Rules say reconstructions are allowed but doesn't specify if illustration counts.
--
Those are objects from the Roman Empire. About 130 have been found in total.
They are typically made of brass and fit in the hand but can vary from 35 grams to a kilo. Each side has holes of different sizes with rings around them. On each corner you will find a sphere protruding.
But there are three things you won't find.
- you won't find them in or near the capital. They are found all over the European part of the empire including Britain, but never once in the Near East or African portions of the empire and also never in what we call Italy today.
- you won't find why they exist. There is no known use for them that survives scrutiny. But you will find lots of speculation.
- you won't find any markings. No labeles, no symbols, no gauges, or numbers. Just holes with rings.
Are they part of a mystery colt, some rather expensive game piece, blacksmith training? No one knows.
Find a 3D print file and make one yourself and ponder it for a while. Or draw one. I haven't found any woodworking plans. Maybe I could fix that.
Micron, A5.
I think the presence of human ashes can be explained through Roman funerary practices.
The Romans sometimes buried their dead with consumable and belongings, and mixed/smeared the ashes of the dead on them. Here's an example of that: in 2024 they found a burial urn in Carmona (Spain), from Roman times. The urn contained white wine mixed with human ashes, and there was a gold ring in it.
So, if the dodecahedra were personal items, and they signalled a high military officer, it made a lot of sense to bury them alongside their owners. The ashes, thyme, frankincense etc. were likely there because of that. And, if they were "encryption devices", this also symbolised that the secret was being buried alongside the dead.
That's just my hypothesis, mind you. It makes sense for me, but it's possible it's completely bollocks. Take it with a grain of salt.
If they were used exactly like in the video I linked, the dodecahedra of the sender and receiver wouldn't need to be completely identical; only a single pair of faces (and the associated discs).
It's also possible one of the participants didn't even use a dodecahedron. The thing wouldn't be required to encode/decode text; it's only a convenient way to keep track of which cipher to use for which message, you know?
For example. Let's say you got a high officer and four subordinates. The subordinates barely contact each other, so they don't need ciphered text between themselves; but they all need to contact the higher officer, so each would use their own cipher.
For the subordinates it isn't a big deal; it's just a single cipher. They could write it down, memorise it, or even use a pair of discs (with no dodecahedron). But the high officer would need to keep track of four ciphers; then the dodecahedron becomes useful.
One thing that seems to throw a 'spanner in to the works' of the idea of these objects being Roman, is that evidently there's little if any record of dodecahedra in all of recorded Roman documents, artifacts, histories, and whatever.
Also, there's the fact that they're seemingly *not* found in traditional Roman-held areas, but moreso in outer, fringe areas in which the Romans and Celto-Germans had some overlap.
At least, that's my understanding so far.
The hypothesis they're military cripto stuff explains neatly both things: they'd be useless in traditional Roman areas (there was military in those, just not fighting "outsiders"), and the military probably didn't want too many people to know how to use them*.
If they were a Celtic development I'd expect them to be way more local. For example, most of them were found in France, right? If they were Gaulish you'd find some in Belgium and England, but you wouldn't be finding them in Austria or Croatia.
*note: if that's correct, it wouldn't be the first case of us losing info about the Romans because they silenced it themselves. Or the worst. The worst are the 28 books written by emperor Claudius, on the Etruscans and the Carthaginians.
I agree with some of that, and in terms of other stuff... I don't have the slightest idea. I'm curious about your 'cipher theory,' in any case. I'm looking forward to seeing how the research and theory goes...
Thank you, my fellow ape, for sparing me your time upon these matters!
The theory isn't even "mine", to be honest. And although it's the one I find the most likely to be true, I low-key want it to be false (and the true explanation to make me go "...duh, this is so obvious, why didn't I think about this???").
And you're welcome — it's nice to chat with you!