AHC/WI: Ecuador prime meridian?

In the 19th century, the prime meridian, the basis for longitude and time zones, was established at Greenwich in England, further confirmed at the 1884 International Meridian Conference. This meridian was forwarded over other proposals like a Paris or Berlin meridian or the more neutral Ferro meridian in the Canaries. At the time, this was a source of controversy.

But to me, it seems the most truly neutral meridian would be one objectively defined by science (rather than culture/European history, like the Ferro meridian, or religion like the proposed Mecca meridian or potentially a Jerusalem or Rome meridian). And this suggests the highest point on Earth's surface at the equator would be an objective and neutral prime meridian. This point is on the southern slope of the volcano Cayambe in Ecuador, about 60 kilometers from Quito, at almost 78'00 W . In this time period, it was known that this area had the highest point on Earth, since the second highest point on the northern slope of Mount Kenya is much lower, and no other point at Earth's equator is as high as those two points. Hypothetical mountains at the equator in "darkest Africa" were falling into the category of "thoroughly disproved" in that period, and in any case, a search for a peak higher than Cayambe at the equator in the heart of Africa would be a fantastic excuse for European nations to send more explorers into the region.

Could this argument be raised in the context of the mid-late 19th century and nations be convinced to adopt the idea in the spirit of compromise? While the eurocentric nature of the meridians proposed obviously isn't an issue at the time, there's a certain appeal to having such an objective definition laid down, especially given the historic difficulties regarding longitude.

The effects of the Ecuador/Cayambe meridian are numerous, given the use of longitude in defining borders between nations and administrative divisions (a lot of counties in the Great Plains in the US will have very different borders TTL). For instance, colonial borders in Africa might be drawn differently, which if decolonisation still happens, could have some interesting effects. In the Americas, disputes in South America in the late 19th century/early 20th century may be solved differently. The Alaska panhandle dispute may also be solved differently due to the differing longitude.

For astronomy, such a definition of longitude will logically be applied to other planets and moons, where the highest point at their equator becomes the prime meridian. This is where I got the idea from, since I felt it was strange the definition of Mars and Venus's prime meridians are so arbitrary (under this definition, Mars's would be a point on Pavonis Mons, and I believe Venus's is on Maat Mons). The exception to this would be objects tidally locked, and this exception would start with the Moon as it's highest equatorial point is on the side invisible from Earth and would continue to other tidally-locked objects like Titan or Pluto. Gas giants like Jupiter with no known surface features would also not have this definition.

Is there any chance in the 19th century for this argument to succeed?
 
Is there any chance in the 19th century for this argument to succeed?
In short? No.

By the time governments got around to formally choosing a meridian private business had already decided the matter decades earlier. By 1879 nearly 70% of ships navigated using time pieces set to Greenwich time and 96% used one of these meridians for navigation:
03_GLOBE_meridians.jpg

Then the railroads in Europe and North America began to set their clocks by Greenwich time because it was the most commonly accepted standard. By the time the International Meridian Conference was held in 1884 everybody knew Greenwich was going to be the official world standard (since it already was the standard). It's feasible for a different line to be chosen but choosing Ecuador is about as likely as them choosing Bangkok.

Could this argument be raised in the context of the mid-late 19th century and nations be convinced to adopt the idea in the spirit of compromise? While the Eurocentric nature of the meridians proposed obviously isn't an issue at the time, there's a certain appeal to having such an objective definition laid down, especially given the historic difficulties regarding longitude.
This was a point of national pride and, if private business hadn't adopted a standard out of necessity, national government would probably still be arguing about it to this day. Plus euro-centrism is a selling point, not a flaw. This line was literally declaring where the center of the map and world was. The fact it didn't run through London or Paris was a compromise in itself. I think it's extremely unlikely the line wasn't going through some part of Europe.
 
Last edited:
In short? No.

By the time governments got around to formally choosing a meridian private business had already decided the matter decades earlier. By 1879 nearly 70% of ships navigated using time pieces set to Greenwich time and 96% used one of these meridians for navigation:
03_GLOBE_meridians.jpg

Then the railroads in Europe and North America began to set their clocks by Greenwich time because it was the most commonly accepted standard. By the time the International Meridian Conference was held in 1884 everybody knew Greenwich was going to be the official world standard (since it already was the standard). It's feasible for a different line to be chosen but choosing Ecuador is about as likely as them choosing Bangkok.

So basically we need the idea of "the highest point at the equator should be the prime meridian and thus the center of the world" to be widespread earlier, and we need Euro-Americans to find out as soon as possible that this point is the slopes of Cayambe? This seems like a problem given the poor knowledge of interior Africa and the difficulty in determining altitude centuries ago. Coincidentally, the highest point on Mt. Kenya (not discovered by Europeans until the 1850s) is very near the same longitude as Moscow, which perhaps complicates things. It doesn't seem hard for Euro-Americans to find Cayambe is a very high point on the equator (though it wasn't climbed by Euro-Americans until the 19th century), given the mountain is much more prominent than other high points in Ecuador and it can probably be guessed from early on that the Amazon has no mountains nearly as high. Maybe the Ecuadorian government could help lobby for the Cayambe meridian to be more widespread, although it would help even more if whoever controlled Ecuador was stronger (i.e. Gran Colombia, a united Bolivarian South America, a reformed Spanish Empire, etc.) than Ecuador ever was.

And probably we'd need Cayambe to be widely thought of as the highest point on the equator even before anyone can prove it (which is probably where Europeans sponser expeditions into "Darkest Africa" and other places like Borneo and New Guinea to try and find a higher mountain.

This was a point of national pride and, if private business hadn't adopted a standard out of necessity, national government would probably still be arguing about it to this day. Plus euro-centrism is a selling point, not a flaw. This line was literally declaring where the center of the map and world was. The fact it didn't run through London or Paris was a compromise in itself. I think it's extremely unlikely the line wasn't going through some part of Europe.

By neutrality and compromise, I'm saying that the Cayambe meridian would appeal to those who wanted an objective definition of the Prime Meridian and thus the center of the world.
 

Philip

Donor
So basically we need the idea of "the highest point at the equator should be the prime meridian and thus the center of the world" to be widespread earlier, and we need Euro-Americans to find out as soon as possible that this point is the slopes of Cayambe?

I think you are overlooking the practical and commercial aspects of selecting a prime meridian. As @Escape Zeppelin mentioned, the official agreement was just confirming what was already standard practice.

Look at it from the Royal Navy's perspective. Why would they set their clocks (and that is really the practical purpose for the PM) based on when the sun is over some mountain on the other side of the world? Isn't it far more logical to set the clocks based on the observatory that is located near the headquarters?

Once the RN and British shipping interests have settled on a common meridian (and thus standard time) there is to much momentum.
 
I think you are overlooking the practical and commercial aspects of selecting a prime meridian. As @Escape Zeppelin mentioned, the official agreement was just confirming what was already standard practice.

Look at it from the Royal Navy's perspective. Why would they set their clocks (and that is really the practical purpose for the PM) based on when the sun is over some mountain on the other side of the world? Isn't it far more logical to set the clocks based on the observatory that is located near the headquarters?

Once the RN and British shipping interests have settled on a common meridian (and thus standard time) there is to much momentum.

No, I'm using the same logic that brought us metrification. Why should the British or today's Americans abandon their traditional units of length in favour of those based on the distance of 1/10,000,000 the distance between the equator and north pole? The challenge is to get these powerful interests as mentioned to accept an argument which philosophers of that era might present (that the center of the Earth--prime meridian--should be objectively determined, and the highest point on the equator should be that point).
 
No, I'm using the same logic that brought us metrification. Why should the British or today's Americans abandon their traditional units of length in favour of those based on the distance of 1/10,000,000 the distance between the equator and north pole? The challenge is to get these powerful interests as mentioned to accept an argument which philosophers of that era might present (that the center of the Earth--prime meridian--should be objectively determined, and the highest point on the equator should be that point).

Metrification and decimalisation didn't even catch on in America or Britain. And the metre wasn't really based on something random like the distance for no reason, it was based on pendulums, unlike the height which have no mechanical relevance or benefit.

Also I'm not sure why tallest point on the equator matters. There's no scientific reason that would make a good prime meridian than any other point.
 

Philip

Donor
No, I'm using the same logic that brought us metrification.

The adoption of a standard system of scientific based of universally observable quantities had many advantages. What, again, are the advantages of moving the Prime Meridian? And how do these offset the difficulties and costs?


that the center of the Earth--prime meridian--should be objectively determined, and the highest point on the equator should be that point

The Prime Meridian is objectively defined. There is nothing subjective about it. It is based on an ultimately arbitrary location, but that location is no more arbitrary than selection the highest point on the Equator. In fact, in economic terms, it is far less arbitrary.
 

Philip

Donor
Also I'm not sure why tallest point on the equator matters. There's no scientific reason that would make a good prime meridian than any other point.

That's the problem. There is no good reason other than it sounds, on the surface, as well defined. But it's not. First, the summit of Cayambe is 1.5 minutes north of the Equator. Thus we can not use its summit to define the Prime Meridian -- the highest point close to the Equator. Well, what does 'close to the Equator' mean? Arbitrary and probably subjective. Perhaps we should select the highest point on Cayambe that is actually on the Equator. But there are at least two those (one on the front slope and one on the back slope at a minimum. It's possible but unlikely there is a local max exactly on the Equator.). How do we select one to use? Again, that's an arbitrary choice and probably a surveying nightmare.

(Let's skip over the fact that Cayambe wasn't summitted by Europeans until the 1880s. This makes the practicality of Europeans using it rather limited.)
 
Last edited:
That's the problem. There is no good reason other than it sounds, on the surface, as well defined. But it's not. First, the summit of Cayambe is 1.5 minutes north of the Equator. Thus we can not use its summit to define the Prime Meridian -- the highest point close to the Equator. Well, what does 'close to the Equator' mean? Arbitrary and probably subjective. Perhaps we should select the highest point on Cayambe that is actually on the Equator. But there are at least two those (one on the front slope and one on the back slope at a minimum. It's possible but unlikely there is a local max exactly on the Equator.). How do we select one to use? Again, that's an arbitrary choice and probably a surveying nightmare.

(Let's skip over the fact that Cayambe wasn't summitted by Europeans until the 1880s. This makes the practicality of Europeans using it rather limited.)

Actually, according to calculus, there SHOULD be an absolute max on the equator. It won't be a peak of the mountain, but it will be the highest point ON the equator. If the mountain was a perfect cone shape it would be the closest point on the equator to the peak. If it's not a perfect cone shape, the equator will still run up one slope of the mountain and down the other slope. The local max will be the point where the direction of the slope along the equator switches from increasing to decreasing.

If you don't believe me look up "constrained optimization" in any multivariable calculus textbook.
 

Philip

Donor
Actually, according to calculus, there SHOULD be an absolute max on the equator.
If you take the Equator to be the projection onto the surface of the mountain. (I was interpreting the Equator as a circle that intercepts the surface of the mountain.) Even then, there is no guarantee that the maximum is unique. And finding it is still a surveying nightmare.
 
As others have said the Prime Meridian wasn't just for global distance but also time keeping (the two being linked). Europeans are going to want to set their noon as close to the PM noon as possible. So a point outside Europe is unlikely unless it happens to be halfway round the world thus effectively making its antipode the PM!
 
If you take the Equator to be the projection onto the surface of the mountain. (I was interpreting the Equator as a circle that intercepts the surface of the mountain.) Even then, there is no guarantee that the maximum is unique. And finding it is still a surveying nightmare.

Yes, I was thinkinf of the equator as the plane which cuts the Earth into Northern and Southern hemispheres. If you think of the equator as a circle you have to arbitrarily assign it an altitude above or below sea level, and whatever altitude you assign will be the altitude anywhere on the equator. If the equator is a circle the idea of a "highest point" on the equator is meaningless since all points on a circle have the same altitude.
 
That's the problem. There is no good reason other than it sounds, on the surface, as well defined. But it's not. First, the summit of Cayambe is 1.5 minutes north of the Equator. Thus we can not use its summit to define the Prime Meridian -- the highest point close to the Equator. Well, what does 'close to the Equator' mean? Arbitrary and probably subjective. Perhaps we should select the highest point on Cayambe that is actually on the Equator. But there are at least two those (one on the front slope and one on the back slope at a minimum. It's possible but unlikely there is a local max exactly on the Equator.). How do we select one to use? Again, that's an arbitrary choice and probably a surveying nightmare.

(Let's skip over the fact that Cayambe wasn't summitted by Europeans until the 1880s. This makes the practicality of Europeans using it rather limited.)

That's exactly what I said in my OP--it's on the southern slope of Cayambe, not the peak itself. And since the peak seems to be the highest mountain that close to the equator, and the fact it's relatively close to an important city, means it would see far more attention/exploration earlier.

The adoption of a standard system of scientific based of universally observable quantities had many advantages. What, again, are the advantages of moving the Prime Meridian? And how do these offset the difficulties and costs?

Because it's an objective truth and is completely and utterly political neutral? The only thing more neutral (since it wouldn't pass through a country) would be finding the deepest point in the sea on the Equator which is not feasible until the later 20th century. Ultimately, it's a philosophical point that would need to catch some sort of popular attention early on (and probably before the 19th century really).
 
Because it's an objective truth and is completely and utterly political neutral? The only thing more neutral (since it wouldn't pass through a country) would be finding the deepest point in the sea on the Equator which is not feasible until the later 20th century. Ultimately, it's a philosophical point that would need to catch some sort of popular attention early on (and probably before the 19th century really).

Yes but why that objective truth? Why not the lowest point? Or the sharpest incline, or the lowest gravity, or the least air pressure, or the most biomass, or the hottest temperature, or the distance to the moon.

Choosing one objective measure over another is not politically neutral. The metre wasn't brought in in a politically neutral manner it was championed by the French as another method of separating the past from the present. The political hit from implementing a decimal day was too much for most nations so it never caught on.
 

Philip

Donor
Because it's an objective truth

It's not objectively true. You are choosing the highest mountain close to the Equator. 'Close to the Equator' is subjective.

completely and utterly political neutral?

Whether or not it is politically neutral is subjective. I would argue that the selection of a PM on Earth is fundamentally a political question. It can not have a politically neutral answer.
 
Yes but why that objective truth? Why not the lowest point? Or the sharpest incline, or the lowest gravity, or the least air pressure, or the most biomass, or the hottest temperature, or the distance to the moon.

Choosing one objective measure over another is not politically neutral. The metre wasn't brought in in a politically neutral manner it was championed by the French as another method of separating the past from the present. The political hit from implementing a decimal day was too much for most nations so it never caught on.

Because "lowest gravity point on the equator" doesn't make sense to the average person, whereas anyone can understand what "highest point on the equator?" There's no reason you couldn't use other objective definitions (temperature and air pressure do not count since they are constantly changing and new records are always being found), but finding the highest point is a lot easier to find than anything else. The lowest point you couldn't use since the lowest point on land at the equator is sea level, and the lowest point in general is somewhere in the Pacific.

It's not objectively true. You are choosing the highest mountain close to the Equator. 'Close to the Equator' is subjective.

Let me repeat myself again:

That's exactly what I said in my OP--it's on the southern slope of Cayambe, not the peak itself. And since the peak seems to be the highest mountain that close to the equator, and the fact it's relatively close to an important city, means it would see far more attention/exploration earlier.

Whether or not it is politically neutral is subjective. I would argue that the selection of a PM on Earth is fundamentally a political question. It can not have a politically neutral answer.

No, but there are answers more neutral than others. Mecca or Rome are not exactly neutral, are they, assuming you aren't a Muslim or Christian or Roman pagan.
 
As has been mentioned before, why would any major power consider doing this? What is the advantage?

Each major country is more likely to adopt a prime meridian passing through its own territory (because nationalism) rather than some arbitrary geographical feature halfway round the world.

What matters in naval navigation is determining latitude (fairly simple) and longitude (hard, unless you have accurate chronometers).

You also need to determine a baseline time (most likely the site your ship was based from, or some significant port or capital), and compare it to your local noon.

IMO, it's more likely that no point be picked as the basis for a common prime meridian than some random mountain in somewhere totally insignificant to the major powers at the time.

There was an alternate Prime Meridian proposed by French delegates to the International Meridian Conference, passing through the Bering Strait and the Azores.

Given the basis of the metre, you are more likely for the world to pick the Paris meridian as the prime meridian, than the Ecuador Prime Meridian.
 
I'll agree with those taking issue with the idea that this proposed Ecuadorian Meridian is in any way more objective than the existing Prime Meridian- or any of the other national Prime Meridians for that matter. The Prime Meridian is an inherently arbitrary line; just like the convention of representing the degrees of a circle (which of course is exactly what longitude is) with 0/360 in the 3 o'clock position, 180 in the 6 o'clock, and so on. There's really no reason for having that orientation besides it being a reasonably intuitive place to start the count. You could start anywhere and it would work equally well mathematically, so you go with a practical starting point. So the only reason for the Prime Meridian to be in one location over another are practical and political ones.
 
I think you are overlooking the practical and commercial aspects of selecting a prime meridian. As @Escape Zeppelin mentioned, the official agreement was just confirming what was already standard practice.

Look at it from the Royal Navy's perspective. Why would they set their clocks (and that is really the practical purpose for the PM) based on when the sun is over some mountain on the other side of the world? Isn't it far more logical to set the clocks based on the observatory that is located near the headquarters?

Once the RN and British shipping interests have settled on a common meridian (and thus standard time) there is to much momentum.

My idea too. It would be like the current kilowatt versus horsepower discussion all over again. Officially the zero meridian would be in Equador, but 90% of all international trade maps would still use Greenwich as a standard.
 
Top