# data[].attributes.body
Make one post answering:

1. What do you notice about how the world is divided?

2. Which places are labeled? Which aren’t?

3. What do you notice? (Name a feature that stands out)

4. What does it suggest? (What does it imply about civilization or geography?)

# data[].attributes.body
2nd map: I noticed and found it interesting that the world wasn’t divided by land mass (like most maps are), but instead gave each aspect of the map its own space or container. Major cities are labelled, as well as notable facts (such as the “habitation of elephants). Something that stood out to me was the lack of the Americas: On the left side of the globe, it showed Rome and Alexandria. On the right side, it labelled Rome and Alexandria again as if to say that we had wrapped fully around the world and encountered Rome and Alexandria again. The map suggests that the world is a sphere, and seeks to inform the viewer about general/relative location and information.

# data[].attributes.body
1: The maps are before the Americas were discovered, it is fascinating to see what the world looked like back then. I am surprised they have the globe as round.

2: The "Eastern" side of the world is shown. They show countries like Europe, Africa, Asia. It does not show any of the "Western side of the globe"

3: I noticed that one map was color coded, im assuming the different colors meant different climates. The other map was simply black and white.

4: It suggests that (historical) maps might not always be set in stone. They might need to be updated or expanded on as time goes on.

# data[].attributes.body
The first map looks like an early model of longitude and latitude. The Tropic of Capricorn, Tropic of Cancer, and Equator are labeled. So are the polar regions. There are no countries labeled, so it seems more like a map of the whole world rather than focusing on different nations. With the color coding and focus on latitude, it also looks like a map of different climates.

# data[].attributes.body
Both maps are divided by latitude rather than by state borders, though the second one contains much more detail about what appears to be wind patterns or geography. On the second map, much of Europe, Asia, and some of Africa is labeled by latitude. However, there is basically nothing written for the global south, merely a note that there are many climates that other people know. This suggests either a lack of knowledge or a lack of interest from the writer, who might have either discounted these areas as irrelevant or actively had a bias against them.

# data[].attributes.body
1.) The world is divided vertically down the center as well as horizontally. Each horizontal slice corresponds to a certain area.

2.) The poles are labeled, as well as each side of each horizontal slice. Parts of the perimeter of the globe are also labeled.

3.) I noticed that instead of drawing out the shape of each landmass, they were organized by position on the globe depending on their general latitude/longitude.

4.) This implies that this map was just a documentation of the locations of each significant landmass. It focuses on where places are located relative to each other instead of the actual shapes of the landmasses.

# data[].attributes.body
I noticed the color difference in the maps and how the first one uses strong colors and the second mainly relies on labels to indicate different parts of the world. I assume the red stripe in the middle indicates the hotter part of the earth as it reaches much closer to the sun while the higher/lower areas are orange, and the very top and bottoms are a dark color which i assume indicates cold or unknown. The other map interestingly leaves the south part of the globe very empty and focuses its labeling on the north, divided horizontally. it also contains notes about the different areas which contextualizes the climates and lands.