The Map in Urban History

Abstract

To the historian the map has traditionally been used as little more than a descriptive or illustrative device which helped clarity of exposition by enabling events to be located, campaigns comprehended and treaties interpreted. It was not in itself regarded as a critical instrument of analysis, other than in highly specialized, peripheral studies such as the history of exploration. Maps simply illustrated arguments based on documentary evidence; the map as a document, original or secondary, was regarded with great suspicion. Undoubtedly the inaccuracy of early maps was partly to blame, especially to an historian more concerned with delineatory accuracy than with what was contemporary perception of the world. But even if historical maps were acceptable in evidence, the derivation of conclusions from mapped material was barely permissible and usually, in reviews, the subject of severe warning if not actual stricture. These attitudes have largely disappeared over the last decade in line with changes in direction of historical research. Perhaps the earlier influence came from pre-historic archaeology, where in the nature of things there was no documentary evidence and inference had to be made from the distribution of characteristic artifacts. This, in itself, taking its methodology from geographical or locational analysis, has been translated into a study adopting sophisticated methods for the analysis of distribution patterns. Another important influence has been the majestic work of H. C. Darby in interpreting Domesday in cartographic terms and thereby demonstrating the significance of such an approach to a widely known historical document. Even so, it is in urban history that the use of map evidence and mapped material has made the greatest impact.