Why do we view a map of earth that particular way "up"?

Factual Questions
21

Well…this isn’t quite true. There is a preferred line dividing the earth into two hemispheres - the equator. The earth’s axis of rotation can be determined from observation of the stars, and it can be argued that it’s natural to create Hemisphere A and Hemisphere B such that the a pole is in the center of each.

Once that’s done, the question of just how to orient the globe comes up. I’d suggest that the simplest display is to just put a stick on a stand, vertically, and impale a globe (through the poles) upon it for display. It sits nicely on a table, is pretty to look at, and spins on the same axis as the actual planet.

OK, well, which pole do I put on top? If I’m a European map- and globe-maker, I figure it would be more popular if my region (Europe) is easily visible when my globe is displayed on a table. Clearly, the best choice here is to put the hemisphere containing Europe “on top”, rather than on the bottom where people would have to crouch down to see the interesting stuff, while the less relevant stuff is on top and clearly visible.

Nowadays, many globes are made with the axis of rotation 23.5[sup]o[/sup] off of vertical, to match the earth’s actual tilt relative to the ecliptic. This strikes me as a fairly simple “next step in display accuracy” from the vertical polar axis described above.

It is certainly true that one can take any half of a sphere and label it a hemisphere. However, two hemispheres fall out naturally, and the one of most import to the people doing the map-making gets placed on top.

The preceding was mostly half-informed speculation, rather than authoritative knowledge. I think it more or less echoes what many others have been saying, but hopefully it addresses some of the points you raised, Whiskas.

22

Whiskas, I totally agree with your argument and I was going to post the same thing before and decided to stay out of it but since you brought it up, I have to say I agree with you. The argument N is important so we put it at the top makes as much sense as “east is important so we’ll put it on the right” or “south is important so we’ll put it on the left”. In fact, I would say, when i am looking at a map I want to have the most important part closest to me so my argument would be they put the north pole at the top of the map because nobody was planning on going there, while they were busy traveling around the bottom part of the map.

As a navigator who uses charts and maps frequently here’s some thoughts:

Most people would find it comfortable to have the map face in the same direction they are facing (even if only in their minds). For most people long time ago, North and south were much easier to determine than east and west so the meridian would be the way to face. In other words. Put a map on the table so that it is oriented correctly and you would want to be on the south side facing north or on the north side facing south. That gets rid of east and west.

Another point: travels and maps generally cover loger E-W distance than N-S and it is more convenient to have the map with the wider part across. Another reason to have N or S on top.

So, why N and not S on top. I can imagine several reasons. For people in the N hemisphere N is a direction and is also a “point” (the north pole on the globe and the north celestial pole in the sky). This makes it somewhat more concrete than S which is only a direction and which would only become a point of reference when tyou cross over to the S hemisphere. In other words, in the N hemisphere you can “see” the N (in the form of the N celestial pole) but you cannot “see” the S. There S is a direction on which way to go.

So. If N has become your primary cardinal geographic point, it makes sense you would face in that direction when looking at a map. That puts N on top (which may be what some of the posters were meaning to say in a sort of way).

Then of course there is another point which I also think when I see questions of the type “of the X options for Z, why did we choose Y?” The answer often would be “what makes you think there has to be a good reason? Any option was as good as the other and they chose Y just like they could have chosen K. Had they chosen K you’d be asking why they did so.”

23

North is the far wall. Down is towards the enemy’s base.

Does that make more sense?

–Tim

24

Then you’d be pointing at the ground, you’d have to be standing in the Southern hemisphere, and you’d need x-ray vision to see the north star.

Like, I think, others here, I’ve lost track of exactly what it is you’re asking. This and your “why is red red” question makes it sound like what you’re really asking is why did the specific word “up” get attached to the concept of “upness”. In other words, “If I raise my hand over my head, why in English is that called ‘up’?” That’s a linguistic question that, ultimately, doesn’t really have an answer. You can trace word origins only so far back, and then you have to punt and say, "well, the ancients had to pick something, some sort of a sound, and that’s the one they picked.

But “up”, as a concept, is independent of the specific word that designates it. This should be obvious since every language has a different word for “up”, but each still carries the concept of “upness”. You point above your head, and that’s “up”. If English called it “gerblish”, the concept would remain.

So when you stand in a field and that big bright star that seems to stay fixed as the other stars rotate around it and is therefore useful for navigation (called in English the “north” star) is “gerblish”, you’re gonna draw your maps with your territory “gerblish”.

25

Roadfood, I think the question is clear and it is not a semantic one. The question would be why have we chosen the convention to orient maps so that when we read them we are facing N?

The first asnwers (and Cecil’s column) of the type “N is important to us so we put it on top” may be on to something but are quite incomplete. I believe my earlier post clarifies and expands what may be the same idea. In no case are we discussing semantics. (At least, I don’t think so).

26

Actually, sailor, it sounds to me like it’s become a discussion of semantics. Witness here, where Whiskas says

It sure sounds to me like Whiskas wants to know why the Northern Hemisphere was named the northern hemisphere, and why/how north got designated to mean “up” in the context of a map.

I think the best answer is going to be that the Northern Hemisphere is called that because it’s the hemisphere where one can see the North Star, which, as we all know, is of the utmost importance when navigating (or was, anyway). If one stood at the equator and wished to move toward the North Star, that direction is north. Now, as to WHY the direction we know as north is called “north” instead of, say, “gerblish” or “bingzi-bangzi” or “Thanks, Mom”, the only way to know is to trace the etymology of north, but, as Roadfood said, at some point that’s going to dead end, and we’ll just have to take it at face value that north is north because that’s what we call it.

And let’s try to keep in mind that these are human connotations of concepts. Looking for logic in them is like looking for Fred Phelps at a Penthouse photo shoot.

27

The question is demonstrably not clear, as the varied opinions here as to whether or not the question is clear indicate.

In what way are the answers so far “quite incomplete”? Why does “North is important so we put it on top” not satisfy you? Why does there have to any more to it than that?

Ok, let’s take a step back and start from the beginning, clean slate: You’re going to draw something. When you put the piece of paper (or whatever) in front of you and start to draw, you have to orient the drawing in SOME way on the paper, right? I mean, you can’t actually draw without the drawing being oriented in some specific way.

For example, you’re going to draw a horse. You could draw it with the legs pointing down (and can we agree that, for the purposes of this discussion, “down” means towards the “bottom” of the paper, where “bottom” is the side closest to the person doing the drawing, even if the paper is actually horizontal?), or you could draw it with the legs pointing up, or with the legs pointing to your left, or with the legs pointing in any of a myriad other directions.

But I would argue that “legs down” is a “natural” orientation. Why? Because when a human being looks at a real horse, the horse’s legs point down. If you stand (or sit) near a real horse, and take out your paper and start to draw, you will just naturally orient the drawing to match what you’re seeing.

So now you’re going to draw a map. Again, it has to be oriented in SOME way, even if you just flip a coin to decide which way, right? So maybe “because we live in the northern part” is sufficient reason to orient “the northern part” at the top of the map. In other words, maybe there just isn’t any more to it than that early map makers had to pick SOME orientation, and that was as good a reason as any to pick “north as up”.

But if you don’t like the answer that it’s basically one step up from a coin flip, consider this: That pesky north star was important as a navigation tool. So it’s likely that early people (Europeans, anyway) kinda got into the habit of facing the north star to orient themselves when thinking or talking about navigation. Even if the “facing” was only figurative. In other words, if the north star is used as the basis for directions (“when I’m facing the north star, Paris is to my left and Prague is to my right”), then the mental model would just naturally develop as a “north-facing” model.

So now, given that you have that “north-facing” mental model, when you sit down to draw your map, how are you going to orient it? You’ll just naturally use that same orientation, “facing” the north star (mentally), putting Paris to the left of Prague, because that’s the way you’ve always thought of it.

I really don’t think there’s any more to it than that. If you’re looking for deeper meanings, there ain’t none.

28

I decided I want to address this specifically. Whiskas’ question that I responded to was:

Now, if this isn’t a semantic question, what does it mean? If we agree on what “up” and “down” mean, then you CAN’T point down to a star; the stars are always up (or, at most, to the side). I interpreted that question to mean, “What if the name attached to the overhead direction was ‘down’ instead of ‘up’” (because, as I said, if it wasn’t a semantic question then it was a non-sequiter since you can’t see stars that are “down”, i.e. below your feet, because they’re on the other side of the Earth). I’d be interested in hearing what other interpretation you got.

I agree that Whiskas’ original question was as you say above, but later responses, including the one I responded to, seem to be pulling in a semantic argument direction about why words mean what they do.

30

It has a lot to do with you being Dippy.

Goodbye.