Cross-Border Cartographic Imaginery
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Cross-Border Cartographic Imaginery

on

  • 1,619 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,619
Views on SlideShare
1,617
Embed Views
2

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0

1 Embed 2

http://www.slideshare.net 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Cross-Border Cartographic Imaginery Cross-Border Cartographic Imaginery Presentation Transcript

  • (Cross)border Cartographic Imaginery of Early Modern Times Dubravka Mlinarić Institute for Migration and Ethnic Studies April, 2009
  • Cartography (Historical cartography)
    • “ A map is a symbolised image of geographical reality , representing selected features or characteristics, resulting from the creative effort of its author's execution of choices , and is designed for use when spatial relationships are of primary relevance.” (The International Cartographic Association - ICA def. http://www.kartografija.hr/index_en.htm , 1.4.2009.)
    • Transcription, appropriation , communication - the relations of space and time generated within the distinctive visual design
    • subjective construction- speculative reflection, message - mental mapping – strategic manipulation (importance of (battle) plans)
    • Highly convincing documents
  • Theoretical framework
    • Long term processes
    • preindustrial societies ( ancien regimé): in political, economic, social, demographic, cultural, ethnic, (pr e -national) perspective
    • Frontiers / boundaries vs. Borderlines (Pyrenees, Triplex Confinium /physical geographic delimitations (rivers, sees)
    • Imperial cartographies (traditions)- imperial space representing policies - CARTOGRAPHIC IMAGINARY- historical construct ion , set of symbols common to a particular social group
    • defines the ambivalent relationship ego – image; the interplay between emotion (desire) and reality , the symbolic order and the real one
    • Certain i dea (politics) can assess the map in conflicting ways, interpreting one imaginary dimension into different = can misdirect a sense of objectivity
    • space memorizing + visual/statistical modes of space imaging
  • RESEARCH OBJECTIVE : reconsidering space and the place of the 16th-18th century maps in the historiography of bordering
    • METHODOLOGY: comparative analysis
    • FIELDS of ( interdisciplinary ) approach to maps : historiography, (human) geography, pal a eography ( dialetto Veneziano , Or iental ’s pal a eography)
    • everyday life on frontieres + the history of ideas as a sister-discipline to, or a particular approach within, intellectual history + (historical) human geography = patterns and processes of human interaction with the cultural environment , historie é v é nementielle (storia-racconto)
    • Within the discourse of THIRD SPACE ( concept of the spatial triad or even spatial trialectics which includes thirdspace, or spaces that are both real and imagined : Lefebvre & Soja )
    • different levels of space, from very crude, natural space ('absolute space') to more complex spatialities with socially produced significance ('social space') ( Lefebvre ’s The Production of Space )
    • specific medieval and early modern space = complex social construction (based on values, and the social production of meanings) which affects spatial practices and perceptions , a tool of thought and of action
    • Imaginaire of maps ( early modern cartographic sources) - an exercise in knowledge and imagination, producing understanding within a strategy of projected policies
  • QUESTIONS
    • - on the basis of which criteria each author constitutes his cartographic space (education, confessional, political, ethnic, cultural surroundings) or their combination?
    • - in which way is the historical memory kept in the 16th -18th century maps of Croatian lands, specially regarding borderlines?
    • - are there any proto – national myths or proto – national discourses in these maps and in which way are they constructed by the authors?
    • - are there any other contextual frameworks, except national, relevant for the political projects and programs of the 16-18th century Croatia (for example,the imperial, such as Habsburg Monarchy)?
    • -in what way maps reflect and represent the relations between different political subjects (the relations between imperial and local interests, provenance of mapping requests)?
    • - in what way had the members of various cultural circles in the Early Modern Times Croatia mapped the country they lived in / in what way they perceived the territory they thought is 'belonging' to their communities?
  • Collision of various (proto national) cartographic traditions in representing Croatian lands
    • COMPLEXITY: numerous differences & same mixtures on all sides
    • Appropriation ambiguity regarding this area still exists today
    • Depended on social, historical context of map production, obtained knowledge and production techniques
    • Importance of multiple borderlands (the Ottoman Empire, the Venetian Republic and the Habsburg Monarchy)- political & ideological strategies
    • difference in map production and usage between the three imperial cartographic traditions that ruled Croatia
    • Dutch, French, British cartographies
  • early modern principle uti posidetis ita possideatis (COLOUR) vs. traditional (medieval) territory perception (NAMES) Pierre Du Val Les confins des Chrestiens et des Turcs Zn-Z-XVIII-DUV-1663 , detail, Collectio Novak
  • THREE IMPERIAL CARTOGRAPHIES: the HABSBURG cartography
    • Changes in the territory possession and names; war operations followed by map production
    • Purpose of maps: administration, intelligence, strategic
    • Mapping of the hinterland territories of Croatia; NW Croatia, Slavonia and the Military Border
    • High technical quality and standards (mathematics, geodesy), field work
    • INSTITUTION-Systematic state (military and civil) topographic and cadastral surveys, thematic maps
    • Local informers and map-makers: Joannes Fluminensis (Ivan Klobučarić- combining elements of Venetian cartographic school ), Jesuit Stjepan Glavač (obtaining information), Ioannes Lucius (Ivan Lučić), Paulus Ritter (Pavao R. Vitezović)
  • The VENETIAN cartography
    • roots of antiquity, sea chart s- naval experience, Renaissance cultural patterns; war changes
    • Serrenissima - interested in Dalmatian coast
    • Interest in new possessions, high aesthetic standards, scarce knowledge of the inland region, deficient field work
    • Maps needed for war (imperial) and administration (taxation)
    • Institution of Official Venetian Cartographer: Vincenzo Maria Coronelli ( Cum privilegio ..)
    • Wars immediately followed by the selective Cadastral s urveying while Ottoman conquests in Dalmatia were systematically ignored (cartographic policy)
    • Venetian map of Dalmatia including bordering lines of 1700 and 1718 by Giusto Emilio Alberghetti, Kriegsarchiv, Wien , Slukan-Altić, 2003; 215,416. Venetian possesions : Acquisto Vecchio – Linea Nani - 1420 and Acquisto Nuovo - Linea Grimani -1699 /1700 Acquisto Nuovissimo- Linea Mocenigo - 1718
  • The OTTOMAN cartography
    • Ottoman (ideological) exclusion of the space visualisation and terrain mapping (protection of strategic interests: fortresses, corridors..)
    • preferring written reports, local guides (corsairs, pirates, merchants, travellers)
    • neglecting of cartography (in spite of advanced medieval Arabic cartographic heritage)
    • Alleged cartographic backwardness and inferiority= aversion to (risky) cartographic appropriations of Bosnia
    • Sea manuals, charts – Piri Re’is: 23 isolarios of Adriatic ports of Croatia in the Naval Book Kitab-i Bahriye , 1526; superior techniques and geographical knowledge, significantly advanced comparing to Coronelli’s work
  • Piri Re’is’s chart + written sailing instructions from Kitab-i Bahriye , 1526, Suleymaniye Library, Istanbul, Faximile: Collectio Novak
  • Map of “ Avsturia v Ma ġ aristan…” - reproduction and fascination by old “western” mapping - transliteration problems : 1 310 = approx. 1919 , toponimastic nomenclature : Isl āw on ī ja, D ā lm āç j ā , I ș ker ( i ) Zara, V a n edik k ū rsez ī - Bay Collectio Novak
  • Stjepan Glavač Nova hactenus editarum mendis expugatis .... 1673,
    • author’s reality: mental bordering
    • ignoring of Ottoman borderlines, presence recorded by flags
  • P.R.Vitezović MAPPA GENERALIS REGNI CROATIAE TOTIUS.. The Croatian State Archives, Zagreb, D.I.60 SELECTIVITY within the SAME CARTOGRAPHIC IMAGINARY: argument of historical continuity of Croatian lands : Dalmatia was called Venetian Croatia (while Slavonia, as a regular part of the Austrian Monarchy was not) the individual program or the unit-idea ( recombined in new patterns ) as the building-blocks of the history of ideas (A.O. Lovejoy)
  • Imaginary of cartographic translation and transliteration of bordering space
    • Living on the multiple edges = imaginary spaces + multiple clashes
    • Urban landscape vs. rural (non recorded, easily changed)
    • Superior & elite (culture, religion, language) vs. public
    • Reflection of “i nferiority ” of Slavic language s (TOPONIMASTICS: differentiation of importance of settlements by language: Local names for villages -while towns, cities, fortresses in German or Italian (Latin) )
    • Inferior Catholic Denomination within the Ottoman Empire, Protestant in the Habsburg Monarchy ( the Zrinski-Frankopan Uprising )
    • different education and medical practices: “ cordonne sanitaire”
  • Medical (ideological) neighbo u ring - absence of medical prevention, later implementation of sanitary regulations and quarantine practice in the Ottoman Empire = stereotypes of Bosnian non-hygienic environment of sickness
  • “ Croatian” cartographers?
    • Insisted on Ancient Roman, Mediterranean and MittelEuropean (Christian) framework when perceiving Croatia
    • the Early Modern perception and self-perception (defined by specific historical, cultural, religious, ethnic....realities) influenced by c omplex social interaction and exchange
    • Border “violence” (pressure, fear..) - i mported and “forced” intolerance vs. practical tolerance (religious, medical, trade, transhumance)
  • IDENTITY vs. MULTIETNIC ENVIRONMENT of the Early Modern Times
    • Habsburg /Venetian /Ottoman context
    • no national/ethnic state
    • Various identities - “Others”
    • Significant identities/affiliation:
    • -Communal/urban identities of the medieval and the early modern times:
    • Vincentius Demetrei Volcius Rachuseus (1563 Dubr.-1607 Roma)
    • Martinus Rota Sibenciensis, Sebencan (1532 Šibenik-1583 Vienna)
    • Joannes Clobucciarich Fluminensis (1545 Krk-1606 F ürstenfeld )
    • Natal Bonifacio Dalmata (1537 Šibenik-1592 Šibenik) (regionim)
    • Database on Croatian cartographers, controversial definition:
    • “ Cartographers are persons who are engaged in cartography. The category of Croatian cartographers is so conceived as to comprise Croats (!DM) or persons of Croatian descent who lived all over the world and were engaged in the field of cartography, persons of other ethnicities who were, irrespective of their country of residence, born in Croatia , as well as foreigners who lived and worked in Croatia and contributed to cartography .” ( http://www.kartografija.hr/index_en.htm , 6.4.2009.)
    • “ Croatian lands”
    • Ioannes Blaeu (Amsterdam ) ≠ IVAN PLAVIĆ
    • Pietro Coppo (Venetian solicitor )= PETAR KOPIĆ
    • (Venice 1469-Izola SLO VENIA 1555 )
    “ historical anachronism” vs. historical criticism
    • the 16th to 18h century maps = not only cartographic, but historiographic sources / political programs / constructs
    • space imaginary = space imaging + space imagining
    • Each imperial cartographic tradition (policy) defined by needs and purposes, primarily interested in its territorial possessions
    • Delineations - collided spheres of the real and fictional space
    • The Venetians- superiority in mapping of coast; trade, administrative or strategic purposes, aesthetics
    • The Austrians- geodetic standard; inner Croatia, the Military border; military purposes, field work
    • The Ottomans- antagonism towards cartography , no maps
    • the "bordering neighbo u rs“ - shared borderlines experiences, worked independently, following different programs, ideas
    • CRUCIAL RELEVANCE : long lasting Ottoman penetration and retreat & aggressive “Western” Reconquist
    CARTOGRAPHIC SCENE
    • traditional rather than political borders were strongly kept in the collective memories as : ancient borders of the Catholic jurisdiction of united provinces of the Roman Iliricum or the medieval Croatian and Slavonian Kingdom
    • misappropriation and modern term ‘label l ing’, such as ‘ Croatian ’
    • maps were not produced to propagate national ideology of any kind - national identity and consciousness was still not developed or articulated in the modern sense- there was no national ideology behind maps
    • confessional, ethnic and cultural identity in their maps used to keep the historical memory for posterity
    • imported priorities and policies of imperial cent r es (Venice, Vienna, Istanbul)
    • auto or hetero stereotypes : the issue of the self – image and the image of the “ O thers”; based on religious , ethnic , cultural... prejudices ( some preserved in contemporary public opinion )