Text 1
Archaeologist Elena Rossi argues that Roman dodecahedrons—twelve-sided bronze objects found across northern Europe—were highly specialized astronomical instruments used to determine the optimal planting dates for winter grain. Rossi points out that the varying sizes of the circular openings on the faces align precisely with the angles of sunlight during specific agricultural milestones in the northern latitudes. Because these objects are predominantly found in agricultural border provinces rather than urban centers, she concludes they served a practical, localized agrarian function.
Text 2
Historian Marcus Vance maintains that the regional distribution of Roman dodecahedrons is misleading when interpreting their primary utility. Vance notes that the high concentration of these objects in military camps along the Germanic frontier suggests a connection to soldier subcultures or local trade dynamics rather than farming cycles. He argues that if the dodecahedrons were essential agricultural tools, their presence would be documented in contemporary Roman farming manuals, which detail northern agricultural practices yet make no mention of such devices.
Based on the passages, how would Vance (Text 2) most likely characterize the geographical evidence cited by Rossi (Text 1)?
- AAs support for the idea that the dodecahedrons were traded extensively between soldiers and local farmers.
- As a pattern that is more indicative of military and mercantile activity than of agricultural scheduling.Answer
- CAs proof that the dodecahedrons were manufactured exclusively for use in urban centers rather than rural areas.
- DAs an unreliable finding because Rossi overlooks the agricultural practices documented by Columella.