Is this carved rock an ancient Roman board game?
A flat stone with a geometric pattern carved into its surface, discovered at the Roman site of Coriovallum in present-day Heerlen, Netherlands, may represent a previously unknown Roman board game. The stone, made of imported French limestone and dating from between AD 250 and 476, features incised lines and visible wear consistent with the movement of game pieces. Researchers from Leiden University used artificial intelligence to simulate thousands of games, concluding that the pattern could correspond to a type of blocking game, tentatively named Ludus Coriovalli. The AI simulations, conducted with the Ludii system, tested 130 rule variations from ancient European board games, including Scandinavian and Italian variants. The results identified nine plausible blocking games that could explain the distinctive wear patterns, particularly concentrated along one diagonal line on the stone. Blocking games involve players attempting to restrict their opponent’s movements, a style not previously documented in Roman Europe until the Middle Ages. This finding suggests the possibility of a previously unrecognized category of Roman gameplay. Board games were popular in Roman culture, with known examples such as Ludus latrunculorum, a strategic capture game, and Ludus duodecim scriptorum, an ancestor of backgammon. However, many games remain unknown due to a lack of written records or surviving artifacts. The discovery at Coriovallum adds to the understanding of Roman leisure activities and highlights the potential for AI to unlock the secrets of ancient pastimes. Despite the promising analysis, some experts remain cautious. While the wear patterns and AI simulations support the game board hypothesis, definitive proof is lacking. The debate underscores the challenges in interpreting archaeological finds without explicit historical documentation, but the research opens new avenues for exploring Roman recreational culture and the evolution of board games in Europe.
Original story by New Scientist • View original source ↗
Loading comments...