1

DraftchapterforMappingAcrossAcademiaWhatiswhere?TheroleofmaprepresentationsandmappingpracticesinadvancingscholarshipStanleyD.Brunn1andMartinDodge21DepartmentofGeography,UniversityofKentucky2UniversityofManchesterTheemergenceofthemappingimpulse

“MoremappingofmoredomainsbymorenationswillprobablyoccurinthenextdecadethanhasoccurredatanytimesinceAlexandervonHumboldt‘rediscovered’theearthintheeighteenthcentury,andmoreterraincognitawillbechartedthaneverbeforeinhistory”

—StephenS.Hall,MappingtheNextMillennium(1992:22)

“Howmanymaps,inthedescriptiveorgeographicalsense,mightbeneededtodealexhaustivelywithagivenspace,tocodeanddecodeallitsmeaningsandcontent?”

—HenriLefebvre,TheProductionofSpace(1991:85)

Wecanstatewithafairdegreeofcertainlythatmapmakinginsomeformisasoldashumanhistory.Thatis,whenwelookattheworldpopulation10,000yearsagotheearliesthumanclansalreadyhadsomeonemakingorpreparingmapsinsomeway.Huntergathersatthattimeprobablynumberedabouttenmillionpeoplewholivedinforests,grasslands,andintermediateenvironmentsinmultiplelocationsofsmallnumbersonallcontinents.Amajorsourceoftheirwell‐beingwasconcernedaboutbasicsurvivalquestions,suchasthesourcesoffood,water,buildingmaterialsforhomes,placesofsafetyandthelocationsoffriendsandadversaries.Placewasaprimaryconcernaboutlivelihood.This“spatial”survivalinformationwasintheheadsoftheseearliesttropicalandsubtropicalpeople(Ingold,2000).Itwasnotonlyinformationthatwasknown,butalsohadtobeconveyedtoothersinsomeway.Verbalcommunicationwasonewaytheseearliestpeoplescouldanddidrevealinformationabout“whatwaswhere.”However,anotherwayalsobecameimportantincommunicationwasbydevisingrepresentationsorwaysofvisuallydemarcatingthelocationofsomething.Inpre‐literateandwrittenlanguageculturessomemembersofaclanortribalgroupbegantothinkofcreativeandimaginativewaystoshow“whatwaswhere.”Herewearenottalkingaboutmapsasweknowthemtoday,butotherschematicwaystorepresentandportrayvitalgeographicalinformationforthecommunity.Theearliestmapmakerswould,couldanddidusevariouswaystodepictthelocationoffoodsources,gooddrinkingwaterandplacesettingsthatweresafefromwildanimalsorneighboringgroupscompetingforthesameterritories.TheywerealsoconcernedaboutthenavigablepathwaysandthebestroutesfrompointAtopointB.Boundariesorterritoriallimitsoflivelihoodspaceswerealsosomethingalwaysinthemindsoftheearliesthumansettlementsaswell.Theearliestproto‐“maps”weremostlikelycruderepresentationsof“whatwaswhere,”madebydrawinglinesinthesandormudorusingbranchesofatreewithdifferentsizesandspacingsoftwigstoshowplacefeatures.Leafsandflowersandplantstems,allwithgeometricfeatures,couldbeusedas“maps”aswellastheycouldanddidconveyinformationabout“whatwaswhere”thatcouldsupplementorallyconveyedknowledge.Thearrangementofstones,withstratifiedbydifferent

2

sizes,colorsandshapes,couldalsobeusedtodisplayearthfeaturesinthesurroundinglandscape.(Formoredetailsonmappingthroughsongsandstories,ritualdancesandceremonies,bodyartandtattoos,androckpictographsintraditionalandpre‐industrialsocieties,seeWoodwardandLewis,1998.)Theearliestproto‐cartographersmayhavebeenvillageelders(womenandmen)whohadthebestcognitivemapsoftheirterritoryandthemostlengthyandwidespreadgeographicalexperiences.Ortheymayhavebeensomeonegroomedforthetaskbyvillageleadersbecauseofagoodmemory.Alternatively,perhapstheymayhavebeensomeonewithaphysicaldisabilitywhoexhibitedsomeartistictalentsinmakingcrudemapsasachildorevendrawinganimals,riversandfoodsourcesonacavewallorcarvingplaceknowledgeonapieceofbarkorhardbonesurface.Theseearlycartographerswerebasicallypreparingrepresentationsofinformationonearthsurfaceforothers,notonlyhuntersandgatherers,butalsoclanleaders,thatis,thoseresponsibleforsecurityandinstructingothersabout“whatwaswhere?”Wemightalsoconsidertheseearlycartographersashavingsomemixof“scienceandart”talents,thatis,notonlyrepresentingsomethingfromanearthscaletosome“map”scale,butalsoincludingsomesimplegraphicalsketchesaboutthedirectionsofariver,thetypesoftrees,whichpreyanimalsweretobefoundinthegrasslands,chartingchangingseasonalfoodsourcesandsomesymbolsdefiningterritoriallimits.Eventhoughexamplesoftheseearth‐materialmapsmade5,000‐10,000yearsagodonotexisttoday,weknowfromotherartifacts(pottery,jewelryandclothing),rockartandcavewallsketchesthatcreativeartistrywasadistinctivefeatureofmanyhumangroupsinpre‐history,whethertheywerehuntersandgatherersorearlycoastalcommunitiesandsedentaryagriculturalists(cf.DelanoSmith,1987).Wearealsoprobablysafeinassumingthatthemakingoftheearliestmapswasnotconfinedtoonegeographicalorenvironmentallocationandthendiffusedoutofasinglehearth.MuchmorelikelywasthatmapswereindependentlyconstructedinthewaysdescribedaboveandwerepreparedbythoselivinginmultiplelocationsthroughoutthetropicalandsubtropicalworldsofinterioreastandwestAfrica,riverinesouthwestAsia,mountainoussoutheastandnortheastAsiaandhighlandCentralandSouthAmerica.Indeed,researchbygeographerJamesBlautandcolleagueshasbeenconductedtoseehowfarmappingcanberegardedasaculturaluniversal;theynotethat“manyotherrecordedexamples,fromsiteswidelyseparatedinspaceandtime,suggestthatitisatleastplausiblethatmappingwasandisemployedbynearlyallcultures,everywhere”(Blautetal.,2003:181).Overtimethemakingofmapsbecamemoreimportant,notonlyasthenumberofclanmembersincreased,butalsoknowledgeaboutmoredistantgeographicalinformationwasgatheredwhichbecameimportantforongoingstruggletosurvival.Thesameinformationaboutfood,securityandprotectionthatwasimportantfortheearliestcommunitiescontinuedtobeofparamountimportanceasdidboundariesdemarcatedonthelandinsomewayorinthemindsofcommunityleaders.Theaccumulationofmorespatialandenvironmentalknowledgemeantthatnewmapsandmorerelatedspatialrepresentationhadtobeconstructedusingavarietyofavailablesurfaces:animalbones,treebark,rocksonwhichonecouldcarvedistinctivespatialfeatures(forbroadregionalreviewsandexemplars,seeDelanoSmith,1987;Lopez,1986;Maggs,1998;Sutton,1998).Constructingmapswasgivingwaytoprevious“mapsontheground”thatdisplayedthelocationofsomethingbytheshapeofabranch(whichmightrefertoariver)orplacementofstones(thesizeshowingpromisingsitesforedibleplantsandanimalhabitats).EarlyburialsitesandgravesthemselvesprovidesomeevidenceofPaleolithichumansbeingfamiliarwithsomegeometricthinking;specificobjectsofthedeceasedwereplacedinaproperplaceandalignment,oftenwithrespecttosomesolarorlunarphenomena(fullorhalf‐moonsorsolstices)orsomespecificlandformfeaturesthatwereimportantinthesitesofearlysettlements.Themapsoflandstarchartsofthenightskiesthatwerenowbeingconstructedandpreparedingreaterdetailwouldandcouldalsobeduplicatedmoreeasilyandcarriedabout.ThesecharacteristicsareavitalaspectofBrunoLatour’s(1990)conceptualizationofmapsasimmutablemobiles.Inthissense,evenatthis

3

earlytimeinhumansettlementandpoliticalhistory,themakingofmapscametobeassociatednotonlywithrepresentingnewknowledgeaboutthehumanandenvironmentalworlds,butasasourceofpower.Controllingwhatcouldbecapturedinamapandwhopossessedthemapwasimportant.Theearliestcartographersprobablyhadaratherconstrainedlevelofpoweramongotherhunters,gatherersandherdersintheirclansandpossiblyevenamongtheearliestagriculturalistsbecausewhattheyweredepictinginsomegraphicalformwhatwasconsideressentialforhumansurvival.However,aspopulationsgrewandmorefoodsourcesbecameapriorityandastheinnatehumaninstinctsforknowing“whatwasbeyondtheimmediateecumene”increased,beingabletoillustratethatinformationandconveyitinsomeformbecameessential.Thisincludedmappingthechangingpositionofstarsinthenightsky,navigatingseasandriversandmeasuringimportantcelestialphenomena,allwhichaidedintheconstructionofcalendars.Itwasnotsimplywhatwasupordownstreamfromtheencampmentorbeyondtheforestoroverthehorizonthatoneobserveddaily,butwhereweretheterraeincognitaetotheseearliesthumanfamilies?Itisindeedpossiblethatgraduallytheclanartistorincipientmap‐makerachievedsomesenseofprestigewithinthecommunity.TheywereanindispensablesourceofnotonlylisteningtowhatothersreportedorobservedIntheirnearbydailyactivitiesandmoredistantjourneys,butalsowasabletodepictthatinformationonmaterialsthatwouldhelpthehunter,gathererandearlyagriculturalisthavemoresuccessesandstability.Thatinformationwasalsoofincreasinglyuseandvaluetotheclanortriballeaders.Inthissensethemapmakeremergedassomeonewithrespect,powerandprestigewithinthegroup,notonlybeingableto“know”whatwaswhere,butbeingabletoplacethatinformationonrecordablestablemedia,fixingterritoriallimitsandaidinggoverningandevenmilitaryexpansion.ExpandingtheearlyecumenesWecanandwouldexpectaspopulationsincreased,peoplemigratedtonearbyanddistantlocationsandsedentarysettlementswithagriculturalandeconomiesbasedonprimaryresourcesevolvedandalsothattheneedformaprepresentationsandmappingskillswouldincrease.Cartographybecameanessentialpartofdailylifeforsettlements,notinthesensethatmapsbecameassociatedwithaprehistoricorearlyhistoricpopularculture,butthatsomeonewhowasofficiallybeingdesignatedasboththe“recorderandkeeper”ofvitalgeographicalinformationandwasalsopresentingthatinformationtosomeone(usuallysomeoneinpower)withinthecommunityorgroup.Manyoftheearlysurvivingmapsheldinarchivesandmuseumsdepictthecraftsoftheseearlycommunitycartographers.Longbeforepaperappearedasamajorsource,mapsweredrawnonmaterialsthatwouldbeenduringasnotedabove,includingcarvingsonlargeanimalbones,slabsofrocksanddrawingsincaves.Someoftheseearlygraphicswereintricateindetailwithspecificgeographicaldetailsaboutriversandtributaries,mountains,sacredsitesanddepictionsofplacesofpowerandprestigewithinthecommunity.Someofthesewerealsorichindesigns(plants,animalsandstarsandsun)andalsoincolor,whichsuggeststhateveninearlyhistoricalperiodsofhumansettlement,mapswerevaluedaspiecesofscientificinformationandartjustliketheearliestcelestialcalendars,whichalsorequiredsomecollectiveknowledgeof“whathappenedwhen”(fullandpartialmoons,eclipses,equinoxesandsolstices)andalsorepresentingthattimeinformationinsomeusefulandmeaningfulwaynotonlyfortheresidentpopulation,butalsoforthoseinpositionsofpoliticalandreligiouspower.Mapartifactsandmappingpracticesagainbecameassociatedwithterritorialcontrolandownership,militaryexploitsandalsoseekingknowledgeforscientificorcommercialadvantage.The“keeperofknowledge”wasnotonlythepersonorpersonsinauthority,butalsotheindividualswhoknewhowtomakethemaps.Theproductionofmapsandthedistributionofcartographicknowledgeincreasedwiththeuseofvelum,parchmentandpapertorepresent“whatwaswhere”(seeWoodward,1975).The

4

innovationofapaper,whichcamefromChina,greatlyincreasedtheuseofmapsforseveralreasons.Firstly,itreducedoneofkeycosts,and,secondly,itwaseasiertodrawinformationonthesesurfacesratherthanhavingtoetchthemintohardmaterial.Thirdlywasthatonecouldmakecorrectionsandadditionseasierasallthatwasneedwassomepenandinktoaddthatinformation.Fourth,onecouldreproduceamapeasier,evenifitrequiredmuchhandlabor,andmakeitavailabletomoreusers.Mapartefactscouldthemselvestravel.Theearliestpapermaps,ofcourse,werehand‐drawnmapsasweretheearliestgraphicaldepictionsofroyaltypalaces,temples,monumentsandevenplants,animalsandhumans.Thesegraphicalartists,aswewouldcallthemtoday,wereimportantmembersofthepowerfulpoliticalandcommercialcommunitiesaswhattheywereengagedinwascollecting,distilling,updatingandrepresentinginformationthatcouldbeusefultosupportaruler’sambitions.Religiousrepresentationsoftheknownworld,intheformofT&Omaps(orbisterrarum,aseventhcenturywayofdepictingtheworldwithJerusalematthecenter),dominated,withthepictorialapproachbasedongeographicdescriptionsinancientteachingsandthecentralityofplacessuchasJerusalemandMecca.Westerncartographywoulddevelopwiththeadoptionoflocationalgridsthatprovideduniversalwaystolocatethepositionofpointsonthesurfaceoftheearthandthenrecordthislocationandrepresentitaccuratelyonanauticalchartorterritorialmap.OneoftheoriginsforthisabilitytomapspacecanbetracedbacktotheworkofClaudiusPtolemy,aninfluential2ndcenturyCEGreco‐Romanastronomer,andtherediscoveryofhistextGeographiaatthestartofRenaissanceperiod.Theadoptionofhisgridoflatitudeandlongitudeenablednewmapsoftheworldtobeconstructedwithgreaterscientificfidelitycomparedtomostofexistingmediaevalmappamundae.(Figure1.1)ThestoryofthedevelopmentoftechniquesanddifferentformsofgeographicmaprepresentationfromtheRenaissanceperiodonwardsiswellconsideredinvolumeoneoftheHistoryofCartography(HarleyandWoodward,1987;availablefreeonlineatwww.press.uchicago.edu/books/HOC/index.html).Figure1.1.AnearlyattemptataworldmapbasedonPtolemaicprojectionandlocationaldatafromGeographiaaspublishedbyJ.AngeliusinBologna,1462.Source:BayerischeStaatsBibliothek.Methodsofsurveyingsubsequentlydevelopedthatwereabletomeasureaccuratelylargeswathsofterritoryusingtriangulationtechniqueswhichwereadvancedinthesixteenthcentury.ThesecametotheforeastechniquesunderpinningtheambitiousnationaltopographicsurveysthatstartedinmanyWesterncounties(andsomeoftheircolonies)inthe18thcentury.Thislineageleadsdirectlytothedetailedtopographiccartographythatformsthegeographicframeworkformoderncountriesandthemodesofgovernmentandcommerce.(Figure1.2)Figure1.2.Anexampleofdetailpackedonamoderntopographicmap.ThisexamplebyUSGSfrom1953showsthecityofManchesterNHandsurroundingcountryside.Source:USGSHistoricQuaddownload,http://historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs/Whilethesovereign,thechurchandeventheearlycivilgovernmentsweretheprimarypromotersofcollectingofgeospatialinformation(throughroyalties’sponsoringnearbysurveys,andmoredistantdiscoveries(suchastheSpanish/Portuguese‘ageofexploration’inthefifteenthcenturies),therewereprivateventuresandsponsorswantingthesameinformation.Mapswereindeedprizedandcoveteddocumentsthatweredeemed‘secret’andvaluedforsupposedexclusivecommercial,militaryandstrategicpurposes.Harley(1989)showshowtheCasadelaContraciónmaintainedthePadrónRealintheearly16thcenturyasasecretmastermaptoprotectthekeydiscoveriesofSpanishexplorers.Inthisenvironmenttherivalryforfundingknowledge‐expeditionsandfinding“whatwaswhere”becameahighpriorityforextra‐continentalexploitsbeforeandduringthe

5

periodsofexplorationanddiscovery,notablywithEuropeansailorsinthe14and15thcenturiesinandaroundAfricaandAsia.Thedevelopmentoflongdistancesailingtechnologieswenthandinhandwithcartographyadvances.Theseemergingandexpandingworldsofgeographicalknowledgefueledthedemandformapsforthoseinpoliticalandmilitarypositionsofpower,tradersandcommercialcolonists,scientificcommunitiesandreligiouselites.Thestatebecamethemajorsourcefordevelopingcartographyandfuelingthedemandforprofessionallytrainedcartographersandearlygeographicalscientists.Thiswasalsothetimethestatesweredevelopingmilitaryinstitutes,whichoftenincludedsurveyingandcartographicunits,whichintandemservedthestate’sinterestsofknowledgeproductionandrepresentationandterritorialcontrol.NewandmultiplesinglemapsappearedinatlasesofAfrica,Asia,thePacific,andtheWesternhemisphere,afardifferentsetofterraeincognitaethanthoserepresentingtheearliesthumansettlementgeographiesandcartographies.MorerecentcartographichistoriesMostoftheearliestmapsproducedbythestateorbyindividualsshowedthe“knownworld”orpartsofthespacethathadbeenwellexploredandrecorded,forexample,theportsandcoastlinesshownonPortolanchartsfromthe13thcentury(Pflederer,2012).Theseearliestmapscontainedlocationalinformationaboutimportantcitiesandsettlementsaswellasmajorphysicalfeatures,includingmountainranges,riversandroadroutes.Wellknownsurvivingexamples,intheEuropeancontext,includethePeutingerTable(circa.13thcenturycopyofa4thcenturyoriginal)andthemid1300sGoughmapofGreatBritain.However,manyoftheseearlymapsalsodepictedareaswherelittlewasknownofwhatwasthere;fillinginthe“empty”placeswithanimalsandstrangelookingpeoples(toEuropeansasthemapproducersandreaders).Someplacesonmapsdelimitedterritoriesastheserepresentedwhereonehadorwasthoughttohaveownershipandpoliticalcontrol.Geographersandotherspatialscientistsalsovaluedthisevolvingknowledgeinteachingstudentsandinformingthecuriouspublicabout“whatwasthere,”whetheraboutthephysicalterrain,navigableriversandportcities,newanddifferentculturesorpotentialmineralpossessionsorvaluableagriculturalregionsproducingdesiredproductsforhomecountries.Newworldmapsandatlasinthe15thcenturywereproducedbythecelebratedEuropeancartographers/publisherssuchasMartinWaldseemüller,AbrahamOrteliusandGerhardMercator.SomeofthesenewspacesalsobecameareasfornewsettlementsassociatedwithcolonizationoutsidetheEuropeancontinent.Figure1.3.TheGeographer,byJohannesVermeer,c.1668‒1669.Thesceneillustratesthepracticesofgeographicalscienceinthe‘ageofdiscovery’,producingknowledgethoughtopographicmaps,navigationchartsandterrestrialglobes.Aframedworldnauticalmaphangsonthewall.(Oiloncanvas,52x45.5cm.)Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_GeographerFormostofwhatmightbeconsideredscholarly“cartographichistory,”aperiodthatwouldincludemostofthepastfivehundredyears,thewords“map,”“globe”or“atlas”wereassociatedwithproducingthekindsofphysical,environmentalorexploratorymapsofterritoriesdescribedabove.Government‐producedmapsandcommerciallyproducedonesfortheevergrowingknowledge‐hungrypublic,especiallywiththerapidlyexpandingurban‐industrialpopulationsinthe19thcenturyandwidespreadprimaryeducationandpromulgationofmiddleclasssensibilities(includingleisuretravelandlatermasstourism).Thesenewdemographicgroupswerecuriousaboutdistantlandsandchangingnatureofnearbyplacesandfillingin“thegaps”withinformationaboutphysicalenvironmentalsettingsandpeoplesandtheircultures.Thiscartographicandpictorialinformation(globes,wallhungworldmaps,boundatlases)becamestandardinformation

6

forclassesongeographyandhistory.Itwasonlylaterwithmoredetailedinformationgatheredonorganizedscientificexpeditionsthatadditionaltopicsappearedaboutclimates,vegetationandphysicalfeaturesof“newlydiscovered”inhabitants.(Forexample,considerthemapsderivedfromthesurveyworkofAlexandervonHumboldtincentralandSouthAmericaatthestartofthe19thcentury;Malcolm,1987;Figure1.4)Herewearereferringtomapsthatwouldalsoshowtraderoutes,heathenpopulations,coloniallandsandeconomically‐valuableresources.Territoriesandboundaryclaims(‘mine‐versus‐yours’)andchangesasaresultofconflictsalsoenteredthepicture.Thisiswellencapsulatedingeopoliticalcartography,forexampleHalfordMackinder’sfamous1904“GeographicalPivot”ofhistorywithhis‘heartlands’map(cf.DoddsandSidaway,2004).Figure1.5Thesetopicsnotonlybecamethestandardfareforthematicmapsinmultipleprintedpublicandschoolatlases,butalsoascontentofelementary,highschoolanduniversitygeographytextbooks(Cosgrove,2012).Geographytomanyoftheteachersofthesubjectandstudentswasafieldofstudyassociatedwithdescriptivematerials(graphs,globesandthematicmaps)aboutlandforms,climatesandvegetationaswellasaboutagricultural,mineralandmanufacturingeconomiesandgenericculturalfeatures(includingstereotypicalandracistanatomicalcharacteristicssuchasskinscolor,facialstructures,hairstyles,etc.;(cf.Crampton,2006),religiousarchitecture,demographiccounts,densitiesandtrends.Thedevelopmentoflithographicprintingtechniquesenabledmoredetailedmapstobeproducedmorecheaply.Themakingofmaps,orcartography,wascloselyassociatedwithgeographyandgeographers.Geographersmademapsandusedmapsbecausetheywereconsideredessentialelementsinunderstandingabouttheplanet’sknownandlittleknownphysicalenvironmentsandcultures,andabouttheintersectionsbetweenthenaturalprocessesandhumansphereatglobal,regionalorlocalscales.Duringthemiddleofthe19thcenturymanysignificantnationalgeographicalsocietieswereformed.(TheFrenchSociétédeGéographiewasfoundedin1821,theRoyalGeographicalSocietywasformedinLondon1830,theAmericanGeographicalSocietyinNewYorkCityin1851.)Althoughtheseinstitutionspromotedscholarship,datacollectionandcartography,theirexplorationmissionwasoftenfusedtotheinterestsofcolonialismandcorporateexploitation(cf.Driver,2001).Figure1.4.Theinfluentialsketchmap,entitled“TheNaturalSeatsofPower,”visuallyformulatedthenotionsofzonesofgeopolitics.Source:Mackinder,1904,435.Figure1.5.MapofplantspeciesonMountChimborazo1803,inwhichAlexandervonHumboldt’ssoughttodemonstrateoftheinfluenceofaltitudeandclimateonvegetationpatterns.Source:R.Paselk,http://www2.humboldt.edu/scimus/AvH_HSU_CentenialExhibitThenationalgeographicandcartographichistoriesdiscussedabovewereconsistentwithmajorchangesoccurringinmostEuropeanandNorthAmericancountriesthroughoutthefirsthalfofthe20thcentury.Statesandtheirscientificsocietieswereboththemajorproducers,consumersanddisseminatorsofmuchgeographicalinformationthatwascollectedbyexplorersandscientistsandalsoreportedinscholarlyjournals.Thatinformationnotonlyincludeddescriptions,asgeographywasstillprimarilyadata‐collectinganddescriptivepursuitasweremostothernaturalsciencesatthesametime,butalsotheproductionofmapswithinformationaboutphysicalterrain,inhabitedplaces,climatesandvegetation,andprobablymostimportantly,territorialcontrol.Thatinformationwasalsothesourceofmuchoftheinformationincludedinschooltextsatbothelementary,secondaryschoolandalsouniversitylevels.Geographywasconsideredakeydisciplinewherethesubjectmatteraboutplaces,economies,cultures,andenvironmentswereofcentralimportancetothestate.Italsoplayedakeyroleinterritorialandextraterritorialconflictsandalsocompetitionforsuchspaces.Boundariesandborders,whetheronland,inriversoracrosstheoceans,wereimportantissuesinresolvinglocal,regionalorglobaldisputes.Allwarsinthe20thcenturywereplayedoutwithgeographical“factors”beingimportantinpossessionandcontrol,

7

whetherinEurope,AsiaorplacesofterritorialcompetitioninSouth,SoutheastandEastAsia,theMiddleEastorcoloniesthroughouttheAfricancontinent.Theassociationsofgeographywithnationalgovernmentpoliciesandmilitarycontrol,includingduringtheColdWarfromthe1950sthroughthe1980s,arestoriesaboutmapproductionandpropagandathatonlycametobetopicsofseriousscholarlyinquiryinthe1960sand1970s,aftertheendoftheColdWar,theemergenceoftheThirdandFourthWorlds,theendofcolonialism,theriseofpetroeconomiesandthelateremergenceofAsian‘Tiger’economiesandtheriseofChinaasaregionalandworldeconomicandpoliticalpower(cf.Pickles,2000).SeachangesWhilechangeswereoccurringwithinthegeographydiscipline,therewerealsochangesemerginginotherdisciplines.Inregardstogeographytheaforementionedstandard“mix”oftopicsstudiedandmappedbegantochangefromthepost‐warperiod,especiallyintothe1960sand1970swithnewthemesandtopicsbeingstudiedbygeographers(cf.Johnston,1996).Theseincludedeconomicdevelopment,environmentalqualityandchange,andgeopoliticsortheintersectionsofpowerandpolitics.Cartographycanalsobeaddedtothislist.Mapsandmappingwere“stretchingacrossthehumanitiesandsciences”inwaysunheardofatmid‐century.Somegeographersactivelypursued“geographyasascience”inwhichtheysoughtwithstatisticalmodelingandtestingtoprovidemore“rigor”tounderstandingaspectsofhumanbehaviorandspatialthinking.Thedevelopmentsinbehavioralgeographicandinterestinthecognitivebasisofspatialitybroadenedtheunderstandingofthe“worlds”or“environments”or“locations”studiedbyphysical,humanandhuman/physicalgeographers.Cognitivemappingormentalmapsweretermsthatemergedandwerestudiedbyscholarswithcultural,economic,politicalandsocialbackgrounds(Montello,2002).Asimilar“scientific”disciplinarymindsetwasalsoemergingintheothersocialsciences.This“scientific”fabricinfluencedthegrowthinaviationalongwiththeimpactofaerialphotography,bothwhichwerehighlysignificantinchangingthenatureofcomprehendingspaceandenvisioningplace(cf.DorrianandPousin,2013).Sputnik,theimageryoftheEarthfromtheApollomissions,SkylabandLandsatandSPOTsatelliteremotesensingwereallchangingthewaysscholarslookedattheearthfromabove(the“BlueMarble”concept)andfrombelow.Evercheaperandmorecapableglobaltelecommunications,remotesensing,computergraphicsanddigitalcartographywereintegralpartsoftheseemerginginformationrevolutions(production,consumption,exchanges,manipulationandrepresentations)sweepingacrossthesciencesfirstandlaterthehumanitiesaswediscussbelow.(Seethedebateconductedin2000byJohnPicklesandMichaelGoodchildintheirpapersinCartographicPerspectivejournal.)Theemergenceoftransdisciplinaryglobaldevelopmentinitiativesandpost‐colonialworldsledtofocusingonanewseriesoftopicsassociatedwitheconomic(theso‐called‘ThirdWorld’anddevelopingworldsasemergingfieldsofstudy),andlater,socialdevelopment,disastersandhazards,improvedweatherforecasting,incomegapsandespeciallypoverty,petro‐basedeconomies,globalizationandpostindustrialsocieties.TheColdWarconflictnotedabove,betweentheWesternandEasternblocs,itselfwasadominantgeographicalfactorthatwasfoughtinpartthroughcartography(cf.Barney,2015).Itwasaworldwithnewknowledgesubfieldsassociatedwithtransportation,trade,education,healthcareanddiseases,tourism,socialwell‐being,alongwithtopicsassociatedwithraceandethnicity,language,religion,children,andgenderandpolitical/geopoliticalthemesrelatedtoconflicts(localandregional)includingboundarychanges,militarypoweranddefenseagreements,politicalconflictsandborderdisputes,anddevelopingenvironmentalconcernsrelatedtobiodiversity,endangeredspecies,environmentalprotection,airandwaterpollutionandlaterclimatechange.Thespateofnewtopicssoonbegantoappearas“new”mapsinregionalandworldatlasesaswellasmapsinprimary,highschoolanduniversitytextbooks.Thisincludedunconventionaldesigns,suchastheuseofcartograms,asmapsthat

8

deliberatelydistortspatialscaleasawaytostimulatethinkingaboutsocialpatternsbeingrepresented(e.g.,Seager,1990,1997;Dorling,1995;KidronandSegal,1995).Newmapprojectionswereproducedandmapsthemselvescouldbeproducedalmostinstantlythatarecenteredanywhereontheplanet.Sucheffortswerenotwithoutcontroversy,apointwell‐illustratedbytheattemptbyArnoPeters(andtheso‐called‘Peter’sProjection;)tore‐frametheworldintheearly1970sintheserviceofprogressiveinterestswithanovelequal‐areaprojectionthatchallengedthecartographichegemonyofthecenturies’oldfamiliarMercatorconventions(Monmonier,2005).MapswereproducednotonlyofnewandpreviouslyunmappedorlittlemappedplacesonPlanetEarth,butonsurfacesbeyondearth:theMoon,Mars,Venusandthenthediversesatellitesoftheoutergasgiants.Inshort,thefieldofgeographywasundergoingdynamicdisciplinarychanges,butsowerethetopicsofmapsintextsandatlasesproducedfortheeverevolvinggeographically‐curiouspublic(cf.accessiblereviewgivenbyHallin1992).Atthesametimesomeofthespatialthinkingandcartographicrepresentationswerestartingtodiffusetootherrelatedandpreviouslyunrelatedfieldswithcommonthemesforthegeographycommunity,viz.,surfaces,networks,landscapes,places,regionsandenvironments.ContemporarydevelopmentsTheincreasedsocialandenvironmentalawarenessthatwasapparentinthetrainingofgeographersinthe1970sand1980swasincreasinglyevidentintheatlasesproducedandthemapsappearinginstandardschoolanduniversitytexts.Twoadditionalchangescontributedtothisevolvingnatureofthegeographydisciplineandtotheimportanceandunderstandingofmapsandmapping.Onewastheintroductionofnewtechnologiesassociatedwithgathering,processingandproducingrepresentationofa“location”or“place”natureandwhatMichaelGoodchild(2000)hascharacterizedasthedigitaltransitionincartography.Theseincludedcomputer,GISandsatellitetechnologiesbasedondigitaldata,graphicinformationexchangesandpowerfulweb‐baseddissemination,suchasGooglemapsservice.Theseinnovationsusheredinwholenewscalesofdatagatheringandmapanalysisfromindividualsurveillancetoextraterrestrialenvironments.Mappingwentfromtheearthandearthsurface,orfromcities,countriesandearthregions,tobeingassociatedwithvisualizingthebodyandthebraintostudyingtheearth’sdeepinteriorsandouterspace.Ratherthandistinctsurveys,mappinginsomedomainshappenscontinuouslywithresultsdeliveredinnearreal‐timetousers.Nolongerwascartographysimplyafieldthatwasmappingearthspace,butnowassociatedwithwholespectrumofspatialandtemporalscales.Coupledwiththesetechnology‐relateddevelopmentswasasecondchangeinwhatwasconsideredgeographicalanalysisandplaceknowledgeindifferentscholarlyfields.Thischangewasevidentespeciallyacrossthehumanitiesandinthenaturalandsocialsciences.Therewerechangesinthewaythesesubjectswereconsidered,includingsomeforthefirsttime.Spatialconceptsandmodesofenquirywereemerging.Theseintroductionsofcommonlyunderstoodconceptsfamiliartogeographers(includingmapdisplay)aboutplace,location,networksandenvironmentindisciplineswereemergingindisciplinesthathadlongignoredthem(cf.Scholtenetal.,2009).Somehavegoneasfarastocharacterizethisdevelopmentasa‘SpatialTurn’(WarfandArias,2008;seealsoPenzetal.,2004).Forexample,itisalsoapparentnowthatplacehasbecomeanimportantconceptforthosestudyingliterature,aswellasformanywriters,poetsandlyricists.Itwasathemeimportantinunderstandingasociety’scultureorrolewithinalargerculturalormulticulturalcomplex(forrecentreviewsseeCaquardandCartwright,2014;Cooperetal.,2015;Rossetto,2014).Placeitselfisalsoanimportanttounderstandinghistoricalandcontemporaryreligion,languagediffusion,

9

genderandidentityissues,popularcultureandthehumanimagination.Ethnomusicologists,literaryscholars,mediatheorists,drama,theaterandmuseumstudiesbegantovaluetheimportanceofplace,spatialrelationsandgeographicalembeddedness(e.g.inrelationtohumanexperienceVanSwaaijandKlare,2000;andfilm,Conley,2007;HallamandRoberts,2014).Whatthisemergentthinkingledtowasarecognitionthatmaprepresentationsandmappingpracticesinparticularplaceswerewellworthanalyzing.Particularplaces,regionalcontextsandenvironmentalsituationsformuniquelocationswhere“thingshappened”beguntobeconsideredbythosewhostudiednotonlytourismandrecreation,consumerpreferencesandpopulationmigration,languagesanddialects,borderculturesandsocialnetworks,butalsothosewhostudiedtransboundaryeconomiesandconflicts,internationallaws,regionalsocialandeconomicdevelopmentandplanning,placepromotionandpreservation,infrastructure(transportationandcommunication)impactsandpublicpolicies.Alltheseareexamplesoffieldsofstudywheremapsandmappinghaveintersectedwithexistingempiricaltechniques,modesofanalysisandtheoreticaladvancements.Thesocialsciencesandhumanitiesusesofmaprepresentationsandmappingpracticeswerealsooccurringwithscholarsworkinginvariousscience‐technologyfieldsaswell.Beyondphysicalgeographyandtheearthsciences,mapsarenowconsideredfundamentaltothosestudyingthehumanbrainandanatomy,climatemodeling,naturalhazardpredictionanddisasterplanning.The“visual”worldhastakenonanewmeaning,wewouldargue,withtheemergenceofnovelmapsandmappinganalysis,adevelopmentthatgoeswellbeyondwhathasconventionallybeenconsideredas“geography.”Thesearecurrentlyallfieldswheremaprepresentationsandmappingpracticesarenowconsidered“partandparcel”oflearningaboutplacesandenvironmentsatallscales,butalsomakingsoundpoliciesforhumankind’spresentandfuture.MappingpracticeisembeddedinacademicprocessesWewouldarguethat“mappingmatters”inscholarshipasawaytosimplifyandsummarize,whichisevermorecrucialinscienceandtechnology,withtheneedtoproduceplausiblemodelsofreality,copewiththeexponentialgrowthindataandtheoreticalcomplexity.Mappingcanhelpresearchersworkefficientlyandalsoexploreproblemsfromnewperspectives.Mappingthenispartofcurrent'battle'foracademiainutilizingthe'informationexplosion'and'bigdata'withthehopethatthesedevelopmentswilltoleadtoabetterunderstandingandanexpansionofknowledge.Conceptscanbespatiallyenvisionedandgeographicallymappedandalsoaidinourunderstandingsandcommunicationswithotheraudiences.Theycanalsobeaidineffortstoconvinceothersaboutthetruthoftheideas(betheyfellowscholars,policy‐makersingovernment,orbusinessinvestors).Obviously,muchoftheabovecontemporaryabouttheroleformappingcanbereadaspartofawiderimage‐basedworkingandabouttheprimacyforthevisualinscholarlypractice,atleastsincetheRenaissance.JohnBarrow’s2008bookcataloguesthiswellandremindsusofthelonghistoryofpowerfulscientificimagerythatcanencapsulateacomplexideaandhelpcommunicateitincompellingfashion.Barrow(2008:2)arguedthat:

“someimagesdefinedourstepinunderstandingtheUniverse,othershaveprovedsoeffectiveincommunicatingthenatureofrealitythattheyarepartoftheprocessofthinkingitself,likenumbersorthelettersofthealphabet.Others,equallyinfluential,aresofamiliarthattheyappearunnoticedinthescientificprocess,partofthevocabularyofsciencethatweusewithoutthinking.”

Understandingtheculturalrootsofvisualrepresentationasaprimarymeansofproducingbelievable'truth'andconvincingwiderscientificcommunitieshasbeenthefocusofmuchworkin

10

ScienceandTechnologyStudies.Theyhavedocumentedhowthiskindofchangehappens,ofteninmundanedailypracticesinlabs,universityclassroomsandthroughpagesofjournals(e.g.,Baigrie,1996;Latour,1990;ShapinandSchaffer,1985).Thepowerfulpotentialofdiagramsandspatialorderisthattheycanimposeprovideanddevelopadeeperunderstandingtowhatisbeingstudiedinaspatialcontext,adevelopmentsimilartothedevelopmentofthePeriodicTableanditsimpactonchemistryandwidermaterialsciences(Scerri,2007).Somerecentrelatedcomparativeworkexplorestheseintersections,especiallyhowdifferentkindsofcharts,diagrams,technicalimages,andvisualpracticesareplayedoutindifferentdisciplines(Elkins,2007;LynchandWoolgar,1990;Rose,2015).Also,somescholarshavearguedthatthelastdecadeorsohasseena‘spatialturn’inanumberofscholarlydisciplinesthathavepreviouslybeena‐geographicalandlackingincartographiccommunication(WarfandArias,2008;Scholtenetal.,2009;Penzetal.,2004).Indeed,thereismuchevidenceofanewcreationandnewapplicationofcartographicrepresentationsandmap‐likevisualartifacts,theuseoftheconceptofgeographiclocationscale,spatialflowsandplaceembeddedness(forexampleinexplainingscientificdiscoveryandthenetworkoftechnologicaldiffusion,Livingstone,2010),andalsocommunitymappingprojectswithinthecontextofPPGIS(PublicParticipationGIS).MappingasanapproachandthevalueofGIStools,forexample,hasgrowninimportanceinthearts(e.g.scholarshiparoundfilmandcinema:Conley,2007;HallamandRoberts,2014)withsomeclaimingtheemergenceofGeohumanitiesparadigminrecentyears(Bodenhameretal.,2010;Dearetal.,2011;Fraser,2015).Thischangehasbeendefinedasa“transdisciplinaryandmulti‐methodologicalinquirythatbeginswiththehumanmeaningsofplaceandproceedstoreconstructthosemeaningsinwaysthatproducenewknowledgeandthepromiseofabetter‐informedscholarlyandpoliticalpractice”(Dearetal.,2011:312).Thereisalsoactiveengagementinmappingpracticesandoftentheactualproductionofcartographicformsbyagrowingnumberofartists(seereviewsinHarmon,2009;O’Rourke,2013).Relevanttothediscussionhere,itisworthnotingthoseeffortstocategorizeandvisuallymapthepatternsofknowledgeitself.Thishasoftenbeendonebyapplyingspatialstructureanddrawingsomekindofgraphicalrepresentationsofthesizeoffieldsofscholarshipsandconnectionsbetweenexpertpractice.Forexampleinthe1780sFrenchphilosophersofscienceDiderotandD'AlembertillustratedtheirpioneeringEncyclopediewithhierarchicaldecompositionofthedomainsofknowledge(cf.BenderandMarrinan,2010)(Figure1.6).Subsequentlymanyothershavetriedtoproducegenealogicaltreestoshowchangeandgrowthinacademicdisciplinesandfieldsofknowledge.Movingbeyondsimplehierarchyandlinearbranching,somehaveuseddifferentdiagrammaticapproachesandspatialarrangementstoshowthestructureofscience.Therearemap‐likedisplaysusingspatialproximityandavisualclusteringtogetherofactivitiesthatareintellectuallysimilar.(Weintuitivelyunderstandthatthingscloseinspacearelikelytobesimilarincharacter).(Figure1.7)Advancesinbibliographicsciencesincethe1940sand,inparticular,thecreationofcomprehensivecitationindexesofacademicliteraturehavefacilitatedanalysisofknowledgespacethroughco‐citationpatternsandcollaborativenetworksofresearchers.Theresultsofsuchanalysishavemostoftenbeenmappedassimplelink‐nodediagrams,butsophisticatedmap‐likedisplayshavebeendevelopedinrecentdecadesthatfrequentlydrawonideasfrominformationvisualization(cf.Borneretal.,2003;SkupinandFabrikant,2003).ManyexamplesaredocumentedinKatyBorner'srecentsynthesis,AtlasofKnowledge(2015).Figure1.6.AnattempttobringstructuretoburgeoningscaleofrecordedinformationintheEuropeanEnlightenment.Thishierarchicaldiagram,a‘treeofhumanknowledge’;itstaxonomyisanattemptorganizesknowledgeunderthreemainbranches,"memory"/history,

11

"reason"/philosophy,and"imagination"/arts.ItwasdeployedasanillustrationinDiderotandd'AlemberteighteenthcenturyEncyclopédie.Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ENC_SYSTEME_FIGURE.jpegFigure1.7.Apioneeringhand‐drawnmappingofthestructureofthenaturalsciencesandtechnologyasinterpretedbyHaroldEllingham(1948),aphysicalchemistworkinginmidtwentiethcentury.Heusesthespatialmetaphorofdistanceequatingtointellectualsimilarity.Thedirectionandorientationofnamelabelingisalsousedtodenotecommonalitybetweenfieldsofstudy.Theoverlaidpolygonsshowedhowdifferentscientificabstractingservicesatthattimewerecovering.Source:Ellingham1948,CourtesyoftheRoyalSociety.Developing‘MappingAcrossAcademia’Thisbookrepresentsanattempt,editedbytwogeographersbutconsciouslydrawingonawiderangeofsubjectspecialists,todelineateanddiscusstheimportanceofmaprepresentationsandmappingpracticesacrossthescholarlylandscape.Wemadeadecisiontoeditasuchvolumewithexpertcontributorsfrommanyotherdisciplineswhobothappreciateandunderstandtheroleofmapsandmappinginnon‐traditionallygeographicdomainsandsometimesfieldsofstudythathavebeenwhollya‐spatialinthepast.Whilegeography,geologyandotherenvironmentalscienceshavelongtraditionsofstudyingandusingmapsintheirteaching,researchandtheoryconstruction,andpubliccommunicationandpolicycontributions,thereareothernewsubjectswherethemakinganduseofmapsareemergingasimportantperspectivesandalsoprovidingvaluableingredientsinwhatisstudied.Herewewouldrefertomaprepresentationsandmappingpracticesassociatedwiththestudyoflanguage,film,literature,religion,music,architecture,security,sustainability,butalsowithrespecttostudyinghumananatomy,andneurology.Mapsarenotonlybeingemployedtoorganizedataand“show”wheresomethingis,butforprovidingnewinsightsintointerpretingandanalyzingtheproblemandgeneratingexplanationsandtheory.Wewouldbethefirsttoarguethatmoreworkneedstobedoneonthefieldsofstudyaddressedinthisvolumeand,ofcourse,tothoseacademicdisciplinesnotcoveredinthecontext.Notincludedwouldalsobetheimportanceofmapsrelatedtowhatwecouldidentifyas“intersecting”fieldswhichareemergingastheimportantarenasforpresentandfuturescholarlyinquiry.Theseintersectingfieldswouldincludehumanconsciousnessandmachineintelligenceandfaith/beliefsystems,preservation,climatechange,environmentalsecurity,andsharedfuturesintheAnthropocene.Itisnotdifficulttoenvisiondozensofmapsthatonecouldpreparethatwouldhelpunderstandtheinterfacingsubjectmatter,butalsosolveorresolveconflictsthatmight/willemerge.Wesoughtthoughtfulandoriginalessaysthatreflectupontheroleofmaprepresentations,mappingpracticesandspatialunderstandinginaparticulartransdisciplinarydisciplinaryarea.Wetaskeddomainexpertstoconsiderhowmaps,broadlyconceived,contributetoscholarshipinotherfieldsintermsofgeneratingnovelsideas,conductingempiricalresearch,presentingandanalyzingdata,understandingspatialstructuresandpatterns,andindisseminatingresultsandcommunicatingtodifferentaudiences.Authorscouldbepersonal,anecdotal,andopinionated.Thebookisconceptuallydividedintotwomajorsections‐thesciencesandhumanities‐andincludes15chaptersondifferentintellectualareasandrelateddisciplinaryfields(Table1).Ourselectionandthedivisionofacademicendeavorwasinevitablysomewhatarbitrarybuthasprovidedadiverseandwidelyrepresentativecoverageandonethatwebelievewillprovokeaninsightfulrangeofessays.Wehopethisreviewofpastandcurrentmappingresearchchallenges

12

acrossdisciplineswillenhanceourunderstandingofspatialprocessesandgeographicvisualizationatscalesrangingfromthemoleculartothegalactic.Table1.OrganizationofMappingAcrossAcademia.SectionOne:TheSciencesIntellectualareas AcademicexpertsChap2:Geomorphology MikeSmithandJamesGriffithsChap3:Citiesandplanning AmyHillierChap4:Ecology DavidBarnettandcolleaguesChap5:Astronomy RichardGottChap6:Anatomy,humanbody JaneGarbChap7:Neuroscience JordanHarpandWalterHighChap8:Weather JamesCarterChap9:Healthanddisease LanceWallerSectionTwo:TheHumanitiesIntellectualAreas AcademicexpertsChap10:Language,linguistic RolandKehrienChap11:Landscape KennethOlwigChap12:PowerandGeopolitics EdoardoBoriaChap13:Literature AndrewFraynChap14:Musicology JohnGoldandcolleaguesChap15:Culture AnnKingsolverandcolleaguesChap16:Religion LillianLarsenWherewegofromhereItisourhopethatthisbookservesthreepurposes.First,thatitinformsincreasinglygrowingacademiccommunitiesandcross‐disciplinarygroupsofscholarsabouttheimportanceofmaprepresentationsandmappingpracticessubjectmatteratmultiplescales(fromthesub‐atomic,geneticsocial,planetaryandtoexpandeduniverses).Second,thatitwillencouragescholarswhoworkinthefieldsandsubfielddiscussedtocontinueexploring,andperhapsexpandstheusesofmapsintheirinstructionandresearch.Third,thatthebookwillstimulateotherstoexplorethosefascinatingintersectionsinintersectingandemergingsubjectmatteracrossthesciences,humanitiesandpublicpolicies.Inthiswayfuturescholarsandstudents,whetherinclasses,seminarsorworkshops,willobservenotonlytheimportanceofproducingmaps,butalsorecognizetheirbasicimportanceinprovidingasoundunderstandingofvisualrepresentationsandknowledgein“whathappenswhere,whenandwhy.”ReferencesBaigrie,B.S.1996.PicturingKnowledge.Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress.Barney,T.2015.MappingtheColdWar.ChapelHill:UNCPress.Barrow,J.D.2008.CosmicImagery:KeyImagesintheHistoryofScience.London:TheBodleyHead.Bender,J.andMarrinan,M.2010.TheCultureofDiagram.PaloAlto,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.Blaut,J.M.,Stea,D.,Spencer,C.,andBlades,M.2003.Mappingasaculturalandcognitiveuniversal.

AnnalsoftheAssociationofAmericanGeographers93(1):165–185.Bodenhamer,D.J.,Corrigan,J.,andHarris,T.M.(Eds).2010.TheSpatialHumanities:GISandthe

FutureofHumanitiesScholarship.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.Borner,K.2015.AtlasofKnowledge.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.Availableathttp://scimaps.org/

13

Borner,K.,Chen,C.,andBoyack,K.2003.Visualizingknowledgedomains.AnnualReviewofInformationScienceandTechnology37:179‐255.

Caquard,S.andCartwright,W.2014.Narrativecartography:Frommappingstoriestothenarrativeofmapsandmapping.TheCartographicJournal51(2):101‐106.

Conley,T.2007.CartographicCinema.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.Cooper,D.,Donaldson,C.,andMurrieta‐Flores,P.(Eds).2015.LiteraryMappingintheDigitalAge.

London:Ashgate.Cosgrove,D.2012.GeographyandVision:Seeing,ImaginingandRepresentingtheWorld.London:

IBTauris.Crampton,J.W.2006.Thecartographiccalculationofspace:racemappingandtheBalkansatthe

ParisPeaceConferenceof1919.Social&CulturalGeography7(5):731‐752.Dear,M.,Ketchum,J.,Luria,S.,andRichardson,D.2011.GeoHumanities:Art,History,Textatthe

EdgeofPlace.London:Routledge.DelanoSmith,C.1987.“CartographyintheprehistoricperiodintheOldWorld:Europe,theMiddle

East,andNorthAfrica.”In:J.B.HarleyandD.Woodward(Eds),CartographyinPrehistoric,Ancient,andMedievalEuropeandtheMediterranean.Volume1oftheHistoryofCartography.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Dodds,K.andSidaway,J.D.2004.HalfordMackinderandthe‘geographicalpivotofhistory’:acentennialretrospective.TheGeographicalJournal170(4):292–97.

Dorling,D.1995.ANewSocialAtlasofBritain.Chichester,England:JohnWileyandSons.Dorrian,M.andPousin,F.(Eds).2013.SeeingfromAbove:TheAerialViewinVisualCulture.

London:IBTauris.Driver,F.2001.GeographyMilitant:CulturesofExplorationandEmpire.Oxford:Blackwell.Elkins,J.2007.VisualPracticesAcrosstheUniversity.Munich:WilhelmFinkVerlag.Ellingham,H.J.T.1948.“Divisionsofnaturalscienceandtechnology.”In:ReportandPapersofthe

RoyalSocietyScientificInformationConference,July.London:TheRoyalSociety,477‐84.Fraser,B.2015.DigitalCities:TheInterdisciplinaryFutureoftheUrbanGeo‐Humanities.London:

PalgraveMacmillan.Goodchild,M.F.2000.Cartographicfuturesonadigitalearth.CartographicPerspectives(36):3‐11.Hall,S.S.1992.MappingtheNextMillennium.NewYork:VintageBooks.Hallam,J.andRoberts,L.(Eds).2014.LocatingtheMovingImage:NewApproachestoFilmand

Place.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.Harley,J.B.1989.Silencesandsecrecy:thehiddenagendaofcartographyinearlymodemEurope.

ImagoMundi40:57‐76.Harley,J.B.andWoodward,D.1987.HistoryofCartography.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Availablefreeonlineatwww.press.uchicago.edu/books/HOC/index.htmlHarmon,K.2009.TheMapasArt:ContemporaryArtistsExploreCartography.NewYork:Princeton

ArchitecturalPress.Ingold,T.2000.ThePerceptionoftheEnvironment:EssaysonLivelihood,DwellingandSkill.

London:PsychologyPress.Johnston,R.J.1996.GeographyandGeographers:Anglo‐AmericanGeographysince1945.London:

Routledge.Kidron,M.andSegal,R.1995.TheStateoftheWorldAtlas.London:Penguin.Latour,B.1990.“Visualisationandcognition:drawingthingstogether.”In:M.LynchandS.Woolgar

(Eds),RepresentationinScientificPractice.Cambridge:MITPress,pp.19–68.Lefebvre,H.1991.TheProductionofSpace,Trans.Donaldson‐Smith,N.Oxford:Blackwell.Livingstone,D.N.2010.PuttingScienceinitsPlace:GeographiesofScientificKnowledge.Chicago:

UniversityofChicagoPress.Lopez,B.1986.ArcticDreams:ImaginationandDesireinaNorthernLandscape.NewYork:Vintage

Books.

14

Lynch,M.andWoolgar,S.(Eds).1990.RepresentationinScientificPractice.Cambridge:MITPress.Mackinder,H.J.1904.Thegeographicalpivotofhistory.TheGeographicalJournal23(4):421‐37.Maggs,T.1998.“CartographiccontentofrockartinSouthernAfrica.”In:D.WoodwardandM.

Lewis(Eds),CartographyintheTraditionalAfrican,American,Australian,andPacificSocieties.Vol.2,Book3,HistoryofCartography.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Malcolm,N.1987.AlexandervonHumboldt,Humboldtianscienceandtheoriginsofthestudyofvegetation.HistoryofScience25(2):167‐194.

Monmonier,M.2005.RhumbLinesandMapWars:ASocialHistoryoftheMercatorProjection.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Montello,D.R.2002.Cognitivemap‐designresearchinthetwentiethcentury:Theoreticalandempiricalapproaches.CartographyandGeographicInformationScience29(3):283‐304.

O’Rourke,K.2013.WalkingandMapping:ArtistsasCartographers.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.Penz,F.,Radick,G.andHowell,R.2004.SpaceinScience,ArtandSociety.Cambridge:Cambridge

UniversityPress.Pflederer,R.2012.FindingTheirWayatSea:TheStoryofPortolanCharts.Goy,Netherlands:Hes&

DeGraafPublishers.Pickles,J.2000.Cartography,digitaltransitions,andquestionsofhistory.CartographicPerspectives

37:4‐18.Rose,G.2015.Rethinkingthegeographiesofcultural‘objects’throughdigitaltechnologies:

Interface,networkandfriction.ProgressinHumanGeographyDOI:0309132515580493.Rossetto,T.2014.Theorizingmapswithliterature.ProgressinHumanGeography38(4):513‐30.Scerri,E.R.2007.ThePeriodicTable:ItsStoryandItsSignificance.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Scholten,H.J.,vandeVelde,R.andvanManen,N.(Eds).2009.GeospatialTechnologyandtheRoleof

LocationinScience.NewYork:Springer.Seager,J.1990.StateoftheEarthAtlas.NewYork:Routledge.Seager,J.1997.StateofWomenintheWorldAtlas.NewYork:Penguin.Shapin,S.andSchaffer,S.1985.LeviathanandtheAirPump:Hobbes,Boyle,andtheExperimental

Life.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.Skupin,AandFabrikant,S.I.2003.Spatializationmethods:Acartographicresearchagendafornon‐

geographicinformationvisualization.CartographyandGeographicInformationScience30(2):95‐115.

Sutton,P.1998.Aboriginalmapsandplans.In:D.WoodwardandM.Lewis(Eds),CartographyintheTraditionalAfrican,American,Australian,andPacificSocieties.Vol.2,Book3,HistoryofCartography.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,pp.387‐416.

VanSwaaij,L.andKlare,J.2000.TheAtlasofExperience.London:Bloomsbury.Warf,B.andArias,S.(Eds).2008.TheSpatialTurn:InterdisciplinaryPerspectives.London:

Routledge.Woodward,D.1975.FiveCenturiesofMapPrinting.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Woodward,D.andLewis,G.M.(Eds).1998.CartographyintheTraditionalAfrican,American,Arctic,

Australian,andPacificSocieties.Vol.2,Book3,TheHistoryofCartography.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Figure 1.1

Figure 1.2

Figure 1.3

Figure 1.4

Figure 1.5

Figure 1.6

Figure 1.7