Unit 2: Colonial Encounters

Chapter 3

The Tools of the Historian: Empires, Maps and Meaning

Assignment 2: Worth 5%, due in tutorial 1, 2 or 3 October 2002.

In 1584, the first European Jesuit mission in China displayed a new map of the world. The flattened perspective of the globe on the European map reduced the Chinese empire to a small portion of land in the far right corner. Chinese visitors to the mission complained that this was "altogether far from the truth, for China should be in the center of the world." [Story cited in Walter D. Mignolo, The Darker Side of the Renaissance (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995), 219-20.]

Even historians who are sensitive to their own role as interpreters of the past, however, are sometimes guilty of treating materials such as maps as presentations of facts. As the Chinese encounter with the European map suggests, of course, maps are loaded with meaning, and even at their simplest, present a particular perspective on the world. Indeed, a number of scholars now point to the role of maps in the building of empires, most obviously because competing maps were the basis for European claims in various parts of the world, but also because of the way maps excluded certain kinds of information. Because historians frequently rely upon maps to convey some sense of places in time, we need to be alert to the ways in which maps tell particular kinds of stories.

Maps are a valuable tool of the historian. Maps permit us to visualize where events take place, to observe possible connections between place and behaviour, and to see the relationship between people and activities in different regions. Historical maps can freeze a moment in time, or attempt to convey change over time. In order to convey a clear, definite message, map makers inevitably simplify the human and natural landscape, drawing attention to particular features that they believe are important. Those who design maps assume they know or make assumptions about which places, boundaries, peoples and activities should be highlighted, which are secondary, and which should be excluded all together.

Maps, therefore, offer a powerful but necessarily distorted view of the world. In this chapter, we examine a series of maps to see what and whose stories they do and do not tell. We can look at these maps in the same way we have been looking at other documents and materials in this course. What information do they convey? What do they tell us about the course of colonial development? Then we can move on to think of the maps as arguments, as offering a thesis with evidence that we need to try to understand, and that we can then assess critically.

Examine the following groups of maps - what stories do they tell? What arguments do they make? When looking at the maps, consider the following specific questions:

1. What is its title? What did the map's creator think you were supposed to get out of it?

2. What is the legend of map? What is the meaning and purpose of the shaded areas, arrows, lines, pictures or other graphic features?

3. What is the spatial dimension of the map? What features does the map have? Does it show, for example, only physical features or only political boundaries?

4. What is the temporal dimension of the map? Is it supposed to show a space at one point in time, or does it show change over time? If it shows change, how does it do it?

5. Which places, boundaries, peoples and activities are highlighted and which are excluded? Does the decision to highlight or exclude make sense? Can it be justified?

An American History Textbook Views Colonial Development

How does this series of maps illustrate colonial development? What do the textbook writers consider important? What overall impression does this series of maps leave with the reader?

1. "Colonial Settlement, 1660-1760" in John A. Garraty, The American Nation, Second Edition (New York: Harper and Row, 1971), 68.
2. "Colonial Economy" in Garraty, Second Edition, 79.
3. "Primary East Coast Indian Tribes in the 1600s", in John A. Garraty, The American Nation, Sixth Edition (New York: Harper and Row, 1987), 13.
4. "North American Colonies to 1650", in Garraty, Sixth Edition, 25.
5. "The Southern Colonies", in Garraty, Sixth Edition, 42.

Other Historians View Native Americans and Colonial Development

Here are some additional maps that are intended to provide insights into native American development. What stories do these maps tell? How do these maps alter your perspective on the previous series? Map 1.5 focuses on the same area as maps 2.4 - 2.6. How are they different?

1. "Figure 1. Patterns of Native American agriculture at the time of European contact", in William E. Doolittle, "Agriculture in North America on the Eve of Contact: A Reassessment", in Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 82 (1992): 388.
2. "Native North American Trade Networks, ca. 1400 A.D," in Discovering American History: Power CD (Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, 1997).
3. "Map 2. A New World of Movement circa 1500-1800" in Colin Calloway, New Worlds for All (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1997), 148.
4. "Map 1. Carolina and Virginia, circa 1700" in James H. Merrell, The Indians' New World (New York: W.W. Norton, 1989),
5. "Map 3. The Carolinas and Virginia in the 1720s" in Merrell, Indians' New World, 96
6. "Map 6. The Catawbas and Their Neighbors in the 1760s", in Merrell, Indians' New World, 199.

Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Maps of the Southeast: European Perspectives

Historical figures produced their own maps, in order to convey their own meaning about the areas that they explored or settled. What do these maps tell the historian? What information do they provide that is missing on the other maps? What do these maps reveal about how Europeans understood and interpreted the New World in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries?

1. "John Smith, Map of Virginia, 1612, with modifications to 1632", in Ben C. McCary, John Smith's Map of Virginia (Williamsburg: Jamestown 350th Anniversary Historical Booklet, 1957).
2. "Pieter vander AA, Virginie, et Florida, 1729" in William P. Cumming, The Southeast in Early Maps (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958), Plate 29.

Eighteenth-Century Maps of the Southeast: Native-American Perspectives

Many scholars believe that native Americans had their own mapmaking traditions, given how quickly they could produce maps for Europeans seeking information. Some maps conveyed information about where things were, but others, such as the one that follows, combined information about places with information about relationships. Look carefully at these maps. They do have reference points for comparison with the earlier maps of the southeast you have been examining. To help orient yourself, note the reference to Virginie and Charlestown on Map 4.1. On Map 4.2, the left of the map features the Mississippi River, the bottom "Salt Water" and "Pensacola" and the circle "English", is thought to refer to the settlements on the South Carolina coast. What information do these maps convey? What do you think the circles and connecting lines represent? Why might some lines be connected, and others not? Why might some circles be larger than others? What can historians learn from such maps?

1. "10.1. Catawba Indian map collected by Francis Nicholson, ca. 1721", "Keyed drawing of map", from Peter H. Wood, Gregory A. Waselkov, and M. Thomas Hatley, eds., Powhatan's Mantle: Indians in the Colonial Southeast (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1989), , 321-2.
2. "10.2. Chickasaw Indian Map, ca. 1723", "Keyed drawing of map", from Wood, et al, Powhatan's Mantle, , 325-7.

Assignment Two: Designing a Map

Assignment 2: Worth 5%, due in tutorial 1, 2 or 3 October 2002.

Your turn. Design a map or series of maps (maximum 3) that help illustrate the historical trends evident in the table that follows the maps, which provides estimates of racial populations of the colonial South. The map does not have to show every detail, but should capture the main trends in the data in some way. Your tutorial leader will provide you with at least one blank map of the United States with which to work.

The following definitions of the individual regions named in the table and based on modern state boundaries may be used in designing the map:

Virginia: Virginia east of the mountains (to the eastern edge of Appalachian mountains).

North Carolina: North Carolina east of the mountains (to the eastern edge of the Appalachian mountains).

South Carolina: South Carolina east of the mountains (to the eastern edge of the Appalachian mountains.)

Florida: Florida.

Creeks: Georgia and Alabama below Appalachian chain.

Cherokees: Appalachian Mountain region in Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North and South Carolina, Alabama and Georgia

Choctaws/Chickasaws: Mississippi

Louisiana: Louisiana

East Texas: Arkansas, and Texas east of San Antonio and Dallas (Highway I35)

Table 3.1     Estimated Southern Population by Race and Region, 1685-1790

(In Thousands)

Virginia	1685	1700	1715	1730	1745	1760	1775	1790
Indian	2.9	1.9	1.3	0.9	0.6	0.4	0.3	0.2
European	38.1	56.1	74.1	103.3	148.3	196.3	279.5	442.1
African	2.6	5.5	20.9	49.7	85.3	130.9	186.4	305.5
Total	43.6	63.5	96.3	153.9	234.2	327.6	466.2	747.8
North Carolina	1685	1700	1715	1730	1745	1760	1775	1790
Indian	10.0	7.2	3.0	2.0	1.5	1.0	0.5	0.3
European	5.7	9.4	14.8	27.3	42.7	84.5	156.8	288.2
African	0.2	0.4	1.8	5.5	14.0	28.2	52.3	105.5
Total	15.9	17.0	19.6	34.8	58.2	113.7	209.6	394.0
South Carolina	1685	1700	1715	1730	1745	1760	1775	1790
Indian	10.0	7.5	5.1	2.0	1.5	1.0	0.5	0.3
European	1.4	3.8	5.5	9.8	20.3	38.6	71.6	140.2
African	0.5	2.8	8.6	21.6	40.6	57.9	107.3	108.9
Total	11.9	14.1	19.2	33.4	62.4	97.5	179.4	249.4
Florida	1685	1700	1715	1730	1745	1760	1775	1790
Indian	16.0	10.0	3.7	2.8	1.7	0.7	1.5	2.0
European	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.7	2.1	2.7	1.8	1.4
African	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.3	0.5	3.0	0.5
Total	17.5	11.5	5.2	4.6	4.1	3.9	6.3	3.9
Creeks	1685	1700	1715	1730	1745	1760	1775	1790
Indian	15.0	9.0	10.0	11.0	12.0	13.0	14.0	15.0
European	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	1.4	6.0	18.0	52.9
African	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	3.6	15.0	29.7
Total	15.0	9.0	10.0	11.1	13.5	22.6	47.0	97.6
Cherokees	1685	1700	1715	1730	1745	1760	1775	1790
Indian	32.0	16.0	11.2	10.5	9.0	7.2	8.5	7.5
European	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.3	2.0	26.1
African	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.2	2.5
Total	32.0	16.0	11.2	10.5	9.0	7.5	10.7	36.1
Choctaws / Chickasaws	1685	1700	1715	1730	1745	1760	1775	1790
Indian	35.0	26.0	20.8	14.3	14.5	14.9	16.3	17.8
European	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.5
African	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.3
Total	35.0	26.0	20.8	14.4	14.6	15.0	16.4	18.6
Louisiana	1685	1700	1715	1730	1745	1760	1775	1790
Indian	42.0	27.0	15.0	8.0	5.0	3.6	3.7	4.0
European	0.0	0.1	0.3	1.7	3.9	4.0	10.9	19.4
African	0.0	0.0	0.1	3.6	4.1	5.3	9.6	23.2
Total	42.0	27.1	15.4	13.3	13.0	12.9	24.2	46.6
East Texas	1685	1700	1715	1730	1745	1760	1775	1790
Indian	28.0	21.0	17.0	14.0	12.0	10.0	8.3	7.0
European	0.2	0.0	0.3	0.6	0.9	1.2	1.5	1.8
African	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.6	0.6
Total	28.2	21.0	17.3	14.7	13.1	11.5	10.4	9.4

Source: Adapted from "Table 1. Estimate Southern Population by Race and Region, 1685 - 1790", in Peter H. Wood, "The Changing Population of the Colonial South: An Overview by Race and Region, 1685-1790", in Peter H. Wood, Gregory A. Waselkov, and M. Thomas Hatley, eds., Powhatan's Mantle (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1989), 38-9.