I generally agree. On final analysis the evidence is uncertain. So we can’t answer the question with my original confidence. Updating the priors with new information downgraded the posterior probability.

Although I don’t know what you mean by fragility (they are anything but fragile; there is a reason all recovered models in the West are fully intact after thousands of years). And we’ve recovered comparably sized knitting kits (they were standardized into metal tubes containing a large array of common types of knitting, darning, and other needles). So size or weight can’t have mattered to function.

Meanwhile, the Asian gold baubles could be representing their own version of the device (as jewelry often depicted real things). They are quite late (not ancient). We cannot know whether they also had by then the same tech, perhaps in their case in wood, for example (which won’t have survived). This is as true of any purpose proposed (including “it was a game of some kind” or “it was used as a jewelry case, to hang necklaces and rings on” and so on).

Being used as a knitting device doesn’t seem any more plausible than anything else and less plausible than just purely for decoration (likely for the wealthy due to the actual cost of materials and manufacture).

Especially since we’ve also found, dating back to the Roman times, but over by southeast Asia/ Vietnam, the same shape, but as a gold bead https://journals.openedition.org/archeosciences/2072 (Not sure if that was mentioned, I didn’t read every post).

Personally, if not decoration, I’m ruling out knitting and going with something used for some kind of game. It would explain why they are commonplace, but not entirely common, why many of them are very similar, and why the holes vary in size. Knitting seems to be a stretch, especially considering the other variety found that only have three corners to knit from and while you can say “but you don’t have to use those three corners…”

This is, not only an overly complex shape for knitting, but also an impractical shape for the job. It’s volumetric size makes it annoying to travel with, it’s fragility is going to make it impractical to travel with, and it’s near impossible to repair (by anyone but a metalsmith), means it’s, for a third strike, impractical. Especially when you can get better and more customizable results using a board with pegs in it. And if you must, drill a hole to feed the yarn through, but that also seems annoying and impractical and even looks annoying to deal with in the video. Looking at it as a knitting device feels like we’re shoehorning a modern idea onto it because it slightly resembles something.

Though, since it’s 2023 and there’s still no evidence for anything, I think the gold beads of Oc Eo give us the best clue that these may just be decorative

A lot of that’s been addressed already in earlier comments here.

Why do you find it hard to believe knitting was not known? You would think we would find ONE knitting needle before the 5th century in the Middle East, but we do not. This is like saying that Roman Dodecahedrons helped separate nylon polymers. One thousand years separate these with the first knitting needles.

Also, knowing anything about knitting, you know the size of the holes has exactly zero bearing on the thickness of the fingers, it all has to do with the spacing between the pegs, which are symmetrical on the dodecahedron.

It actually does though. Look closely: even those have holes that would allow yard inside the ball to be pulled out. The knobs are then used as the gauge, and the knitwork would be built outward instead of inward. The adaptation of adding an interior gauge is simply an improvement. If chronology shows those kinds to be newer, then we are looking at technological advancement; if not, then we are looking at instruments for two different kinds of knitwork. But as I note in the first paragraph, the knitting tool theory remains uncertain; it’s just the most plausible hypothesis developed to date.

Look at my web blog Ceiling fan

The size of the knitted object is NOT dependent on the placement of the pegs. once the incipient stitch is removed from the peg, it is drawn up tight, removing where it started from the variables determining size of the finished product. It is dependent on the number of pegs, the size of the material, the particular stitch employed, and the tightness it is drawn up to.

It would seem possible to make different sized fingers based on varying those things, and use the holes as a pattern.

The sum of two dice is just as random as one die. It is a different distribution, but it is still random. The same applies to your other examples.

We have examples of knitted gloves, so those objections aren’t definitive. A test for the hypothesis would be the number of stitches in each round of the fingers, if they were predominately 5 that would be evidence in favor.

Yes, baby finger gloves are no more useful than infant shoes…