Posted on 10/08/2002 8:42:57 AM PDT by blam
A New Theory on Mapping the New World
By Guy Gugliotta
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 7, 2002; Page A07
In 1507, a group of scholars working in France produced an extraordinary map of the world, the first to put the still-recent discoveries of Columbus and others into a new continent separate from Asia, and to call that continent "America." With the Waldseemuller map, the New World was born.
But there was something else. What would later come to be called South America and Central America were surprisingly well-shaped, not only on the east coast, where explorers had already sailed, but also on the west coast -- which no European was known to have seen.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Is that Santa Claus?????
Doen't he mean 'giving a White European Male Oppressor Pig, Despoiler of the Planet Day lecture'.....?
OK...I'm fairly new to caring about World History, Politics and Geogrophy so please hang with me (I would give ANYTHING to be able to go back to school and actually give a crap about this stuff)...
I've got a wall map (Pretty big and very detailed) and....YOU'RE RIGHT....Greenland is HUGE! About the size of Africa. And I've got a tiny-little globe on my desk and sure enough, Greenland is only about 10% of the wall map's size...
I had noticed this before but never really thought much of it other than "Gee Greenland looks big"...Until your post here, that is...
So anyway...My question is...Would you be so kind as to tell me why this is? And dumb it down??
Thank in advance for your time.
Ps...Where is Antartica on my wall map?
Sure. It's a little geometry and topology problem, basically. Start by looking at the north pole of your globe - notice how all the lines of longitude (the lines that run north-south) converge onto that one point at the north pole? Now look at the north end of your wall map - those longitude lines are all parallel to each other, and don't converge any more. But they still run north-south, and they still point to the north pole, really. Only now, instead of the north pole being a point at the top of the globe, when you flatten out the world into a two-dimensional representation, what happens is that the north pole gets stretched out so that it's a long line instead of a point - the whole top edge of your map is the north pole.
That's because the north pole is a point, so to make flat, rectangular map, you have to stretch it out so that it's as long as the equator. And as you stretch it out, the things near the north pole get stretched out as well - the closer a thing is to the north pole, the more it gets stretched, and things along the equator don't get stretched at all, really. It's kind of hard to visualize, but if you can imagine "skinning" your globe and flattening it out, you can sort of get the idea of what's happening. So Greenland, being pretty far north, gets stretched to the point that it's as large as Africa, but since Africa lies right along the equator, it doesn't get stretched at all. So they appear to be equal in size, even though Africa is actually about 13 times larger than Greenland. Notice what happens to other northern lands also - Alaska looks like it's about the size of half the continental US, because it's also been stretched out.
So, what happened to Antarctica? Well, the same thing happens in the south as well - the south pole, and everything around it, gets stretched out and enlarged. So, that long strip of land along the very bottom of your map that runs the whole length of the map - that's Antarctica, all stretched out into a strip, instead of a roughly round continent, just like the south pole got stretched out into a line instead of a point.
Just a little topological problem associated with making two-dimensional representations of three-dimensional things. There are maps that try to minimize that distortion, like this equal-area projection map:
Notice how it's kind of divided into sections, rather than a simple flat rectangle - that avoids the stretching at the north and south ends of the map.
Anyway, the long and the short of it is that there's nothing wrong with asking why it's that way - if you don't, you might start assuming some pretty silly things. Like the lady I heard giving a lecture some years ago, who insisted, quite seriously, that the distortion of the northern part of Mercator maps like yours was a conspiracy. By who? Well, by the white man, of course - to make Africa look small and insignificant. I assume that, since Greenland is a part of Denmark, it was supposed to be some sort of Danish mapmakers plot to hold the black man down ;)
Back to the subject...I sat there and stared at my map and globe (The map takes up almost a whole wall in my office and I'm fascinated by it for some reason) and didn't get any work done...
What I noticed was the around the equator, the boxes (Longitudes and Latitues crossing?) were square. Towards the top, they were progressively upward rectagle-shaped. I assume this is part of the same phenomenon?
Your explanation has further helped my understanding. Thank you! Now I can't wait to get back to work and do some more starting!
And I could see people making that mistake about sizes...An emplyee and I were comenting on the size of Alaska just the other day...I always knew it was the largest of the states, so I assumed my map was correct...Now I'll reference the globe more often (Which is what I had been doing for a while, and what enticed me to make this post).
As for Antarcia...I knew it would run the entire length of the bottom of the map, but it's just not there. Not at all. I guess it's just not a very good map (I assumed it was)...Bought it at Staples for about 60 Bucks.
Thanks again! This is something that I've learned (Something I've simply, just never pondered in detail before I saw your post) and will use in the future quite often! That's pretty cool!
That's because the north pole is a point, so to make flat, rectangular map, you have to stretch it out so that it's as long as the equator.
BINGO! That's the part that made it all make sense. Well done!
Ah, the Yanks. Here's a question - what the hell happened? ;)
And, FWIW, I don't know jack about fantasy football, except that you can play for money, and win if you're good at it. So it's still an open question for me about whether my esoteric knowledge of maps is really the more valuable information - nobody pays me diddly for this. I'm wonderig if maybe I shouldn't have spent time learning how to handicap the ponies or something practical like that ;)
As for Antarcia...I knew it would run the entire length of the bottom of the map, but it's just not there. Not at all. I guess it's just not a very good map (I assumed it was)...Bought it at Staples for about 60 Bucks.
Hmmmm. Well, maybe it's a really old map, from before mapmakers knew about Antarctica.
Okay, it's a stretch ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.