A woman on her phone in Havana, Cuba. Mobile phones have become ubiquitous the world over — and so has the divide between Android and iPhone users.Credit: Yamil Lage / AFP via Getty Images.
Us versus them: it's the archetypal binary. It makes the world understandable by dividing it into two competing halves: labor against capital, West against East, men against women.
These maps are the first to show the dividing lines between one of the world's more recent binaries: Android vs. Apple. Published by Electronics Hub, they are based on a qualitative analysis of almost 350,000 tweets worldwide that presented positive, neutral, and negative attitudes toward Android and/or Apple.
Steve Jobs wanted to go "thermonuclear"
Feelings between Android and Apple were pretty tribal from the get-go. It was Steve Jobs himself who said, when Google rolled out Android a mere ten months after Apple launched the iPhone, "I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this."
Buying a phone is like picking a side in the eternal feud between the Hatfields and the McCoys. Each choice for automatically comes with an in-built arsenal of arguments against.
If you are an iPhone person, you appreciate the sleekness and simplicity of its design, and you are horrified by the confusing mess that is the Android operating system. If you are an Android aficionado, you pity the iPhone user, a captive of an overly expensive closed ecosystem, designed to extract money from its users.
Even without resorting to those extremes, many of us will recognize which side of the dividing line that we are on. Like the American Civil War, that line runs through families and groups of friends, but that would be a bit confusing to chart geographically. To un-muddle the information, these maps zoom out to state and country level.
If the contest is based on the number of countries, Android wins. In all, 74 of the 142 countries surveyed prefer Android (in green on the map). Only 65 favor Apple (colored grey). That's a 52/48 split, which may not sound like a decisive vote, but it was good enough for Boris Johnson to get Brexit done (after he got breakfast done, of course).
And yes, math-heads: 74 plus 65 is three short of 142. Belarus, Fiji, and Peru (in yellow on the map) could not decide which side to support in the Global Phone War.
What about the United States, home of both the Android and the iPhone? Another victory for the former, albeit a slightly narrower one: 30.16 percent of the tweets about Android were positive versus just 29.03 percent of the ones about Apple.
United States: Texas surrounded!
Credit: Electronics Hub
There can be only one winner per state, though, and that leads to this preponderance of Android logos. Frankly, it's a relief to see a map showing a visceral divide within the United States that is not the coasts versus the heartland.
- Apple dominates in 19 states: a solid Midwestern bloc, another of states surrounding Texas, the Dakotas and California, plus North Carolina, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island.
- And that's it. The other 32 are the United States of Android. You can drive from Seattle to Miami without straying into iPhone territory. But no stopovers in Dallas or Houston – both are behind enemy lines!
North America: strongly leaning toward Android
Credit: Electronics Hub
Only eight of North America's 21 countries surveyed fall into the Apple category.
- The U.S. and Canada lean Android, while Mexico goes for the iPhone.
- Central America is divided, but here too Android wins hands down, 5-2.
Europe: Big Five divided
Credit: Electronics Hub
In Europe, Apple wins, with 20 countries preferring the iPhone, 17 going for Android, and Belarus sitting on the fence.
- Of Western Europe's Big Five markets, three (UK, Germany, Spain) are pro-Android, and two (France, Italy) are pro-Apple.
- Czechia and Slovakia are an Apple island in the Android sea that is Central Europe. Glad to see there is still something the divorcees can agree on.
South America: almost even
Credit: Electronics Hub
In South America, the divide is almost even.
- Five countries prefer Android, four Apple, and one is undecided.
- In Peru, both Android- and Apple-related tweets were 25 percent positive.
Africa: watch out for Huawei
Credit: Electronics Hub
In Africa, Android wins by 17 countries versus Apple's 15.
- There's a solid Android bloc running from South Africa via DR Congo all the way to Ethiopia.
- iPhone countries are scattered throughout the north (Algeria), west (Guinea), east (Somalia), and south (Namibia).
Huawei — increasingly popular across the continent — could soon dramatically change the picture in Africa. Currently still running on Android, the Chinese phone manufacturer has just launched its own operating system, called Harmony.
Middle East: Iran vs. Saudi Arabia (again)
Credit: Electronics Hub
In the Middle East and Central Asia, Android wins 8 countries to Apple's 6.
- But it's complicated. One Turkish tweeter wondered how it is that iPhones seem more popular in the Asian half of Istanbul, while Android phones prevailed in the European part of the city.
- The phone divide matches up with the region's main geopolitical one: Iran prefers Android, Saudi Arabia the iPhone.
Asia-Pacific: Apple on the periphery
Credit: Electronics Hub
Another wafer-thin majority for Android in the Asia-Pacific region: 13 countries versus 12 for Apple — and one abstention (Fiji).
- The two giants of the Asian mainland, India and China, are both Android countries. Apple countries are on the periphery.
- And if India is Android, its rival Pakistan must be Apple. Same with North and South Korea.
Experts point to the fact that both operating systems are becoming more alike with every new generation as a potential resolution to the conflict. But as any student of human behavior will confirm: smaller differences will only exacerbate the rivalry between both camps.
Maps taken from Electronics Hub, reproduced with kind permission.
Strange Maps #1096
Got a strange map? Let me know at strangemaps@gmail.com.
Research vessel collecting hydrographic data via multibeam sonar, fanning out sound waves beneath its hull to the ocean floor. Credit: NOAA / Public domain
Dear billionaires, are you afraid of water? While Jeff, Elon, and Richard are throwing mountains of cash at a private-sector replay of the space race, more than half of the planet they take off from remains unmapped. To be precise: 80 percent of the ocean floor. Considering oceans cover 70 percent of Earth, that works out to 56 percent of its total surface.
The Japanese, champion ocean mappers
This map puts what is missing into perspective. The light areas are already mapped. For the dark patches, we often only have the slightest understanding of the local depth and shape of the ocean floor.
The distribution of light and dark tells us something about the progress of submarine mapping. Light-blue lines crossing the dark-blue expanse are busy, well-charted shipping lanes. Larger light-blue patches correspond to the waters of countries where mapping their bit of ocean is a priority.
- As the map (and the graph) shows, Japan leads the world: only 2.3 percent of its Exclusive Economic Zone remains unmapped.
- Next, at some distance, are the UK (9.4 percent of its EEZ unmapped), Norway (18.1 percent), and New Zealand (26 percent).
- The U.S. is not doing too poorly, with just 30.1 percent of its EEZ left to chart. Yet Hawaii, mentioned separately here, has almost half (47.5 percent) of its EEZ left to explore.
- China has no maps of almost nine-tenths (88.6 percent) of its ocean floor. But that's still better than the stragglers on the list: Madagascar (94.5 percent), Bangladesh (96.7 percent), and Thailand (98.5 percent).
Up from 6 percent in 2017
As of the middle of this year, the share of the world's total ocean floor that has been mapped in detail stands at 20.6 percent. That may not sound like a lot, but it's already a great improvement over 2017, when Seabed 2030 was launched. Back then, just 6 percent of the world's oceans had been mapped by modern means.
Unmapped areas of the ocean floor, as per the 2020 dataset. Due to COVID, the coverage only progressed from 19 percent last year to 20.6 percent this year. Credit: Andrew Douglas-Clifford / The Map Kiwi. Reproduced with kind permission.
The project's goal to achieve 100 percent public access coverage by 2030 is ambitious, but they have help. Seabed 2030 is urging the many governments, companies, and institutions who privately have data on non-covered areas to release it.
It is also crowdsourcing by asking just about any vessel that is willing and able to produce depth data to contribute to the effort – even if it's just an ordinary fishing vessel or a tiny yacht.
Why do we need ocean floor maps?
Why do we actually need better maps of the ocean floor? One answer is curiosity. Another is science. Another is navigation. As a relevant example, take the tragic accident of the USS San Francisco in 2005.
Cruising at a depth of no more than 525 feet (160 m) somewhere south of Guam, this U.S. Navy nuclear attack submarine collided head-on with an uncharted seamount. The violent collision injured more than two-thirds of the ship's 137-member crew. One sailor later died from his injuries. The sub itself also sustained heavy damage.
Knowing the terrain underwater is essential for rolling out cables, pipelines, and other underwater infrastructure. It will make it easier to spot and protect marine biodiversity (with seamounts often serving as hotspots). The shape of the ocean floor also influences currents, and thus also weather patterns and climate change. And insights into submarine geography may even be instrumental in predicting the course of future tsunamis.
The return of Boaty McBoatface
Seabed 2030 is a project funded by the Nippon Foundation and GEBCO, the General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans. The project's aim is to bring together all available bathymetric data to produce a definitive, all-encompassing, and open-access map of the world's ocean floor by 2030.
The Drake Passage between South America and Antarctica has been mapped thanks to the tweaking of usual sailing routes.Credit: Andrew Douglas-Clifford / The Map Kiwi. Reproduced with kind permission.
It seems the project is already creating its own weather, so to speak. British research vessels plying the waters of the Drake Passage have modified their usual routes in order to map more of the area, with noticeable results.
One of the British ships contributing to the global mapping effort is the RRS Sir David Attenborough, specially equipped with a deep-water multibeam echo-sounding system. The research vessel is perhaps better known for its initial name, chosen by the British public in a poll the result of which was sadly rejected by the authorities: Boaty McBoatface.
Increasingly, so-called USVs (uncrewed surface vessels) — essentially, underwater drones — are deployed to map ever larger parts of the ocean. And yes, the mysteries of the deep have also captured the imagination of at least one billionaire. As explained by the BBC's Jonathan Amos, Texan billionaire Victor Vescovo has led expeditions to the deepest parts of the world's oceans. With his vessel DSSV Pressure Drop, Vescovo recently mapped an area the size of France in a mere ten months.
Thanks to his efforts and those of many others, future versions of this map will turn increasingly light blue. Around the year 2030, there will finally be nothing new left to map on this planet.
Map produced by Andrew Douglas-Clifford, a.k.a. The Map Kiwi. Reproduced with kind permission.
The map shows the world in the Spilhaus projection. For more on that see Strange Maps #939, Finally, a world map that's all about oceans.
Strange Maps #1095
Got a strange map? Let me know at strangemaps@gmail.com.
Follow Strange Maps on Twitter and Facebook.
September 24th, 1933: Communist Member of Parliament Saklatvala Shapurji addresses a crowd at Speakers' Corner in London's Hyde Park.Credit: Keystone / Getty Images
Who loves free speech? As this world map shows: not everybody — at least not in equal measure. Of the 33 countries surveyed, free speech gets its highest approval in those shaded green. Approval is "medium" in yellow countries and lowest in red ones.
Some democracies are more nominal than others
- Some of the highest-rated countries are what you might expect: in North America (U.S.) and northern Europe (UK, Denmark, Norway, Sweden). Also on that list: Spain and Japan. Surprising inclusions: Venezuela and Hungary, two countries not recently noted for the fair and balanced nature of their public discourse.
- Countries with "medium" interest in free speech are scattered across Latin America (Mexico, Brazil, Argentina), continental Europe (France, Germany, Czechia, Poland), the Middle East (Israel), Africa (South Africa), and the Asia-Pacific region (Australia, Philippines, Taiwan, South Korea).
- Interestingly, all the countries on the red list, professing the least interest in free speech, are nominal democracies, although some are more nominal than others. They include countries in Europe (Russia, Turkey), the Middle East (Lebanon), Africa (Tunisia, Egypt, Kenya, Nigeria), and Asia-Pacific (Pakistan, India, Malaysia, Indonesia).
Global variation in the Justitia Free Speech Index. Maximum score: 100.Credit: Justitia
Orwell, defending the Freedom of the Park
The survey, conducted in February 2021 for Danish think tank Justitia, is about popular attitudes rather than legal frameworks. That is relevant because, as George Orwell observed in "Freedom of the Park" (1945), free speech depends less on the law of the land than on the will of the people.
Justitia's report, titled "The Future of Free Speech", opens with a quote from Orwell's essay:
"If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them."
To find out about those attitudes, Justitia weighed the responses of a total of 50,000 people across 33 countries worldwide to several potentially controversial statements, including:
Government censorship should not apply to
- what people say;
- what the media reports;
- how people use the internet.
People should be able to
- publicly criticize the government;
- publicly offend minority groups;
- criticize the respondent's religion and beliefs;
- voice support for homosexual relationships;
- insult the national flag.
The media should be able to publish information
- that might destabilize the economy;
- about sensitive aspects of national security;
- that makes it more difficult to handle pandemics.
George Orwell at the BBC in 1940. He sensed that free speech depends less on what laws dictate than on what people want.Credit: Public domain
Russians among the least pro-free speech
Some key findings of the report:
- Of the nationalities surveyed, Scandinavians and Americans are the most supportive of free speech. The least supportive are the Russians, Muslim-majority nations, and the least developed nations.
- Support for free speech in general is typically expressed by great majorities and has remained stable or has even increased since 2015. There is one exception: the U.S., where the acceptance of unrestricted criticism of the government has declined. The report specifically notes that young people, women, the less educated, and people who voted for Joe Biden are generally less supportive of free speech.
- While support for free speech is strong in the abstract, it drops when specific controversial statements are mentioned. In general, left-leaning individuals are more accepting of insulting national symbols and right-leaning individuals of offending minority groups, particularly in Western countries.
- In all countries surveyed, a majority would like to see social media subjected to some kind of regulation, but only a few respondents want governments to take the sole responsibility for this.
Free speech deficits and... surpluses
When matching Justitia's Free Speech Index (which measures attitudes) with a separate Freedom of Expression Index (which measures regulations) developed by an organization called V-Dem, it turns out that there is a clear and positive association between both.
- In other words: in countries with strong popular demand for free speech, there typically are good government provisions for the supply of free speech. For example, Scandinavia, the U.S., the UK and Australia all score relatively high on both indexes, while Pakistan, Malaysia, and India get relatively low marks on both indexes.
- There are exceptions, in both directions. The popular demand for free speech exceeds the actual level of freedom of expression in Egypt, Hungary, the Philippines, Russia, Turkey and Venezuela. You could call this a classic free speech deficit.
- In contrast, there are three countries where there seems to be a free speech surplus: in Kenya, Tunisia, and Nigeria, the relatively high values on the Freedom of Expression Index are not matched with equally high values on the Free Speech Index.
Support for free speech is generally stable or improving, except in the United States, where the acceptance of unrestricted criticism of the government has declined.Credit: Justitia
Choosing between free speech and prosperity?
Justitia also asked its interviewees how they thought their freedom of expression had evolved over time. The results are mixed.
- People in Tunisia, Pakistan, and Kenya reported the greatest improvements in their freedom of expression.
- Despite significant "democratic backsliding" in the Philippines and India, people in those countries also reported improvements.
- The greatest perceived losses in terms of free speech were reported in Hungary, Poland, the U.S., and Turkey. As the report points out, all of these countries are highly polarized with (present or recent) leaders very critical of independent media.
- People in France and Germany also reported shrinking space for free speech.
"Fortunately (…) much evidence speaks in favor of (a positive) association (between freedom of expression on the one hand and human welfare and prosperity on the other) — particularly, when free speech is combined with effective electoral rights over longer periods of time," the report concludes.
However, "the numbers indicate that, if people believe they cannot have both, many are willing to sacrifice free speech." Disconcertingly, "support for free speech might be shallower than one would expect — and hope for — in relation to this fundamental right."
For more on Justitia, visit their homepage. Read more about The Future of Free Speech here. Download the report in its entirety here.
Strange Maps #1094
Got a strange map? Let me know at strangemaps@gmail.com.
Follow Strange Maps on Twitter and Facebook.
Starting a business in the U.S. costs $735, which is relatively affordable at just 16 percent of the average monthly paycheck.Credit: Jason Kempin/Getty Images for iHeart Media
Starting your own business should be cheap, right? Because if you're successful, you create jobs, wealth, and tax revenue. Everybody wins. And yet, becoming an entrepreneur is not cheap — at least not everywhere.
As a budding businessperson anywhere, you must jump through a series of administrative hoops by acquiring the proper approvals, permits, and licenses. Those cost money as well as time.
A world map of the cost of starting a business.Credit: BusinessFinancing.co.uk, reproduced with kind permission.
So, how much cash do you have to fork out before you can start forking it in? Based on World Bank data, BusinessFinancing.co.uk produced a map for that. And it shows some pretty stark differences between countries. But first, some context:
- For the benefit of comparison, the map has converted all local currencies into U.S. dollars. By that metric, the United Arab Emirates is the most expensive country in the world to start a business: $7,443.51. The cheapest countries are Rwanda, with no cost for the first two years; and Slovenia, where there are no fees, only a requirement to have capital of €7,500 ($8,900).
- However, these absolute amounts should not just be compared to each other. They should also be considered against the local living standard, which determines relative affordability. For example, setting up shop in Kazakhstan costs $12, which is just 2 percent of the average monthly wage. Doing the same in Congo costs $1,232, which is more than two times the Congolese annual income.
Europe: UK beats Belarus
The greener, the better; orange is expensive. Italy, Austria, Netherlands and Belgium are expensive places to start businesses.Credit: BusinessFinancing.co.uk, reproduced with kind permission.
Europe is a pretty diverse place when it comes to the cost of setting up a business. On the low end of the scale, twelve countries have fees of less than $100. On the high end, eleven countries require more than $1,000.
- Apart from Slovenia (see above), the UK is the cheapest country in Europe, even beating Belarus ($18.18). All you need to pay is a £12 ($17) fee to register at Companies House, and you're good to go.
- The most expensive place? Italy, where setting up an azienda will set you back a whopping $4,895. That's more than twice the average monthly income ($2,403).
North America: U.S. in the Goldilocks zone
The Bahamas and Mexico are the most expensive places in North America to set up a business. Credit: BusinessFinancing.co.uk, reproduced with kind permission.
The U.S. ($725) is in North America's Goldilocks zone: only half as expensive as Mexico ($1,463.81) but more than four times as dear as Canada ($166.19).
- Still, the U.S. cost of setting up a business is just 16 percent of the average monthly paycheck ($4,458). That compares favorably to the affordability of becoming a company owner in Mexico, where it equals nearly two and a half average monthly paychecks.
- The absolute cheapest place in North America is Belize ($99.31), which is about 33 percent of the average monthly wage in the country.
- In absolute terms, the Bahamas are the most expensive country ($1,810.92), but in relative terms, it's Haiti: setting up a company costs $932.80, which is close to 14 Haitian monthly paychecks ($67).
South America: Venezuela, land of opportunity?
In Venezuela, setting up a business will set you back no more than 21 cents.Credit: BusinessFinancing.co.uk, reproduced with kind permission.
Setting up a business is very expensive in Suriname, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Uruguay but relatively affordable elsewhere. It's even super cheap in Venezuela and Chile.
- Suriname is the most expensive country in South America, both in absolute and relative terms: it costs $3,030 to set up, which is more than 11 times the monthly income. And that's before an extra 8 percent on top for a notary service.
- What a difference one country over: in Venezuela, all you need is 21¢. That pays for the reservation of your company name, its publication in a local newspaper, and other formalities. That is less than 1 percent of Venezuela's relatively low monthly income ($1,232). Then again, as Venezuela inches closer to economic collapse, it makes sense for its government to remove as many barriers to entrepreneurship as possible.
Africa: improving, but a long way to go
Starting a business costs you $900 in Somalia but less than $13 in South Africa. Credit: BusinessFinancing.co.uk, reproduced with kind permission.
Africa's low wages are a double-edged sword. They are a boon to companies in search of manual labor but a barrier to local entrepreneurs looking to invest in a company of their own. In many places, those barriers remain firmly in place, but others have realized the benefit of encouraging start-ups.
- The most expensive African country in absolute terms is tiny Equatorial Guinea ($2,322), where entry into business eats up 7.2 average monthly paychecks.
- In relative terms, it is nearby Congo (not DR Congo, but its smaller neighbor), which has the highest relative cost of starting a business, not just in Africa but the world: 25.5 average monthly paychecks.
- However, across the Congo River, in the DRC, the cost of starting a business is just $80. It's one of more than a dozen African countries where you can set up shop for less than $100. And that includes economic powerhouses like Egypt and South Africa.
Middle East & Central Asia: very expensive to very cheap
In Pakistan, you can get your own company for just under $20. That's a fraction of the cost in Syria, nearly $1,400. Credit: BusinessFinancing.co.uk, reproduced with kind permission.
This is not one region, but two: the very expensive countries are in the Middle East, and the very cheap ones are in Central Asia.
- As mentioned, the UAE is the world's most expensive place to start a business but not the least affordable: all you need is 2.25 monthly paychecks.
- Neighboring Qatar ($3,951.94) and Saudi Arabia ($1,266.57) aren't cheap either. However, Bahrain ($230.78) is curiously cheap, less than a third of the cost of starting up a company in war-torn Yemen ($807.79).
- Kyrgyzstan ($8.35) is the cheapest country in its part of the world, but most of the surrounding countries are pretty cheap as well. Perhaps low start-up fees are not the decisive factor for Afghanistan's business climate right now; its looming civil war is.
East Asia & Oceania: New Zealand is both easy and cheap
Starting a business costs you $900 in Somalia but less than $13 in South Africa.Credit: BusinessFinancing.co.uk, reproduced with kind permission.
With not a single four-figure fee in sight, and relative cost low as well, setting up business in this part of the world is both cheap and affordable.
- Cambodia stands out, but not in a good way. The cost of going into business ($746) in the country is equal to about 7.5 monthly paychecks, the highest figure in the region.
- The cheapest country is Timor Leste ($10), but that still sets you back 9 percent of your monthly income.
- When the chips are down, New Zealand has the best cards. Starting a business in NZ costs $43.48 — low in absolute terms and even lower in relative terms: just 2 percent of the average monthly paycheck ($2,838). On top of that, the World Bank rates New Zealand first in terms of ease of starting a business: just one procedure, and you're up and running in less than a day.
Maps by BusinessFinancing.co.uk, reproduced with kind permission. Find their article on this topic here.
Strange Maps #1093
Got a strange map? Let me know at strangemaps@gmail.com.
Follow Strange Maps on Twitter and Facebook.
Some outliers notwithstanding, almost all Roman dodecahedrons were found in Britain, Gaul, and Roman Germany.Credit: Imperium Romana
In the first episode of Buck Rogers, the 1980s television series about an astronaut from the present marooned in the 25th century, our hero visits a museum of the future. A staff member brandishes a mid-20th-century hair dryer. "Early hand laser," he opines.
As an observation of how common knowledge gets lost over time, it's both funny and poignant. Because our museums also stock items from the past that completely baffle the experts.
One of the strongest clues: the map
Few are as intriguing as the hundred or so Roman dodecahedrons that we have found. We know next to nothing about these mysterious objects — so little, in fact, that the various theories about their meaning and function are themselves a source of entertainment.
One of the strongest clues we have is this map, which tells us that they were particularly popular in one corner of the Roman Empire: northern Gaul and Roman Germany.
So, what do we know?
Roman dodecahedrons — or more properly called Gallo-Roman dodecahedrons — are twelve-sided hollow objects, each side pentagonal in shape and almost always contain a hole. The outer edges generally feature rounded protrusions.
Most of the objects are made from bronze, but some are in stone and don't have holes or knobs. The dodecahedrons are often fist-sized yet can vary in height from 4 to 11 cm (about 1.5 to 4.5 in). The size of the holes also varies, from 6 to 40 mm (0.2 to 1.5 in). Two opposing holes typically are of differing sizes.
Objects of this type were unknown until the first one was found in 1739 in Aston, Hertfordshire. In all, 116 have been dug up from sites as far apart as northern England and Hungary. But most have been found in Gaul, particularly in the Rhine basin, in what is now Switzerland, eastern France, southern Germany, and the Low Countries. Some were found in coin hoards, indicating their owners considered them valuable. Most can be dated to the 2nd and 3rd century AD.
Drawing of a partial dodecahedron found in the late 19th century in France. Credit: G. Garitan, CC BY-SA 4.0
A toy, a tool, a calendar?
No mention of the dodecahedrons from Roman times has survived. Any theory as to their function is based solely on speculation. Some suggestions:
- A specific type of dice for a game since lost to history.
- A magical object, possibly from the Celtic religion. A similar small, hollow object with protrusions was recovered from Pompeii in a box with either jewellery or items for magic.
- A toy for children.
- A weight for fishing nets.
- The head of a chieftain's scepter.
- A kind of musical instrument.
- A tool to estimate distances and survey land, especially for military purposes.
- An instrument to estimate the size of and distance to objects on the battlefield for the benefit of the artillery.
- A device for detecting counterfeit coins.
- A calendar for determining the spring and autumn equinoxes and/or the optimal date for sowing wheat.
- A candle holder. (Wax residue was found in one or two of the objects recovered.)
- A connector for metal or wooden poles.
- A knitting tool specifically for gloves. (That would explain why no dodecahedrons were found in the warmer regions of the Empire.)
- A gauge to calibrate water pipes.
- A base for eagle standards. (Each Roman legion carried a symbolic bird on a staff into battle.)
- An astrological device used for fortune-telling. (Inscribed on a dodecahedron found in Geneva in 1982 were the Latin names for the 12 signs of the zodiac.)
Two Roman dodecahedrons (left, center) and the only known example of an icosahedron (with 20 sides, right), all on display in the Rheinisches Landesmuseum in Bonn, Germany. Credit: Kleon3, CC BY-SA 4.0
An Indochinese connection
The geographic spread of the dodecahedrons we know of is particular: they were all found in territories administered by Rome, inhabited by Celts. That enhances the theory that they were specific to Gallo-Roman culture, which emerged from the contact between the Celtic peoples of Gaul and their Roman conquerors.
Intriguingly, archaeologists in the 1960s have found similar objects along the Maritime Silk Road in Southeast Asia, except smaller and made of gold. They do not appear to predate the Gallo-Roman artefacts and may be evidence of Roman influence on the ancient Indochinese kingdom of Funan.
For now, and perhaps forever, the mystery of the Roman dodecahedrons remains unsolved.
Strange Maps #1092
Got a strange map? Let me know at strangemaps@gmail.com.
