Cartography: Historical Atlases & Dilemmas of Legitimation

This week’s book, Jeremy Black‘s Maps and History, focuses on the history of, well, the historical atlas. Like the other readings in the class so far, this brought to light the contested nature of maps–in this case, how the genre of historical atlas always, in particular, carries its own view of the past. Are borders or topography more emphasized, for example? I particularly enjoyed Black’s discussion of “greatest extent” maps found in historical atlases–helping to convey the idea that a nation-state, for example, was robbed of its proper territory. One example he gave was the publication of a historical atlas of Poland after its dismemberment in the late 18th century–the very idea of an atlas of Poland gives the no-longer-extant state legitimacy (71-72).

This got me thinking about my own upcoming historical atlas project. Thus far I’ve considered two options. One is Antonio López de Santa Anna’s journey to Washington in 1837, something I have done in multiple formats here, here, and here, and written about here and here. Thus, although it might be a good way to try new technology (to me) with a familiar story, I think I’ll pass on doing this journey, unless I include it with others by Mexicans like Lorenzo de Zavala (and even other international travelers like Alexis de Tocqueville) through the United States in the 1820s-1830s, to illuminate their comparative journeys.

My other thought is to map the sea voyages I’m finding in the records of the 1841-42 U.S.-Mexican claims commission, the subject of the database I created for Clio 3. Thus far I have mapped only the starting and ending points of some of the voyages in that collection, but this does not give the richness of the voyages. They stopped at multiple ports. Mapping the voyages contained in this collection, perhaps in batches by time period, will help convey a visual story of U.S. trade with Mexico, and for that matter Latin America, during the early 19th century. At this point, I’m leaning toward this option.

The reason I mention both is that an issue raised by Black will be front and center as I contemplate this project: how to portray borders. In this case, borders are extremely important to my story. A voyage from New York to Brazoria, Texas, would not be a domestic voyage at this time–an important point for any viewer of my maps. But the boundaries of the nascent nation-states of the Americas were anything but solid at the time. Do I show the full extent of what the post-colonial successor states controlled and disregard indigenous entities like the Comanche Empire? Am I thus legitimating the claims of the United States, Mexico, etc., over indigenous territory by showing those borders? By not showing those borders, am I removing an important interpretive layer for the story I am trying to tell, of trade among those nascent nation-states? By showing the nation-states and their actual boundaries/zones of control, along with indigenous zones of control, am I making my maps too complicated, not just for me but for my end-user?

What do others suggest?

Addendum: This week I commented on Chris’s link of a fascinating animated map of European borders from 1000 C.E. to the present.