Historiarum

In examining the different atlases and maps this past week, a thought kept reoccurring that I haven’t quite been able to work through. There seems to be a significant difference between these historical atlases and text-based historical analysis, mainly in that the writing is more sparse in these visually based works. This makes sense since the primary sources are the focus of the works, but it made me question how historians approach these materials.

It seems as though often visual culture is presented on its own, as if they speak for themselves. This is not always the case obviously, but the narrative explanations often seem thinner than traditional approaches. There seem to be several possible reasons for this. One that I wonder about is whether as text continues to carry less and less weight in our culture, and is supplanted by different forms of imagery, is there a natural inclination to highlight the visual and constrain the text? The question that would follow for me though, is if this is the case, how can we continue to present complex interpretations of history through a combination of primary sources, imagery, and text in an appealing package?

The other point that struck me was it seems as though in assessing the maps presented in Historical Atlas of the United States historians can use visual source material to reform the narrative structure of their work. While Hayes chose to present his narrative in a chronological fashion, I wondered if it might not have made more sense for him to have used a topical approach. It seems that in comparing maps of a “political” or “patriotic” persuasion from different times and places might have been more useful that comparing maps simple from the same era with each other. I’m not sure if visual imagery lends itself to this sort of thematic analysis better than text sources, but it seems to be the case.

Share This

Maps can provide interesting access points to the past. The information, presentation, and context of historical maps can indicate more that geographic locations. Instead they carry cultural attitudes and values, changing demographics, and contemporary political inclinations. In gathering historical maps together, topical themes can be traced over time and place, and much can be gleaned from their nuances and details.

Derek Hayes’ Historical Atlas of the United States and the David Rumsey Map Collection offer two efforts to utilize historical maps for research and education, but accomplish their similar goals through very different approaches. There is much to compare and contrast between the two projects, including the comparative selection of maps and historical context they are placed in. Mostly, however, it seems relevant to dissect the differences between the digital and traditional methods of publication of each. Historical Atlas of the United States is a traditional printed atlas, while the Rumsey Collection is an online archive. The collections have much in common, but it is in their differences that the different potential uses for maps begin to appear.

Perhaps because the book is still a more familiar device, the overall look and feel of Hayes’ work is more attractive than the website. Historical Atlas of the United States is a gorgeous book with beautiful reproductions, and it is very enjoyable to turn the pages and closely examine the maps. It is laid out well, with text woven between the maps, and helpful captions supporting both the analyses and the primary documents. This layout seems to be the greatest advantage of the traditional method of publication. With the book it is much easier to place maps in context with each other due to large size of the viewing area. It is difficult to effectively do this through a website as most users do not have computer monitors near the size of the large paged atlas. Similarly, the quality of color and resolution is under control in the printed format, whereas the website is again reliant on the technology of the user. With regard to these simple presentation aspects the book offers a superior experience.

Additionally, the book was far more efficient at delivering complementary text alongside the maps. With all of the relevant information&emdash;primary sources (maps), commentary (captions), and narrative text&emdash;readily available it offers a seamless experience. Alternatively, the Rumsey Collection struggles to coherently present all of the material related to the map. Large versions of the map appear in different windows than the metadata, forcing the user to flip back and forth between the two. This makes the natural inclination to refer from text to map and back a difficult task. This seems to be a simple design flaw, however, and an effect similar to the atlas could be accomplished digitally with better site structure.

Maybe not coincidentally, Historical Atlas of the United States offers better analysis and context for the maps than the Rumsey Collection. This might be a difference in approach. The Rumsey Collection functions more as an archive than a historical argument. It does seem possible though that the awkward presentation system inhibited the development of textual analysis or commentary on the website. Nonetheless, the maps on the Rumsey site offers little in the way of information beyond some metadata regarding the map’s origins and relations to other maps. Again, this is likely a function of the goals for the site, but it is hard to imagine it presenting a coherent and useful historical narrative as it is currently constructed.

This is not to say the digital medium does not have its advantages. The Rumsey site asserts, “Presenting individual maps in a digital format literally breaks the boundaries of an atlas’s bookbinding, allowing the viewer to view single maps independent of their original encasing.” And in presenting the primary sources the Rumsey Collection offers much more than Historical Atlas of the United States. Most importantly, the maps appearing on the website can be zoomed in on, allowing for a much closer examination of detail than the book. For example a map of AT&T trunk lines from 1891 appear in both the atlas and on the website. As highlighted in the images below, it is apparent that the maps on the website are far more useful for research and for getting a sense of the information the map is conveying. If one only was able to view the AT&T map in the atlas the towns and routes would be unclear. Instead, viewing it on the Rumsey site, questions arise regarding why certain towns were chosen to receive telephone and telegraph lines in the early telecommunications era.

The above image which is the general size of the one pictured in the atlas offers little insight into the detail of the map. However, as shown below, the website allows a much closer analysis of the map

Ultimately, there are a number of trade-offs in choosing a method to present historical atlases. It seems harder to present a coherent narrative digitally, though this might simply be that the goals and technology of the Rumsey Collection are not congruous with such a project. However, the flexibility and precision the digital maps offer is a major advantage in developing a collection of maps for comparison and analysis.

A final advantage of the digital format that is not present in the Rumsey Collection, but bears mentioning, is the potential for creative uses of maps it offers. The photo sharing site Flickr contains a number of groups dedicated to historical cartography, including one called Memory Maps. While these are not strictly historical atlases, they do contain maps of a historical bent. The group description describes, “The idea is to take a satelitte image of your neighborhood from your childhood, and use “notes” to tell the story of you growing up.” In transforming maps of familiar areas, users are creating items which will speak to future historians, as well as create a usable record of the near past for current scholars. Here we can begin to further explore the way maps can be infused with narratives similar to the ones presented in both Hayes’ and Rumsey’s collections.

As one user notes, “So if memories are an expression of historical remberances, how is it possible to use current maps to express the temporal quality of those memories?” It is an interesting thought to keep in mind while examining maps of eras past. As both Hayes and Rumsey show, maps are far more than simple geographic representations. And as their projects exemplify, there are different ways we can come to know and understand maps more deeply and begin to unravel their meanings.

Share This

Reading Lee Anne Ghajar’s post about the interpretational aspects of cartography reminded me of something I came across a few months back. You ask, “But is a satellite view of the earth subject to the same interpretive categories as the first maps of new continents?” I would answer probably not, although I’m sure we could stretch and find some points about which side of the earth is the picture and its orientation. Regardless the flip side of the question, about how we can add value to maps seems more interesting.

A few months back I came across a site called Worldmapper. Their tagline is “The world as you’ve never seen it before.” And it’s true. Take for example the two images below.

The first image represents the territory size in proportion to the number of botanical gardens found in that area. The second image does the same but for the number of plant species. So here they have taken maps and given them unique representations with two somewhat related sets of data. The disparity between the two is amazing. Moreover, it makes one quickly realize how maps can be instilled deeply with both useful and loaded information. This seems important for us to remember moving forward in class since, as Lee Anne notes, “… historical maps are necessarily objects that must be interpreted.”

Share This