I didn't know that so I went and read about them. I could not find a single source that definitively states that "it's a tool for making fingers in knitted gloves."
That there are YouTube videos showing it being used to do exactly that does NOT mean that was its intended or original function.
In fact, all of the sources I consulted stated that your proposed function is one of approximately 50 possible and speculated uses but that there is still no conclusive evidence as to the device's original function.
Thus, I find your characterization of the article as "click bait" to be wide of the mark.
It's a nifty theory, but unfortunately, it isn't true.
If it were used for that, there would be wear at the bases of the little knobs as the yarn rubs along it. None of the dodecahedrons we have show any wear in those areas.
That's a hypothesis amongst others, but it's just that, with essentially no hard evidence backing it up.
And there's counter-evidence (if mostly circumstantial) in that the first known knitted artefacts are from centuries later, to say nothing of knitting spools which they would predate by some 1300 years.
This hypothesis also lacks a lot of explanatory power e.g. why did some of them find (and take) room in coin hoards? Why have they been found all over Gallia, Germania, and Britannia, but not Italia, Hispania, or the Oriens?
> why did some of them find (and take) room in coin hoards?
People who had access to gold used some of it to create jewellery.
> Why have they been found all over Gallia, Germania, and Britannia, but not Italia, Hispania, or the Oriens?
Certain types of jewellery can be found in certain regions. This can be attributed to specific trading network or local preferences. I don't know if that could be proven, but makes sense to me.
Every time someone posts this article someone smugly says "it's a tool for knitting" and then everyone speculates and points to folks saying it's not a tool for knitting.
In my estimation this is amost certainly correct. It accounts for most if not all of the observed properties of these objects. The other suggestions only ever account for one or two. But lazy journalists, aided by AI, will no doubt continue to treat all the suggestions as equally likely.
Knitting hadn't been invented when these were around - we know the Romans made gloves, socks, and other garments with a great deal of supporting evidence, there's not a single example of a mitten, nor of any kind of knitting like this. The Romans wove cloth on a loom and stitched it together. There's no signs of wear on any examples of the dodecahedra, so it's not a hand tool that comes into contact with wool or metals which would leave at least micro-abrasions. Whatever these were they were not a hand tool. It snows in north Italy, why wouldn't they need gloves in some places where it snows outside of Gallia? The knitting tool is among the weakest hypotheses in terms of evidence.
If journalists were to refer to these as a knitting tool it would be because they were lazy and didn't do any research into that hypothesis. In general journalists writing on this tend to acknowledge scholarly opinion that their use is unknown and hypotheses about it are speculative. The lazy journalists are the ones who write about how some Youtuber decided it's a knitting tool or whatever and uncritically repeat this without researching scholarly consensus or what historians and archaeologists have to say about the tool.
>It accounts for most if not all of the observed properties of these objects
1. How does it account for the different-sized holes on the dodecahedron's faces? Before you answer "to knit for different sized fingers" let me remind you that knitting doesn't work like that, that is, the diameter of the final product is determined by the distance of the pegs, which is the same across all the faces.
2. How does it account for the similar-looking Roman icosahedrons?
3. How does it account for the fact that knitting was invented hundreds of years after the fall of the Roman Empire?
This is some Joe Rogan-tier crank theory, that no self-respecting archaeologist takes seriously. It's literally based on a single YouTube video, yet for some reason it gets endlessly repeated, probably because it makes people feel good that a random grandma figured out something that the fat cats of the archaeologist establishment failed to crack.
This isn't knitting, it is technically nalbinding, and yes the holes are used to create different sized fingers and it works perfectly well for that purpose.
Why not? Egyptian pharaohs were buried with (among other things) food and everyday necessities, because it was believed they'd take them along to the afterlife for use there.
I feel like "why not" is not a sufficient answer, especially when trying to explain a single object. The pharaohs were buried with everything, including people, so that's not a great analogy.
> Archaeologists have recovered dodecahedrons from the graves of men and women, in coin hoards and even in refuse heaps, so a blanket explanation for their use has not been found.
There's no indication these were the only things in graves that I can see.
