My mother has a fascination with Roman Dodecahedra, so I 3D printed her one for Christmas. She hasn’t knitted any gloves with them yet. (And may never, but she still likes it and has it sitting on the mantle over the fireplace.)
Yeah, the particular model I printed was specifically designed to be easy-ish to print. It’s printed in like 32 parts (one for each face and one connector for each vertex) and requires assembly after printing. All to avoid overhangs and such.
But yeah. Raw-dogging it with the supports would be pretty nightmarish. Lol.
I have seen people argue that "they are pretty intricate and expensive things to use only for the purposes of knitting gloves. ". To them, I would like to submit my wife’s $1100 sewing machine that definitely gets used, and isn’t just some weird status symbol among creative types.
Knitting isn’t attested until almost a millennium after this artifact was created. Nålbinding was practiced during this era in a variety of areas and can look very similar, but is mechanically very diffferent.
Less ambiguously worded: knitting did not exist in Roman late antiquity. Romans produced their fabric by weaving. It’s very easy to tell the difference when looking at a fabric if someone points it out to you. Knitting was an early medieval probably Middle Eastern/North African invention. It took a while to spread.
It’s very awesome that someone was able to use a model of one of these to knit a glove, but one time I got wasted and knit with pencils. I really love imagining little Roman schoolchildren in woolen mittens and beanies, but it’s just not realistic.
Man, i looked up nalbinding. It’s knitting, 7000 years old, romans made their socks and mittens that way, it’s not crochet, of course, but it’s knitting. Apparently it was only named nalbinding in the 70s, it was just knit before.
Nålbinding and knitting are not the same. They look very similar in the finished product, and can be hard to tell apart by non-experts, but are made by entirely separate processes. Because of the difficulty in identification - because honestly, many archeologists and historians before the 1970s were extremely ignorant on the history of “day to day” folks - many items were misidentified.
Key differences: Nålbinding uses smaller, shorter strands tied together (early spinning methods = shorter bits to work with). Nålbinding works with one finger holding the stitches, the earliest knitting (which tbh, didn’t really reach Europe until the late medieval period) was worked in the round on multiple double pointed needles. What the earliest knitting looked like wouldn’t have looked what granny was doing, or either of the two videos linked above. (I tried to find a video but FUCK dpens, circ gang 4lyf)
Here’s the thing. You said “nålbinding is knitting.”
Is it in the same family? Yes. No one’s arguing that.
As someone who is a scientist who studies knitting, I am telling you, specifically, in science, no one calls nålbinding knitting. If you want to be “specific” like you said, then you shouldn’t either. They’re not the same thing.
If you’re saying “knitting family” you’re referring to the hobby of weaving, which includes things from crochet to macramé to plaiting.
So your reasoning for calling nålbinding knitting is because random people “call fabric crafting knitting?” Let’s get felting and tatting in there, then, too.
Also, calling something knitting or weaving? It’s not one or the other, that’s not how taxonomy works. They’re both. Nålbinding is nålbinding and a member of the knitting family. But that’s not what you said. You said a nålbinding is knitting, which is not true unless you’re okay with calling all members of the knitting family knitting, which means you’d call macramé, plaiting, and other weaving methods knitting, too. Which you said you don’t.
Nålbinding is a very different technique because it is early - working with small scraps of fiber because you’re just grabbing what’s available, and it’s a technique that closes itself (unlike knitting or crochet, you don’t have to “weave in” the ends). Nålbinding also involves you working “off thumb.”
It’s very fun to imagine that Romans had a nifty way of mass producing gloves. But it’s a massive stretch. Clothing was made at home, by the women of the home. Poor women would not have been able to afford a fancy doohickey. Wealthy women didn’t make their own clothes. Prestige clothing (eg togas) was primarily woven.
I’ve seen lots of cool people make art with things that weren’t intended for the purpose of making art, and that’s great! Folks can write messages in the sky with airplanes - that doesn’t mean that airplanes were invented for skywriting.
It might be helpful to try both techniques yourself.
You can buy a spool at Walmart for pretty cheap, they’re often available at thrift stores for less. You’ll want to look up an “i-cord” tutorial. Any old yarn will do honestly, the acrylic super savers will work.
Nålbinding will require that you use wool. The joining process involves felting the ends together (an extra knitter might do this, but it’s not necessary - it’s okay to tie them together because you’re weaving in ends afterwards). Felting is using water and patience to shape wool. For practice, you can use a cheap plastic tapestry needle honestly - save money here because the wool is going to run you a bit more.
I find nålbinding uncomfortable and slow, personally.
Do you also think crochet and knitting are the same? This is a totally different fiber art. I both knit and crochet and would not be able to hop right into this; totally different movements and methods and ways of weaving the yarn. Just because the products are similar does not make it the same.
I hope you’re trolling because you’re getting me good lmao
Just because you could use it for knitting it doesn’t mean it was its purpose.
There’s not a lot of detail, but you can check on the Wiki why it’s ultimately an unlikely explanation: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dodecahedron#Purpose
Wikipedia and this sort of thing…Yknow the article on saddles says that stirrups weren’t invented till the 9th century AD but the article on riding boots said the heel, to prevent your foot going through the stirrup, dates to 5th century BC.
My theory is that they had no practical purpose, they were just a trendy knickknack that eventually fell out of fashion. A Roman equivalent of a fidget spinner or something.
In a few thousand years whatever has become of humanity will be digging up fidget spinners and wondering about them in the same way we do with dodecahedrons. It’s not as if anyone will have been preserving fidget spinner media for millennia to explain them.
Yeah it’s funny that’s never the conclusion but logically it makes sense to not dismiss something as unknown until we’re sure it wasn’t used for anything else. Still can’t wait for future civilizations to be very confused when they see my collection of funny looking coins.
Oftentimes, that’s a sort of inside joke. If it’s even remotely probe-shaped, they assume it was used for sex. But since that doesn’t look nice on academic papers, they’ll use “ritual” as a euphemism.
Seriously, archeologists find a lot of ancient dildos.
Gotta disagree, I bet they’re still finding great-great-great-[…]-grandmother’s dildos (or -grandfather’s, who knows?) and they hold up just fine, all things considered.
They do come to that conclusion all the time, but in some cases it’s impossible to know for sure. If they don’t know for sure then they’re not going to say it’s definitely for decoration only, but they’ll list it as an option, which they have done for this object.
I’m thinking coin sorter. You start by sorting the smallest coins through the littlest holes, and work your way up.
I’m a knitter, and making gloves with it just doesn’t compute for me. It’s too clumsy, with too many extra steps. They’d be making gloves from fabric or leather.
I like this idea because it fits with finding them in coin hoards and it seems practical - a simpler way for a merchant to check the value of coins without a scale and set of precision weights.
Ya know my dumbass mixed up coin sorter and coin holder. But that does present another idea, do you think you could slot a coin in between the little nubs? Basically an antiquaties version of those belt coin holders?
I don’t think so? If the diameter of the coin is wider than the gap between two nubs then you couldn’t fit it in. If it’s thinner than the gap, the coin wouldn’t stay in once it was between all three. That might make for a good puzzle idea but it would need some trick to work, like a detachable knob
Not really, look up nalbinding. That old way of knitting used one thumb and a needle instead of two needles. all those knobs could have been used in place of your left thumb.
Doesn’t that one also present a problem for the popular knitting theory? Aren’t the holes supposed to show the finger size or something? (I’m not positive, as a knitter this seems really unusual for knitting).
It’ll take them a single step on them to understand these were used in wars. That they are no longer used because they were probably banned for human rights violations.
Add comment