I can't possibly fathom why a bunch of people all over would all have the same weird, seemingly useless object on them at roughly the same time period. It's an impossible mystery.
this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2025
27 points (78.7% liked)
Videos
16297 readers
64 users here now
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Rules
- Videos only
- Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
- Don't be a jerk
- No advertising
- No political videos, post those to !politicalvideos@lemmy.world instead.
- Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
- Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
- Duplicate posts may be removed
Note: bans may apply to both !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
lol I immediately thought of fidget spinners too
Humans are curious and scavengers. Evolution has rewarded us for it.
The "Everybody had one" caption in the thumbnail is patiently false. I think they've only found a few hundred of them, which means not everybody had one.
Patently
Thanks, I'm dyslexic and that's where the spell check got me.
Yeah that really bothered me. A lot of people are going to interpret that literally. I hate that sort of clickbait.
Yeah, this video is poorly researched clickbait.
Are you interpreting it literally? It's a figure of speech—a kind of hyperbole; it's just a way of implying something was common, not that literally every person had one.
Whether it actually was common though, I don't know. Joe here might be taking some liberties for the sake of a catchy thumbnail.
It's a race to the bottom. Everything is blown the hell outta proportion until meaning is well meaningless.
"Everybody had one" is not a figure of speech or even hyperbole. It is a very simple literal claim, which also happens to be a flat out lie.
Well I think we established you can't stick your dick in it. So I'm out of ideas.
What an incredible case of the username checking out
Because of how many they have found and at least one cache I remember reading about was found in some kind of marketplace, I like to think they were just common household tchotchkes. Like a Newton's Cradle or other random as fuck desk or shelf decor. They are pretty aesthetic. I could see these things still being sold as a thing to just have on your desk.
Another video on this subject:
Ah Stefan Milo. I love him.
Everyone should watch this video instead. Actual archeologist.
they’re clearly for slamming affixes from a select pool based on the paired fossil ^*
One hypothesis that made practical sense to me was candle holder
So delightful that we have more people propping up the pseudo archeology “it was used for knitting! Despite knitting being not around until the Middle Ages, and spool knitting not being around until later!”
It’s a terrible French/spool knitter. The fact that someone made something on it does not mean that it was made for knitting, because you can do that with basically any set of pegs you want.
They're for knitting gloves. It's been solved for a while
https://evafj77.medium.com/ancient-mystery-roman-dodecahedron-mystery-resolved-de64e5cc4054
No not at all.
If they were for making gloves there'd be more clues for it. There aren't.
I could use a car to cook an egg, doesn't mean that's why it was made.
Everybody knows you use GPUs to cook eggs, dont be silly
According to some random guy on medium. I think it's a solid hypothesis but far from proven or "solved".
Watching the video of him struggling with it doesn't really sell the point.
It not being an efficient tool could explain why they're not around, if that's the case.
Knitting is medieval, and not attested to until 11th century CE Egypt.
As spool knitters go, the dodecahedron are terrible for that purpose. The extra faces are useless. This idea has been explored and rejected, because it does not match Roman textile practices.
Why is this poorly researched article upvoted?
Many scars have been founded around the knobs consistent with the process of knitting.
This is flatly incorrect.