Defining the Map: Concepts, Functions, and the Cartographic Tradition

Defining the Map: Concepts, Functions, and the Cartographic Tradition

The question "what is a map?" appears deceptively simple until one attempts to answer it comprehensively. A child sketches a treasure hunt with an X marking the spot; a medieval monk traces the outline of Jerusalem as a spiritual exercise; a satellite imaging system generates a composite view of Earth's surface with centimeter-level precision; an Indigenous elder recounts ancestral pathways across a landscape through gesture and song. Are all these "maps"? The discipline of cartographic studies has grappled with this fundamental question for decades, and the answers we construct shape not only how we understand historical artifacts but also how we conceptualize the nature of spatial representation itself. This opening chapter establishes the theoretical foundations necessary for a sophisticated engagement with cartographic history, beginning with the contested problem of definition and progressing through the primary functions maps have served across human societies, the technical and conceptual vocabulary required for cartographic analysis, the ongoing scholarly debate regarding the universality or cultural specificity of mapmaking, and finally the practical resources available for conducting research in this rich interdisciplinary field.

The Problem of Cartographic Definition

Scholars have approached the definition of "map" from multiple angles, and no consensus has emerged for the simple reason that any definition necessarily privileges certain traditions, media, or functions while potentially excluding others. The Oxford English Dictionary offers a broadly inclusive definition, describing a map as "a representation of the surface of the earth or a part of it, showing physical features, countries, cities, etc., usually on a flat surface." This formulation captures the most common understanding of maps as planar representations of spatial reality, yet it immediately raises questions that later sections of this chapter will address in depth. What of three-dimensional representations, such as the carved topographic models of Pacific Island navigators or the raised-relief maps developed in European educational contexts? What of maps that represent conceptual rather than physical spaces, such as statistical maps of disease distribution or artistic renderings of imaginary territories? What of dynamic, interactive digital representations that resist the notion of a fixed, stable "flat surface"? The very concept of what constitutes a map has expanded dramatically in recent decades, driven partly by technological innovation and partly by scholarly efforts to recover non-Western cartographic traditions that challenge Eurocentric assumptions about map form and function.

The historian J.B. Harley, whose influential writings transformed cartographic scholarship in the 1980s and 1990s, argued against what he termed the "Cartesian anxiety" of seeking a single, essential definition of maps. For Harley, maps should be understood as "a discourse about power" and "a ritual of territorial possession," concepts that redirected scholarly attention from formal properties to social and political contexts. This critical turn in cartographic studies proved enormously productive, opening space for examining maps as cultural artifacts embedded in specific historical circumstances rather than as neutral technical documents offering objective representations of reality. The post-Harleyian agenda, as it came to be known, emphasized deconstruction—the unmasking of maps as interested productions rather than transparent windows onto territory—and challenged the implicit positivism of earlier cartographic scholarship. Yet critics have noted that this approach sometimes sacrificed careful attention to the technical and material dimensions of mapmaking in favor of sweeping cultural interpretations, creating its own form of distortion.

A more recent tendency in cartographic scholarship seeks to move beyond both naive positivism and sweeping constructivism toward a middle ground that takes seriously both the material conditions of map production and the cultural meanings maps carry. The geographer Mark Monmonier, whose works have done much to popularize cartographic concepts for general audiences, has emphasized the necessarily selective and simplified nature of all maps—cartographic choices about what to include and exclude inevitably reflect particular perspectives and purposes. This insight, sometimes expressed through the principle that "maps are lies," does not diminish the utility of maps but rather clarifies the critical intelligence required for their interpretation. Similarly, the historian of cartography Matthew Edney has argued for understanding maps as "graphic representations of geographical reality" while simultaneously recognizing that the meaning of "geographical reality" itself varies across cultures and historical periods. The definition one adopts shapes the questions one asks, and different research purposes may appropriately employ different definitions. For the purposes of the present volume, we understand maps broadly as graphic representations that communicate spatial information, whether about physical territories, conceptual domains, or cognitive structures—a definition sufficiently expansive to encompass the diversity of phenomena studied under the heading of cartographic history while sufficiently constrained to maintain analytical focus.

Cartographic Traditions Across Cultures

The diversity of mapping practices worldwide resists any singular narrative of cartographic development. The familiar story that begins with Babylonian clay tablets, proceeds through Ptolemaic projections and medieval mappaemundi, and culminates in the scientific cartography of the Enlightenment and the digital revolution of recent decades reflects one tradition—broadly Western, European, and increasingly global—while leaving others largely invisible. Recovering these invisible traditions has been a major scholarly project of the past several decades, revealing that mapmaking traditions independent of European influence developed in China, the Islamic world, the Pacific Islands, Mesoamerica, and sub-Saharan Africa, among other regions. These traditions employed different materials, served different purposes, and embodied different spatial concepts than Western cartography, complicating any universalizing account while enriching our understanding of human engagement with spatial representation.

Chinese cartography developed a sophisticated tradition with documented antecedents stretching back to the Warring States period (475-221 BCE) and reaching remarkable heights during the Tang and Song dynasties. The map of the imperial domain attributed to the Han dynasty official Jia Dan, produced in the eighth century CE, demonstrates coordinate-based surveying techniques and systematic representation of distances that compare favorably with contemporary European practices. The famous Tang dynasty map discovered in the Dunhuang caves in 1907, known as the Dunhuang Star Map, represents the heavens in a format combining cartographic and astronomical traditions. Chinese cartographic development was closely connected to the administrative needs of an imperial bureaucracy, generating extensive territorial maps, road maps, and maps of the Grand Canal system that served practical governance functions. The Chinese tradition also developed distinctive cartographic genres, such as the *yudi tushuo* (illustrated geographical texts) that combined cartographic representation with textual description, and the *haidao tu* (maritime maps) that documented coastal geography and navigation routes. The Ming dynasty maritime explorer Zheng He's expeditions in the early fifteenth century generated detailed maps of Southeast Asian, Indian, and African waters, though many of these original documents were lost or destroyed, leaving