Halley’s Magnetic Declination Map

Reprinted from Earth In Vision with permission by the author Fábio Rodrigues

Edmond Halley, 1701

Edmund Haley (8th November 1656 – 14th January 1742) was a British scientist who dedicated his life to Physics, Astronomy, Mathematics and Geosciences. His contribution to the scientific community was diverse, he had noticed and observed the Mercury’s Transit (from Earth, Mercury passes in front of the Sun) and deduced the same happens to Venus and not with other planets since Venus and Mercury are in between Earth and the Sun. He had published several papers about the monsoons, identifying the causes, also studied the atmospheric pressure differentials, being publish on charts. Also he made great advances on what is known today as the compass.

It was on this construction and conception process that this map was made, which shows the magnetic declination which was conceptualized by observations on two journeys on board of HMS Paramore (Murray 2012)

The methodology wasn’t publish, so little is known about the construction of the map just what could be read on Haley’s diaries and journals, but is known that it was made by observations. The main point of reference was London, and some researches have tried to reconstruct the methodology in other to understand how he made it.

Before going on, let’s just clarify what is magnetic declination. “The differences between the geographic north pole and the magnetic north pole” (compassdude.com) being the geographic pole the axis where the planet rotates and the magnetic poles the final of the magnetic pole.

“The Earth acts like a great spherical magnet, in that it is surrounded by a magnetic field. This magnetic field changes both with time and with location on the Earth and resembles, in general, the field generated by a dipole magnet (i.e., a straight magnet with a north and south pole) located at the center of the Earth. The axis of the dipole is offset from the axis of the Earth’s rotation by approximately 11 degrees. This means that the north and south geographic poles and the north and south magnetic poles are not located in the same place. At any point and time, the Earth’s magnetic field is characterized by a direction and intensity which can be measured. Often the parameters measured are the magnetic declination, D, the horizontal intensity, H, and the vertical intensity, Z. From these elements, all other parameters of the magnetic field can be calculated.”

“The compass points in the directions of the horizontal component of the magnetic field where the compass is located, and not to any single point. Knowing the magnetic declination (the angle between true north and the horizontal trace of the magnetic field) for your location allows you to correct your compass for the magnetic field in your area. A mile or two away the magnetic declination may be considerably different, requiring a different correction. NGDC has an on-line magnetic declination calculator where you can enter your location (or zip code for the USA) and get the Declination value.”

NOAA

Haley realized, by observation, on his journeys, the changing on the position of the needle which made him portraying those changes on a map, as a beginning of Data Visualization, which each point had a value of latitude and longitude and a value of magnetic declination. Soon he realised that some places had the same value and he could draw a line over those points making lines with the same value of magnetic declination (isoline)

The data was collect at noon and the observation of the declination made while he observed the “sun’s magnetic amplitude, the angular distance then on the horizon at sunrise and sunset”.

“The magnetic declination was one-half the difference between the two amplitudes and applied to the geographical position at midnight” (Murray 2012)

The final map is a brilliant image of the Atlantic Ocean which was divided by Western Ocean and Southern Ocean due to the Historical and at the time social events of the European Society. The map is presented with a background colour of yellow, mainly the paper’s colour, the black for the outline and three colours, fuchsia, green and yellow making the coastal lines of the countries. The absence of boarders makes it easier to read, just because, as an isoline map, there are plenty of lines already.

On this, it is well marked the equator as a rose toned line; the cancer tropic as blacked tone line and a bold red vertical line dividing Africa and Europe to Americas. It is still seen a no variation lines, making a curve towards the North America, diving the west declination or negative to the east declination or positive.

There are still three images, one over the South America portraying two native over three palm trees – image that is easily associated with those people, on there it is written the title of the map saying right to the point what it is. Over the North America it is written the legend of the map on a beautiful flower outlined shield and over Africa, 3 women each of one having a set of instruments used by Haley for his study. It is noticeable a green dressed lady with 9 stars and the sun over the heart painted on the dress holding a telescope. A lady with a dark red dress is holding a ship and a sextant and having on her lap a solar clock. And, at least, a lady with a pink dress is holding a notebook. On this note Halley thanks the king of England William the Third.

Still, it is noticeable the presence the main coastal cities and the name of the islands and capes.

sources:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/faqgeom.shtml  http://www.compassdude.com/compass-declination.shtml

Murray, L. (2012) –  The Construction of Edmond Halley’s 1701 Map of Magnetic Declination,  Master Dissertation Department of Statistical and Actuarial Sciences; The University of Western Ontario (p.72)

Advertisement

Separation of Carolinas

by Robert J. Cain, 2006 as published in NCpedia

‘Die Provintz Nord und Sud Carolina (The province of North and South Carolina),’ a German map from 1711, and one of the earliest to show North and South Carolina as different regions. Image from NC Maps.

The province of Carolina given by England’s King Charles II to the Lords Proprietors in 1663 and 1665 constituted a single grant. In 1664 the northeastern portion of the province, at that time the only part settled by Europeans, became the county of Albemarle, and a few years later, in 1670, another colony was established at Charles Towne (now Charleston, S.C.) on the Ashley River. Separate governmental structures-governors, councils, assemblies, and courts-came into being for the two settlements, although technically the province of Carolina was a united entity with neither of its two colonies being considered superior to the other.

In 1691, in a halfhearted attempt to centralize authority in response to unrest in both settlements, the Lords Proprietors decreed that the governor of Carolina would reside in Charles Towne and appoint a deputy for the northern part of the colony. The practical effect of the measure was at best negligible. Although the innovation resulted in the chief executives of North Carolina being styled “deputy governor” as a result of the change, their subordination to the “governor” at Charles Towne seems to have been merely formal. In addition, the legislatures and courts of both parts of the province continued their separate and independent existences. In 1710, however, the Proprietors ceased naming a governor for all of Carolina, and in 1712 Edward Hyde took the oath as governor of “No. Carolina.” Nevertheless, various formal documents issued by the Lords Proprietors well after 1712 continued to refer to the “Province of Carolina” as if it were an undivided unit, as well as to the “Province of North Carolina” and the “Province of South Carolina.”

References:

Hugh T. Lefler and William S. Powell, Colonial North Carolina: A History (1973).

Powell, The Carolina Charter of 1663 (1954).

Additional Resources:

Walbert, David. “A royal colony.” Colonial North Carolina. LearnNC.org. http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-colonial/1973 (accessed October 16, 2012).

Davis, Jim. “Dividing the Carolinas.” Point of Beginning. November 25, 2002.http://www.pobonline.com/CDA/Archives/6d3fbe768d0f6010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0____ (accessed October 16, 2012).

Image Credits:

Huber, Johannes Henry. “Die Provintz Nord und Sud Carolina.” 1711, NC Maps.http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/ncmaps/id/9659/rec/3 (accessed October 16, 2012).

The Path to Predicting Old Roads

When I first took an interest in locating significant transportation routes of the colonial era in America I thought the process would be much easier.  After all, these important roads were all once well known and they were even mapped repeatedly.  But like so many other “simple” ideas, the actual practice reveals immense, although interesting, complications.  This story is what I have learned along my journey and I suspect it is similar to what others have learned many times before me.  It is my hope, however, to add something new to the conversation.

My first thought for identifying old roads was to “georeference” images of extant historical maps by “warping” them into fitting modern geography. This is a process that has been simplified tremendously by using Geographic Information System (GIS) software on high resolution digital scans of these maps.  Once I had removed the bias of ancient cartographic practices, I assumed that the roads could just be traced and overlaid with current transportation and elevation maps to reveal my prize.  While this turns out to be an important first step, it left me well short of attaining that goal.  What I now had was still only a caricature of that past reality, not the accurate representation that I had hoped for in modern terms.

Georegistering Historic Maps

The bad assumptions in conducting the initial georeferencing process started with the presumption that all of the mapped features in my images had a consistent degree of error or that all of these various features were even intended to be equally accurate.  When working with modern maps this would be a fair assumption, but these historic documents were made under very different circumstances.  Hydrologic confluences (that is the points where streams converge) in current photogrametrically corrected maps are often easily recognized and repeatable reference points.  Although many rivers typically served as early transportation routes, they were not surveyed in the eighteenth century to the same degree as the land routes or even subject to the use of similar measuring equipment for that matter making their use as references troublesome.  The almost child-like squiggles representing streams often confesses a certain amount of presumption on the part of the cartographer.  Not insignificantly, some smaller streams may have altered their courses over the succeeding centuries also making the locational reference somewhat time-sensitive.  Similarly inconsistent are the invisible cadastral boundaries, such as colonial borders, which were often not necessarily fixed to the same modern locations.  As for the roads themselves, they are the subject of the process so it is preferable not to rely heavily on them either.  Consequently this series of inconsistencies seldom leaves much else with which to work but the identification of significant point locations such as villages, mills, fords or ferries which can sometimes be tricky to identify with accuracy today.  Finally, as land was settled by the Europeans who drafted these maps roughly in a chronological pattern from east to west, features commonly on the “right” side of the map (specifically in the East) were often better placed than those further to the “left” (often considered the less important “backcountry” of the West).  Automated rubbersheeting algorithms tend to work best with reference points spread equally and as distantly as possible throughout the map extent, an arrangement difficult to satisfy given all of these constraints described above.  My solution was often a series of trials and errors sometimes forced into localized georeferencing where only a portion of a larger map covering the current area of interest was used at any given time.

[Click on this map image to open an interactive web mapping application that will allow you to explore the georeferenced product of the 1777 Henry Mouzon map of the Carolinas.  The application will allow you to grab the vertical red line and swipe the historic image on or off the modern base map.  Elsewhere the mouse will allow you to pan the map or zoom with the scroll wheel.]

Improving Historic Data

Once an acceptable georeferencing is accomplished, the historic road data can be traced by digitizing lines from the historic map image.  This process creates a connected series of vector coordinates describing the road centerline that can then be further manipulated by adjusting those lines to effectively “warp” them further to ensure that they pass correctly through known locations.  Such an adjustment of the linear road features is called rubbersheeting because it has a greater effect where specific linkages are made and the impact decreases further away from those points.  The reference points could be the modern locations of a town center, mill location, plantation, or river crossing.  The resulting road shapes will retain the basic character of the original drafted line but now they will pass directly through specific locations providing some improvement to the accuracy of the historic data.  Unfortunately the adjusted lines still do not necessarily reflect an actual alignment for the physical road but it does detail a useful form of connectivity between known traffic points.  The denser the network of corrected points, the less distance between them and fewer possible paths could exist connecting them.

[Click on the map image above to open an interactive web mapping application that will allow you to explore the progressive steps of defining route alignments from digitizing the historic roads directly from the georeferenced image through rubbersheeting those lines and comparing the results with modern terrain.  Each map panel can be manipulated to pan and zoom with your mouse and even be coordinated with each other by synchronizing the scale and location options near the bottom of the application window.]

At this point, we can make reasonable assumptions about possible paths for these roads which can be researched further on the ground or, conversely, these results can be used to identify any extant segments already recorded that follow these possible alignments.

The Next Step

There is one more step that can be taken, however.  If the criteria used for path selection by our ancestors – or the wildlife whose trails they confiscated – can be replicated in a computer model, we can actually predict a previously existing path alignment between any given points.  In my initial attempts at this form of modelling, I once again began with simply minimizing slope on a modern terrain surface.  The result was less than impressive as the pathing algorithm designed to find a minimal cost route sought out modern reservoirs (lacking bathymetry data) with flat “surfaces” to traverse.  But even outside these modern surface alterations the predictions were clearly not satisfactory and suggestive of a more complex model being required.  In my attempts to define additional criteria I sought a proxy measure of vegetation and examined county soil classifications studying the tables associated with the National Resources Conservation Service (NRSC) STATSGO digitized soil data.  It was in these related tables that I discovered several useful parameters including a nominal value for the “haul road limitations”, “rutability hazard”, “limitations for foot paths” and “hydric soils” that fit my needs.  I knew that stream crossings were dangerous and avoided at high costs by historic travelers so I weighted cells containing hydrology as identified by the US Geological Survey (USGS) in their National Hydrology Datasets based on a relative stream order and summed all of the appropriate soils values for the other land based cells in each county wide grid.  With the resulting cost surface, paths could be predicted by calculating paths minimizing the accumulative cost for movement across my modeled surface.

[Click on this image to launch an interactive application to explore the suitability map created to predict historic transportation routes.  The dark blue color showing hydrology represents the most restrictive cells to cross while red highlights the most difficult land cells based on aggregate soil scoring.  Light blue areas represent Hydric soil types that present their own unique challenges to movement.  In this application, the mouse will allow you to pan and zoom in the map in addition to using the ‘+’ and ‘-‘ symbols for zooming.]

The predicted paths from this model, shown in yellow above, helped me identify at least one existing old road on the ground and validate another prediction from an extant road marker.  Hopefully these techniques will be refined and expanded in their use to help identify other extant road segments for future research and preservation.

Rediscovering the Stories Lost in Maps

1672 Map by John Lederer of Carolina

As modern consumers, we like to think of maps simply as the representation of absolute truth.  We assume every map is created in a painstakingly unbiased manner and that the very act of viewing a map is to observe an accurate portrayal of some portion of the earth at a specific point in time.  We hold so strongly to this view that when we encounter recognizable errors in a historic map, say, showing California as an island or detail of a large lake that never existed, we chuckle at the obvious naivety of the cartographer or even sometimes suspect sinister motives.  It doesn’t even occur to us that the ignorance is primarily on our part for not understanding that maps must be interpreted within their own context rather than just being read in the absolute.  Scanning John Lederer’s map of his “Three Marches” published in 1672 without reading the text in which it was published would be like attempting to interpret the United States Constitution without considering the intent of the founding fathers or other legal precedents of the Supreme Court.

By their very nature, maps are created as a caricature, or cartoon version of reality, sometimes through a gross oversimplification of what exists in the real world.  The necessary interpretation of a map involves understanding not only the spatial language of representation but the competing demands of the craft as well as the economic and political influences on the mapmaker at the time of publication.  Consequently, every map is the product of its particular time and echos the beliefs and knowledge of its author or benefactor at that moment.  When studied in this light maps are more like eyewitnesses of a particular historic event – that is their creation – in addition to the geographic place that they describe.  The story they have to tell is less like that of a photograph and more like an essay from a personal journal.  Unfortunately, this sort of interpretation takes time and effort.  It is the scientific investigation of a mystery!

An excellent example of such detective work can be found in this article, A New and Correct Map of the Province of North Carolina: The Discovery of a 1737 North Carolina Manuscript Map, published in the Journal of Early Southern Decorative Arts which investigates not only the map, but its story.  As historians, it is up to us to honor the original intent of a map to help us both learn and share its story.

If you have such an investigation, we would love to publish it here as well.  It is our desire to make this blog a repository where stories of cartographic curiosities can be revealed and myths of map-making can be dispelled.

From Ptolemy to Pilgrimage

The following is abstracted from a lecture entitled From Ptolemy to Pilgrimage: Images of Late Antiquity in Geography, Travel and Cartography by Scott Johnson presented at the Library of Congress, on June 9, 2011 as published on the History of the Ancient World website.  The full video can be seen at the link to the article above.

In his presentation, the author argues that  the map known as Tabula Peutingeriana, or Peutinger Table named after its early modern owner Konrad Peutinger, which is the only world map to survive from the Greco-Roman world offers a unique opportunity to explore in detail the cultural history of the period in which it was originally made.  The period of the original map document, roughly 300 to 600 AD, is referred to in literature as “late antiquity”, basically from the time of Constantine to Mohammed.  This period that has come to be viewed as a crucial transitional period in Mediterranean and Middle Eastern history over the past 50 years.

Welcome to the HMC Fellowship

The Historic Mapping Congress first met a few years ago with the express purpose of coordinating the efforts of various organizations and individuals interested in finding and mapping historic roads and the important sites they connected.  The technological advantage that Geographic Information Systems (GIS) offered were quickly recognized and the group almost immediately took on the challenge of designing a spatial database structure and defining the applications and web services that would access it.  The driving philosophy has always been centered on allowing the public to openly input their knowledge through a spatial “crowdsourcing” concept based on interactive maps and the ability to validate those contributions by others.  To date, our efforts have produced a geographic data model and many conceptual ways of providing electronic collaboration. With a primary focus on the technology aspects, some of the more traditional collaboration issues may have appeared to be largely unattented.  This blog post is an attempt to update the record by explaining each of the many ways our group is already facilitating and promoting the open sharing of historic information through geography.  As our motto says, we are “mapping the past, charting our present, guarding the future.”