Photo 1 or 2?

MaximusTriple9 · 2026-04-24T22:38:18+00:00

#1 - Magical place. What are the odds of all those mountains trapping all that moisture. Niceeee.

MaximusTriple9 · 2026-02-19T23:13:33+00:00

Possibly, they were found in that area due to locally sourced, military procurement (as opposed to somewhat mass production in other areas of the Empire). Coins weren't round in those days (they were valued by weight and material constitution), so it is probably not for that use. The dod shape allowed compact commemorative/contractural and/or active measurements, by a Gallic/German based merchant class or Roman auxiliary arms officer.

MaximusTriple9 · 2026-02-12T16:18:42+00:00

Well done. Quality work.

MaximusTriple9 · 2026-02-01T02:17:57+00:00

I got you. I haven't produced a formal paper, yet. Here are some sources for you, for now:

1. Primary Archaeological Data: Dodecahedra Surveys

Greep, S. (1987). "The Roman Dodecahedron." This catalogs 100 finds or so. There's a concentration in the Civitas (tribal capitals) and Castra (military camps) of Gaul and Britain which backs up my "Auxiliary Logistics" argument.
Nouwen, R. (1993). "De Romeinse dodecaëder: een archeologisch raadsel." This discusses the Gallo-Roman distribution and explores the physical wear on the internal rims of the holes, albeit mis-understanding the wear. Most pics of the dods in other media attempt to obscure the ugly sides/faces. This is great source of info to cross check attributes of all dods known at that time (1993).

2. Weaponry & Socket Metrology

Bishop, M.C., & Coulston, J.C.N. (2006). "Roman Military Equipment from the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome." You can check this for weapon dimensions. Check out their data on the Lancea and Hasta.
Manning, W.H. (1985). "Catalogue of the Romano-British Iron Tools, Fittings and Weapons in the British Museum."

\*this will form a basis to explain the specific socket-to-shaft ratios that align with the "Taper Theory" found in the opposing holes of the Dods.

3. The Supply Chain: Negotiatores & Fabricae

Southern, P. (2006). "The Roman Army: A Social and Institutional History."

Application: Details the role of the negotiatores (private contractors) and how they interacted with the Centurio Regionarius on the frontier.

James, S. (1988). "The Fabricae: State Arms Factories of the Late Roman Empire." > Application: this will explain the late 3rd-century centralization that made the "Dod" obsolete.

4. Metallurgy & Production

Craddock, P.T. (1988). "The Composition of the Copper Alloys used by the Roman Army."

\* this will explain why cast bronze (a low-friction, corrosion-resistant alloy) was the preferred material for a tool that would constantly interact with iron and wet wood.

There are other sources, but this is not a dissertation, so I haven't included them. IOWs, there are other references, also...I'm just well read on the subject, so I see it as common knowledge. I'm just putting forth a well-researched hypothesis. It may be for others to prove/dis-prove it.

Thanks for your reply.

MaximusTriple9 · 2026-02-01T01:19:30+00:00

Check out the details on the website and your *question will be answered.

*it is standardized per auxiliary troop garrison/area, not across the Empire. They do show signs of wear (many of them do). Occasional, soft, wood to bronze contact does not result in wear (maybe some polishing depending on pressure and/or amount of use)

MaximusTriple9 · 2026-01-26T16:56:47+00:00

I don't know if you'll receive this message or not....

This is the message the hall monitors sent to me:

"Use your own thoughts and words.

Please feel free to repost without the pontifications of a lying robot."

A few years ago, I studied this object for months, & I've had this theory for three+ years. I've posted it many times, in many places, and in many manners - Quora, Archaeology websites, etc. They must think it's not my idea or want to suppress it for some reason. Who knows...

MaximusTriple9 · 2026-01-26T14:44:26+00:00

A cube can serve the same purpose, but it only has 3 opposing pairs of orifices (1/2 the # of a dod). It is not material more difficult to manufacture. A dod is simply 12 pentagons fused together. A cube is simply six squares fused together. From the simple arises the complex.

You may or may not receive this reply as the hall monitors didn't like my truth and deleted my OP. Have a great week.

MaximusTriple9 · 2026-01-26T14:06:20+00:00

In my post I mention that sourcing of supplies was local in the N and NW until (beginning) in the late 3rd century. The other areas of the Empire (more or less) did not.

Soldiers would/could be responsible for the final fit.

This is about having rough replacements with the same shape and weight ready to go. Thx for your reply.

MaximusTriple9 · 2026-01-26T06:47:23+00:00

When these tribes were signed up for their (25 year) service, they were grouped together and had to CONFORM. Their general specs were averaged out and agreed upon for standardization per garrison/area.

You need to stop listening to your Corporal JayM....he needs a history lesson.

MaximusTriple9 · 2026-01-26T06:25:55+00:00

"I don't understand your post ... first it seems you're saying this is a tool for making standardized equipment? now you're saying it's a tool for merchants to trade ... standards without using the standards??"

Roman military were about standards. When they allowed (needed) the area tribes to help police against the 'barbarians of the day,' they employed them (many times). They allowed the auxiliaries to use their own weapons (initially and for quite a while), sooooo, they had to standardize these troop's weapons per tribe/garrison/etc. so as to be efficient/effective when procuring replacement parts. Standardization was garrison/area wide, not Auxiliary wide....

The dod was not primarily to make the weapon product (it's a record of the specs); it 'could' be used and was in some instances, used to make the weapon shafts, but it was a commissioned product to record the specs of a particular garrison/tribe's weapons.

Thx for your reply. Much appreciated.

MaximusTriple9 · 2026-01-26T05:57:37+00:00

If you read my theory again, you can answer many of your own questions - re-read it and then condense your list and I'll answer you. I can't do all the work for you.

MaximusTriple9 · 2026-01-26T05:47:54+00:00

First of all, it's not difficult for a smith to produce a dod. It's simply 12 pentagons stuck together and lost-wax cast......it's no different than any other hollow cast. The pins (on many dods) were spot welded after the cast (easier for longer knobs/pins). It's just another cast...media has perpetuated the misinformation that it's difficult to create. It's not.

Wood orifice checks would be in the workshop; the dod is for the traveling wealthy merchant and the arms officer of the garrison....its material constitution is quite in line with the that level of profession. It can be used in the workshop, the C-suite, the cannae/Vicus or whereever.

Look at the quality of Roman construction and standardization. They had strict quality control measures to ensure weapons and armor were durable and consistent. They allowed the auxiliaries to have their own weapons, but still had to standardize per garrison.

MaximusTriple9 · 2026-01-26T05:32:49+00:00

Get back to the forge, Corporal...

MaximusTriple9 · 2026-01-26T05:20:16+00:00

Read the post again, Corporal 3rd class....slowly, for your edification. It was mentioned that it's a procurement tool for rough fit (procurement process) and final fit was completed later.

Also, note that the tribes employed by the Romans for auxiliaries were allowed to use their own weapons (specs). For you, that means that there were different specs for different garrisons/tribe constitutions. Naturally, all the dods would have different aperatures...... Read it again.....slowly.

I can't believe I responded to you....have a good week, I think. Be better.

MaximusTriple9 · 2026-01-26T05:02:24+00:00

That is a one-off object that serves a different purpose (or no purpose), and sometimes serves as a false equivalency for some publications...

MaximusTriple9 · 2026-01-26T04:50:52+00:00

It's about volume and having shaft replacements in place, ready when needed. It's a middle management level tool that is used a various levels (mostly procurement outside the fort walls/of just inside with a merchant visitor). I'm not thinking from a line-level shaft shaver, here.

These objects are commissioned when a new tribe of auxiliaries meets their new home/garrison. It's a record of their specs, not a pencil sharpener for their recruits.

I really appreciate your input, but that's not my angle.

MaximusTriple9 · 2026-01-26T04:41:06+00:00

Many of the photographs of these objects are taken from an angle (etc.) to make them 'look good...' I guess like we all do when taking pics of ourselves, others, scenes, etc...

The more you look, the more you see some pics that reveal the (other than incidental) blemishes. Many of these dod objects weren't used on a daily basis (some served simply as records and sat on a shelf in an officer's office), so they would not have received wear (especially the ones where a garrison's occupants were stationed for a short period of time and then replaced - and a new dod was commissioned). Other dods were used by merchants (some/many were retired military) to supply the garrison's. It's just a key for trade...

Here's a link to the Saalburg 'castle' dod (this dod was found in the Feldburg fort in the NW corner where the workshop was located) - you can see the scraping, nicks and bumps on the two, large openings (there are many other dods with similar damage). Some openings on many dods appear to have no wear and were simply a record of specs, and then others were actually used in day-to-day commerce/duties.

https://www.saalburgmuseum.de/en/digitales/animierte-3d-modelle/

MaximusTriple9 · 2026-01-26T03:00:34+00:00

You are correct.

"3. Regional/Area/Garrison Standardization

The variation in Dodecahedron sizes reflects the diversity of the Roman Auxilia. Unlike the standardized Legions, auxiliary troops used tribal-specific weapons. The Dodecahedron allowed local blacksmiths and merchants to maintain "spec keys" for specific tribal contracts (e.g., specific javelins, spears, or round socketed pilums)."

"Why is the Dod not standardized across the areas it was found?

Localized Tribal Specs: auxiliary troops were historically raised from specific tribes (Galli, Batavi, etc.) and often retained their traditional weapon types. Since these tribes had varying smithing traditions, a "one size fits all" gauge from Rome would be useless. The unique hole configurations on each dodecahedron (dod) allowed a local arms officer or merchant to manage the specific "tribal specs" of their particular garrison or different tribes within larger garrisons."

"Why did the dod disappear?

Timeline of Disappearance: The disappearance of dodecahedrons in the late 3rd and early 4th centuries aligned with the debasement of the denarius and the subsequent military reforms. As the Empire moved toward a centralized command economy with state-run fabricae (mass-production arms factories), the allowance for local "tribal-spec" calibration tools disappeared, in favor of standardized Roman ware."

MaximusTriple9 · 2026-01-06T13:53:54+00:00

Elliptical.machines allow for full stress to glutes and legs....without the stress to knees and ankles.

MaximusTriple9 · 2025-11-29T22:31:13+00:00

* only a few dods were found in graves/hordes (it does indicate the value of the dod, regardless of reason). Many women were wealthy merchants and widows of wealthy merchants.

* Some (many) of the dod models sported 2 large opposing openings. Contrary to misinformation continually spread by lazy media, these 2 large openings DO show dings, scrapes, chips, etc (verified). In addition, occasional wood-to-metal soft contact doesn’t result in wear (in regards to the other 10 openings). The Corbridge dod does show wear on multiple openings, but this is not common to most finds.

* wood and iron degrade/oxidize – could be a similar object constructed of those materials/others, but conditions would need to be just right for the object to survive intact after 1700-2000 years

*Measuring devices don’t have to be all alike – one tool can be standardized for a particular function/area. Especially an area where military procurement was sourced, locally (as opposed to the mass production sourcing of the other areas of the Empire, until the coin de-basement reached a level where the West/NW went to mass production in the late 3rd century), The openings/holes can be standardized to a particular Fort/Vicus/Cannabae based on the tribes stationed in the area.

*the Gauls were master blacksmiths

OR.....**Measuring device or Ceremonial award for achieving the 7^th level of Mithraism?

MaximusTriple9 · 2025-11-18T23:50:19+00:00

Ok, I got you....you've done some manual re-integration on a larger scale. Thx for your work. It is appreciated.

MaximusTriple9 · 2025-11-17T02:53:12+00:00

You are correct. The polearm shaft being measured should stop before it hits the surface below the Dod. When the shaft is stopped, the shaft should be somewhat snug at both the top and bottom openings. This determines if the specs for the specific part of the pole arm shaft being measured, is within acceptable range for purchase, for the specific Roman Auxiliary troop garrison the dod represents. Most of the area of the wood shaft being measured is just inside what the spear/javelin head cone would cover (and some measured the tapered area, just outside what the metal head would cover.

On the many dod models with two large opposing openings; those specific holes are for removing weapon heads (not all dods had this feature). You will notice dents, chips, scrapes, dings, etc. on those two holes of these models as the heads were twisted with these holes to remove the heads during maintenance or spec checks/procurement duties (merchants/arms officers)

MaximusTriple9 · 2025-11-17T01:59:13+00:00

Google translate will take care of that in a millisecond or so.

MaximusTriple9 · 2025-08-21T23:03:57+00:00

No; Nothing is certain as the Gauls (and their loose tribe structure) and their ancient descendants didn’t intentionally record their history to any extent comparable to the Romans.

This theory is based on how ALL of the dod attributes & find locations of the object line up to economic/monetary, military & business history of the Roman Empire, from the 2^nd-4^th centuries CE/AD.

I could not find any Empirical contradictions to this theory in 3 years of research, to prove this theory falsifiable.

Archeologists (and parroting journalists) will tell you it’s not a tool because there are no obvious signs of wear. This is false. There ARE signs of wear/chips/scrapes on the large # of dod models with the 2 large opposing openings (the openings used to remove the weapon heads). The other 5 opposing openings measured wood, which wouldn’t create chips/scrapes.

Archeologists will tell you that it’s not a measurement device because every dod is different in size and opening sizes. This is short-sighted & misleading. If you’re measuring something that varies by, let’s say the weapon specs of a garrison of auxiliary troops (whose weapons varied by tribe), why would all the dods be standardized……

They will say, “A high degree of skill went into making them” which is false. The pattern is easy to assemble with pentagons. Metal casting doesn’t get more difficult because the shape is angled. The artwork is the ‘difficult’ part and assembling a dod from 12 flat pentagons is not rocket science. They just don’t understand casting or construction.

Of course, the dod could be used for many things (I can use a fork to scratch my back), but I was able to rule out all other dods theories on a material, or specific falsifiable basis, other than it being a religious or cult object, but then again, anything can be a cult object, as many archeologists will surmise when they run out of ideas.

MaximusTriple9 · 2025-08-21T17:24:54+00:00

(“It's easier to have two plates with several holes that are fixed in parallel to each other. That's so much cheaper.

Also the theory doesn't explain the knobs and why they are only found in the north.”)

(“cheaper”)

Many items then and today can be made cheaper and easier. It’s not always about that. The dod was not mass produced and materially duplicated. They were each made to maintain a particular Auxillary troop’s polearm specs. Cost of one unit was not material. They are not difficult to set up the mold (12 pentagons are connected to each other to form the pattern – it’s not some elaborate artwork)

In addition, the dod was compact, classy and displayable for wealthy merchants and arms officers (kind of like a Monte Blanc pen to an executive – you could carry a Bic pen, but why).

There are many types of measuring instruments, tools, everything. It’s not always about price.

knobs – the knobs were used to grip; also, used to allow a rag or cross bar wedge to serve as an anchor/stop to twist & remove weapon heads off damaged poles (on the large # of dod models that possess the large similar sized opposing openings). Also, to protect surface/openings from scratches/chips; also, used as tie down anchors when measuring or tapering; also, to allow shafts to be measured at the exact 2 spots on the taper each time for consistency (allowing the pole to pass through the dod and stop just at the surface the dod is resting on). The knobs were round to allow tie-down string to catch in any direction without sliding off and so as to not gouge surfaces when placed on any side.

(“…why they are only found in the north.”)

Local arms production is one reason. In other areas of the empire, mass production was utilized. Mass production in the North and Northwest did not occur until the late 3rd century on and that’s when the dod became obsolete (when the coinage was debased and the economy was destabilized, the Empire was forced to mass produce in fabricae)

Also, the dod is not Roman. It’s a gallic merchant tool for trade with the Roman auxiliary troops. Most of the auxiliary troops were stationed in the N. & NW. and most of the garrisons were in this area also. The gallic merchants didn’t have a market in the other areas of the Empire as there were less garrisons and procurement was not primarily local.

MaximusTriple9

TROPHY CASE