One Small Corner: Map Interpretation on a Regional Scale

The idea is to begin with a map and use the questions raised by that map to explore the history of a region. This approach is the reverse of a typical historiographical use of maps to support or illustrate a particular historical narrative. A map-based approach is instead a type of microhistory, a close reading of an artifact, whose purpose is not to tell the story of a significant place or historical event but to illuminate a cultural landscape and a thread of history which runs through daily lives. It is supported by the idea that all maps have a historical power and it is aimed at suggesting an approach to uncover the “inherently rhetorical” nature of maps.[1]

The Last Wild Place

I have chosen to look at maps showing one particular geographical corner of Arizona, what would become Cochise County, during the timeperiod, 1876 to 1887, when it was undergoing a transition from an “uncivilized” landscape of Indians and outposts, to a territorial county with all of the trappings of settlement, industry and “civilization.”

This area of the country was part of the last addition to the lower 48 states. In 1853, five years after the U.S. acquired most of the West as a result of the Mexican-American war, Mexico sold an additional 45,535 square miles comprising southern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico to the U.S. for $10,000,000. Negotiated by James Gadsden this land acquistion came to be known as the Gadsden purchase (click to see outline on map).

This county was the site of the Chiricahua Indian Reservation which was established in 1872 as part of a peace agreement with the Apaches led by Cochise, who had been battling U.S. soldiers and settlers since 1861. This peace did not last long and neither did the reservation. It was transferred to public domain in 1876 and the Chiricahuas and four other Apache tribes were moved onto the San Carlos Reservation. From 1876 to 1886, Geronimo, a Chiricahua Apache, led several escapes from that reservation. In 1885 he left the reservation with a small band of 134 men, women and children. This led to an extensive manhunt by the U.S. Army. After Geronimo and his remaining band of 16 men and 17 women and children surrendered in 1886, the entire tribe along with the army's Apache scouts were imprisoned, first in Florida, then Alabama and finally Oklahoma. The removal of the Chiricahuas essentially ended the last major Native American “insurrection” and allowed for the unimpeded settlement and economic development of the area.

The Maps

The four maps chosen for this analysis are all general maps of Arizona, from which Cochise County is abstracted[2]. These maps were not selected because they were unusual or showed some special aspect of the area. They were common maps representative of the time. The two main maps in this study were done by the United States General Land Office, one in 1876 and the other in 1887. These were based on the most complete land surveys of the time and done specifically to aid in land distribution and settlement.

Two other maps, done by the commerical publishers Rand, McNally and Company in 1876 and George F. Cram in 1887 are used in this study as a contrast to the government sponsored maps.

All four maps have been adjusted to the same scale.


Excerpt from The Territory of Arizona (Washington: General Land Office, 1876)

  
Excerpt from The Territory of Arizona (Washington: General Land Office, 1887)

 
 
Excerpt from Indexed Map of Arizona Showing the Stage Lines, Counties, Lakes & Rivers (Chicago: Rand, McNally and Co., 1876)

Excerpt from Railroad and County Map of Arizona (Chicago: George F. Cram, 1887)

 


 


The analysis of these maps will be broken down into the categories of boundaries, physical landscape, settlements and land claims, rails and trails, and mines and industry.

Interactive Design

A map often shows the presence (or absence) of man, by showing such element as settlements and transportation routes; it also shows the physical features of the landscape, such as mountains, rivers, and springs. An interactive map can bring out these characteristics by highlighting certain areas. For example, one could bring forward a certain trail by making it stand out in a different color. However, this type of interactivity is simply an extension of the illustrative power of maps. Such a map can tell us little on its own. As Harley suggests “No map is hermetically closed upon itself nor can it answer all the questions it raises. Sooner or later early map interpretation becomes an exercise in comparative cartography.”[3]

To make a truly interactive map one must explore differences. There are numerous ways to do this. One could compare a historical map with what is known of the area now. One could also use source documents other than maps to evaluate how accurately a certain map depicts the area – does it leave out settlements, physical features, or Indian tribes for example. One could compare one map with an older map in a similar style to see which elements are continued and/or copied. Or we could chose several maps of the same time period to evaluate what one maps shows that another leaves out. This is the method that I have chosen for this project.

The differences between maps could be for a variety of reasons and these must be evaluated. They might reflect different purposes and choices of the mapmakers, different data sets and surveys, and change over time. Each of these elements could be linked to a fuller exploration of the issues.

Footnotes

1. J.B. Hartley, “Text and Contexts in the Interpretation of Early Maps,” in From Sea Charts to Satellite Images, ed. By David Buisseret (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), p. 5

2. All four maps are courtesy of the Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division and are available online at http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/gmdhtml/gmdhome.html.

3. J.B. Hartley, “Text and Contexts in the Interpretation of Early Maps,” in From Sea Charts to Satellite Images, ed. By David Buisseret (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), p. 5