So, what is an historical atlas anyway?

It seems a fair question.  An amazing number of historical geographers (and historians interested in maps) begin books and articles with the basic question, "What is a map?" undoubtedly to clarify that it is a multi-faceted, interdisciplinary object:  image, document, artifact, artwork, a product of history, art, geography, and science, and must be read and researched in multiple contexts. Those contexts, include (but are not limited to) mapmakers themselves, both patrons, authors, and sometimes, intended audience. 

A second common question from historical geographers (not as strong a field in the United States as in Great Britain) is to ask why historians don't use maps more as research tools and as texts intrinsic to historical publications.  Atlases, it would seem, bridge the constraints which seem to exist between text-based historians and the artist, scientist, geographer, and art historian.  Immense collaboration and interdisciplinary skill seem intrinsic to creating the effective thematic atlas.

The new issue that might promote either greater interdisciplinary integration or compartmentalization may well be technology: map creation requires technological expertise and specialization.  What is the role of the gurus of GIS in comparison with cartographers using pre-GIS technology.  Who provides the input for various kinds of maps and with whom do mapmakers consult.  Are historians reluctant to combine maps with historical presentation because of technological discomfort?

One value judgment place on geographically-based maps is the accuracy of representation of physical space, a representation that satellite imagery and mapping software seems to have perfected.  Is this accuracy as complete as it seems and, if so, what sorts of conceptual parameters are placed on analyzing and interpreting contemporary maps?  In fact, how do other academic disciplines use and analyze maps?

And these paragraphs don't answer the question in the title, but to some extent this week's assignment does.

Comments

[Misha Griffith]

Lee Ann, you have a really lovely site--slick and helpful, we are jealous. Your post makes me think about what will happen when all of our maps can be prepared with universal ease on Google Earth. With the advent of computer-based video editing, the joke in the video production community became "if you can type, you can make movies." One quick evening perusing You-tube disproves that idea. I can drive a car, but can I drive a car as well as Kevin Harvick? The answer lies in training and consistent application, which is what we should be doing in this class. However, what we gain in accuracy and expertise, will we not loose in personality. I cannot read maps well enough to tell you who made them, but a really wonderful piece of work sticks out. What about the nuances of art styles--with Google maps, everyone's work will look like every other map. From your site, it is easy to see that form frequently followed function and always contained the subtle clues of the cartographer's artistic sensibilities. Are we ready for boiler-plate cartography?

[Don Fields]

Your construction of this week's assignment on atlases is so professional in appearance and observations. I hope to be able to design something of this quality someday.

Like you, Jeremy Black also noted that GIS maps/databases are subject to the same biases in data selection and interpretation existing in earlier maps. Spatial accuracy hasn't solved that most human of problems. The reader/user is still the most important part of the equation as the knowledge one brings to the map will determine the interpretation of the data.