This map of Africa was published in the early 18th century. I compared it to a modern-day map of Africa, and as far as the general shape of the continent, it is pretty spot on (excluding Madagascar). My argument is that when this map of Africa was published the general goal wasn’t to further exploit the continent, but to historically document the current knowledge of scholars. It was published by a man named John Harris. He was a man who published works reflecting his scientific and religious background.
This map is a mixture of physical and abstract mapping concepts. In the northern part of the map and a little in the south, the physical features are shown: the black lines are a representation of the desert and terrain. On the edges of the map though, the abstract lines are drawn. They show the political states of Egypt, Congo, and Nubia to name a few. As you can tell, the countries mapped are primarily on the edges of Africa. This is probably because of the slave trade. Why go deep into a place you don’t know, when you can find what you’re looking for on the edge? That and if you spent too much time in Africa as a slave trader, your lifespan was quickly shortened due to being exposed to diseases that your immune system couldn’t fight off.
Although slavery was still a big industry, I think the map is a step forward. By drawing the abstract lines, they’re acknowledging that the people living in Africa have their own countries, and that it’s not just a vacant place filled with goods.
I really like your picture and detail analysis. It is such a breath of fresh air to hear a blog or article about the progress and something positive happening at this time. It always provides a new outlook on this particular aspect of history. There is no reason for us to get stuck on one aspect of Africa; its slavery history. Africa has been making history since then, and there is more to Africa than the slave trade and even the things we DO recognize. This moves forward from that and opens a door to learn more.
ReplyDeleteI find this map to be very interesting because for once Africa isn't portrayed as a huge empty space with pictures of random animals and people that appear to be "primitive" slapped all over it. I admire the artist's decision to portray Africa as a continent that contained distinct, separated lands. While Europeans at the time may not have known much about the interior of the continent, this map shows that they did somewhat recognize the diversity of Africa instead of just one giant mass of jungle.
ReplyDeleteI like this map because it shows all of the different landforms of Africa. It does not just depict Africa as one big mass of jungle. This map allows people to change their point of views of Africa's terrain. Also the map looks very accurate and shows how much different parts of Africa vary.
ReplyDeleteGreat points. I enjoy looking at this map because it shows the truth of Africa. Take away all the stereotypes created by other individuals and this is what you get. It's the true Africa, not what some cultures make it out to be. You're right, there is more to Africa than the slave trade. Not only did Africa have a past, but it has a future as well.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting in your argument that, although you believe the map to be simply an historical document of Africa, you still link it back to slavery. Clearly the name John Harris is European, and given the time period, one would think that the boundaries along the (West)coast would represent areas explored/settled by other Europeans, but you point out they aren't!
ReplyDeleteDo you think the map has two sides to it? The "Here is Africa as We Know It" historical representation, as well as the European/slave trade "Look What We Are Missing Out On," side?
Also, I am curious about the white lady depicted in the Africa emblem in the corner who seems to be wearing a snake and holding a crab!
I do agree that the Europeans were acknowledging specific regions of the African coast, however even this seems egocentric to me because these were only the regions in which the explorers were affiliated. The lack of color and importance placed in the middle area suggests that the only part of this map worth seeing are the areas in which the explorers traded and established relationships. Only the outer edges received color and the rest of Africa is portrayed as being lifeless. This alludes to the arrogance and elevated self worth of the European explorers during this time period. The middle of Africa was not mapped out by the Europeans, but that does not make the vast region less rich with culture or history.
ReplyDelete