobs if it were used that way.

      You wouldn’t use bronze to make a weaving tool just because it’s so expensive. Maybe as a once off or special item, but not generally.

      You don’t vary the size of your knitting or weaving by using a bigger template / more loose weave. One larger finger you would use more stitches: that’s fundamental to knitting and weaving.

      At first glance it’s a nice idea but it doesn’t withstand critical thought.

    • zaphod@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Apperently the holes are important for the knitting, but there are some dodecahedrons without holes.