"Everyone knows what a horse is"
-
The reason that knitting isn't the currently accepted answer, is that its pretty well understood that in the periods where these are found, Romans quite literally did not knit.
First of all, Wikipedia is not a source. All of the sources on Wikipedia are annotated in the text and listed at the bottom of the page. All you have to do is look down, get the actual source, and use that. You couldn't be bothered to do the bare minimum to give an argument but still waste time throwing out links to non-sources?
Secondly, from your "source":
These complexities suggest that knitting is even older than the archeological record can prove.[3]
Earlier pieces having a knitted or crocheted appearance have been shown to be made with other techniques, such as Nålebinding, a technique of making fabric by creating multiple loops with a single needle and thread, much like sewing.[4] Some artefacts have a structure so similar to knitting, for example, 3rd-5th century CE Romano-Egyptian toe-socks, that it is thought the "Coptic stitch" of nalbinding is the forerunner to knitting.
-
I thought for sure it would be this video
-
Knitting is a medieval development that originated around Egypt in probably 1000-1100 CE (AD). There is no evidence of two needle knitting before then.
Romans used sprang, weaving and needlebinding techniques. They did not knit. Some needlebound artifacts can resemble knitting - particularly those in the Coptic stitch. They are still produced using the thumb and needle method of needlebinding and are structurally different.
The type of knitting that YouTube grandma did on the dodecahedron - spool knitting/French knitting - is an even later development - early modern period - 1400-1500s.
As a spool knitter, the dodecahedron makes very little sense. The spacing of the pegs - not the spacing of the holes - is what determines the size of the created tube. Every face of the dodecahedron would create the same size tube - which means you’ve just got extra random pointless shit digging into your hands. Google and compare to a modern spool knitter.
The idea of making a doohickey for fingered gloves, which you would then need to sew on anyway (every knitters least favorite thing to do) - it’s silly.
Here are some 4th/5th century socks - produced via needlebinding.
Here is the earliest known example of true knitting. 1000 at earliest.
You mentioned that not all socks would survive - that is true, but often textile patterns can be recovered through indentions in other material.
-
First of all, Wikipedia is not a source. All of the sources on Wikipedia are annotated in the text and listed at the bottom of the page. All you have to do is look down, get the actual source, and use that. You couldn't be bothered to do the bare minimum to give an argument but still waste time throwing out links to non-sources?
Secondly, from your "source":
These complexities suggest that knitting is even older than the archeological record can prove.[3]
Earlier pieces having a knitted or crocheted appearance have been shown to be made with other techniques, such as Nålebinding, a technique of making fabric by creating multiple loops with a single needle and thread, much like sewing.[4] Some artefacts have a structure so similar to knitting, for example, 3rd-5th century CE Romano-Egyptian toe-socks, that it is thought the "Coptic stitch" of nalbinding is the forerunner to knitting.
What Wikipedia is pointing out is that archeologists for many years did not understand how to distinguish Coptic stitch from knitting. They look very visually similar, but have different physical properties. This did lead to confusion among archeologists - I’ve also seen the fact that other languages don’t distinguish two needle knitting (“true” knitting) from needlebinding techniques (some don’t even seem to have a separate word for crochet, argh…)
I’ve stumbled on some arguments for 8th century examples - but even if we are pushing back the origin date for knitting that far, that still doesn’t put us in Rome (unless we’re counting Byzantium lol). It also does not at all justify the dodecahedron.
-
Gloves. There's several YouTube videos of people knitting gloves with them. If you use 5 holes, you'll end up with a slight curve to one side for free. You can use the hole-sizes as a guide for finger width. Most of the work is done by the nubs sticking out, which hold the outermost stitch.
YouTube grandma was using it as a French/spool knitter. You can do this with four nails in a board if you are really inclined. The problem is that the peg distance determines the size of the tube - not the holes. All faces would make the same size tube, which is just adding pointless bits to make it unpleasant to use (and more expensive/difficult to manufacture.)
-
What Wikipedia is pointing out is that archeologists for many years did not understand how to distinguish Coptic stitch from knitting. They look very visually similar, but have different physical properties. This did lead to confusion among archeologists - I’ve also seen the fact that other languages don’t distinguish two needle knitting (“true” knitting) from needlebinding techniques (some don’t even seem to have a separate word for crochet, argh…)
I’ve stumbled on some arguments for 8th century examples - but even if we are pushing back the origin date for knitting that far, that still doesn’t put us in Rome (unless we’re counting Byzantium lol). It also does not at all justify the dodecahedron.
-
Actual guess after hearing that they're found with money. Used it to check size of coins for valuation? Sort of like how some coin counters with?
A piggy bank even?
-
There is no evidence of that, and it does not align with the known techniques that Romans used for textile production. It would make zero sense as a tool for weaving, sprang or needlebinding.
I also have strong doubts for finger gloves being anything other than extraordinarily rare. Cmon, Roman clothes are mostly just draping yourself with big ass rectangles.
Like, there’s just nothing there. YouTube grandma did something cute - I’ve been blackout drunk at the science museum knitting shit with pencils - that’s not evidence that pencils are knitting tools. It doesn’t make sense as a textile art tool. The closest might be as a cordage/rope making tool - maaaaybe all of those extra knobs add some kind of tension - but that just doesn’t seem likely either.
-
I say it's a key to a door that was destroyed and melted down. Behind the door. Butt plugs.
-
If you think the idea of “knitting” is itself too complicated to understand - why are you making arguments about textile history? What knowledge or interest do you have of textile history?
-
That doesn't make sense. Why not just make it dodecahedral shaped and have little tear drop knobs at every vertici?
-
If you think the idea of “knitting” is itself too complicated to understand - why are you making arguments about textile history? What knowledge or interest do you have of textile history?
I understand it, mate, I don't think you understand it.
-
ion know why you saying “again” like you made a big point of it being a children’s book (you didn’t). I’m just saying I don’t like media like this. It feels like they’re delegitimizing research that is already brushed off by society as not useful compared to something in a stem field.
We can have different opinions lol
-
I understand it, mate, I don't think you understand it.
What exactly do you “understand”? Do you knit? Do you do any sort of fiber art? Sometimes I think an aspect of this conversation is that people don’t understand or respect the complexity of fiber arts. Fast fashion has entirely distorted our understanding of how much complexity is involved in just producing the thread. Wool and flax have to be spun before you can knit or weave with them.
Needlebinding makes more sense in that premodern context where you don’t have modern sheep bred to have nice long staple length and the kind of spinning wheel to get consistent long threads. Needlebinding you usually work with short lengths, felted together.
It’s worked on/off the thumb with a single needle. Tying it to one of the dodecahedron pegs would be dumb.
For weaving, I guess you could use it as a really stupid pin loom.
Which yeah - I don’t think the Romans were stupid. Making a needlessly expensive metal object to do things extra inefficiently… why? The Romans had better ways to make textiles, which we actually have evidence of.
Arguments in history have to be more than “I saw a video of someone on YouTube doing someone cool, so that must be how the world works.”
-
Part of a standardized curriculum
-
Haha, they don't know how to use the three dodecahedron's.
-
Artistic embellishment.
-
with lead probably
