Yes, I think I understand your point. Yes, there are many people who use "upper" and "lower" as rough equivalents to "north" and "south". Here is but one of ma

Yes, I think I understand your point. Yes, there are many people who use "upper" and "lower" as rough equivalents to "north" and "south". Here is but one of many examples - "Up and down can be confusing when one talks about Egypt. In ancient times the term Upper Egypt actually meant heading downwards into Africa, while Lower Egypt meant heading upwards on the map, to the Nile Delta." http://motherdaughterbookreviews.com/guest-post-the-magic-of-maps-in-middle-grade-books-by-fiona-ingram/ http://motherdaughterbookreviews.com/guest-post-the-magic-of... My point, however, is that the phrase 'modern frame of reference' is meaningless. At best it's "personal sense of reference" or "a common mistake." That is, our 'modern' use now seems to be identical to what it was when the terms "upper" and "lower" Egypt were coined. Also, note that that book review is wrong. At least, according to Wikipedia, 'Lower Egypt was known as Ta-Mehu which means "land of papyrus"' and 'Upper Egypt was known as Ta Shemau which means "the land of reeds"', so it's not like modern English uses a direct translation of the Ancient Egyptian. So, when was this earlier time that's supposed to be different from now?