Making maps of records: what cartography can teach us about archival description

ABSTRACT

This article explores maps as a conceptual metaphor for archival description. Drawing on insights from some classic works in the field of critical cartography, we examine five ways in which maps can help us to understand the nature of archives catalogues: (1) as tools for orientation and sense-making of interconnected archival landscapes; (2) as involving abstraction, selection and privileging, not direct reproduction, of information; (3) as making propositions or claims about records; (4) as ongoing archival labour, where metadata and description have mixed or multiple provenance and continue to evolve; and (5) as intrinsically interdisciplinary. Inverting the metaphor, we propose that the moral defence of the record as an ethical framework is also insightful for cartography. We further suggest that thinking of finding aids as metaphorical maps can help to reinvigorate archival description and inspire better catalogues.

KEYWORDS:

• Archival description
• catalogues
• maps
• metaphors

Acknowledgments

Earlier versions of portions of this material were presented at the Digitization and the Future of Archives conference in Copenhagen in January 2019, at The National Archives’ internal research seminar in April 2019, and at the AERI conference in Liverpool in July 2019. Thanks are due to the audiences at these events and to two anonymous reviewers for their insightful questions, comments and challenges. Opinions expressed are the author’s, not the official views of The National Archives.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, 3 and passim.

2. Nehrlich, ‘Metaphors in the Time of Coronavirus;’ Musu, ‘War Metaphors.’

3. Thomas, Fowler and Johnson, Silence of the Archive, 101 extend this metaphor, referring to the ‘echoes and whispers’ or ‘shouts’ of experiences captured briefly or tangentially within records.

4. Duff and Harris, ‘Stories and Names,’ 276–277; Fintland, ‘Archival Descriptions,’ 153–154.

5. Pugh, ‘Information Journeys,’ 171 and passim.

6. The National Archives, ‘Bridging the Digital Gap.’

7. Jimerson, ‘Embracing the Power,’ 19–20, 24–27. His metaphor was inspired by Ketelaar, ‘Archival Temples.’

8. For example, Shepherd and Pringle, ‘Mapping Descriptive Standards’ compares ISAD(G) with Spectrum, the museum collection management standard.

9. Korzybski, Science and Sanity, 58. The full sentence is: ‘A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness’ (italics original).

10. The phrase ‘the menu is not the meal’ is attributed to Alan Watts.

11. Yakel and Torres, ‘Archival Intelligence,’ 59–60 note that this is a foundational piece of knowledge for successful use of archives but not at all obvious to people encountering archives for the first time.

12. Inspired by two paintings: Bosch, The Garden of Earthly Delights; and Douglass, The Garden of Earthly Delights.

13. Delano-Smith and Kain, English Maps, 6.

14. Ibid., 6.

15. Monmonier, How to Lie with Maps.

16. Huff, How to Lie with Statistics; Monmonier, How to Lie with Maps, xiii.

17. Monmonier, How to Lie with Maps, 3–4, 184–186 and passim.

18. Krygier and Wood, ‘Ce n’est pas le Monde,’ 193–195.

19. Magritte, La Trahison des Images; Krygier and Wood, ‘Ce n’est pas le Monde,’ 212 note 2.

20. Krygier and Wood, ‘Ce n’est pas le Monde,’ 213–214 note 10.

21. See, e.g. Schwartz, ‘Coming to Terms,’ 144–147; Janes, ‘Maps as a Recordkeeping Technology,’ 123; van der Merwe, ‘From a Silent Past,’ 242, 252–253.

22. Laxton, ‘Preface,’ ix, xii; Edney, Cartography, ix and passim.

23. Robinson and Petchenik, The Nature of Maps; Harley, The New Nature of Maps.

24. Harley, ‘Deconstructing the Map,’ 152 and passim.

25. On the relevance of Harley to archival studies, see: Schwartz, ‘Coming to Terms,’ 162–163; Thomas, Fowler and Johnson, Silence of the Archive, xxix-xx.

26. Harley, ‘Maps, Knowledge and Power,’ 57–59; Harley, ‘Power and Legitimation,’ 134–146; Harley, ‘New England Cartography.’

27. Harley, ‘Silences and Secrecy;’ Harley, ‘Maps, Knowledge and Power,’ 67–69.

28. Harley, ‘Can There Be?’

29. See, for instance: Harris, Archives and Justice; Fowler, Thomas and Johnson, Silence of the Archive; Punzalan and Caswell, ‘Critical Directions.’

30. Mitchell and Janes, Maps, 16–18 and passim.

31. Delano-Smith and Kain, English Maps, 5.

32. Andrews, ‘What Was a Map?,’ 6–7.

33. Ibid., 3.

34. Harley, ‘Maps, Knowledge and Power,’ 62–65, 79; Monmonier, How to Lie with Maps, 43–44, 88–90, 139, 163; Krygier and Wood, ‘Ce n’est pas le Monde,’ 209, 216–217 note 20.

35. See, for instance: Procter and Cook, Manual of Archival Description, para. 4.1. Although Bearman, ‘Documenting Documentation,’ 34 and others have argued for a greater focus on record-creation processes, in practice most catalogues and finding aids are still primarily about records.

36. Jenny Bunn (personal communication).

37. MacNeil, ‘Picking Our Text,’ 276; MacNeil and Douglas, ‘Generic Evolution,’ 108, 115.

38. Langdon, ‘Describing the Digital,’ 46.

39. Hurley, ‘Tyranny of Listing.’

40. For varying perspectives on the description-metadata distinction, see for instance: Bunn ‘Developing Descriptive Standards,’ 241–243; MacNeil, ‘Metadata Strategies;’ Niu ‘Recordkeeping Metadata.’

41. Harley, ‘The Map and the Development,’ 1, 34; Monmonier, How to Lie with Maps, 183.

42. Jones, ‘From Catalogues,’ 5–8; Bearman, ‘Documenting Documentation,’ 38–41; The National Archives, ‘Cataloguing Archive Collections.’

43. Ben Rachel, ‘Why Documentation Matters.’

44. Bunn, ‘Frames,’ 72–74 discusses the archivist’s role in description as sense-making. Pugh, ‘Information Journeys,’ 58–69 provides an overview of sense-making from the information-seeker’s point of view.

45. Yakel and Torres, ‘Archival Intelligence;’ Crane, ‘Baffled by Archives.’

46. Fintland, ‘Archival Descriptions,’ 140. Paratext is material that frames and supports the understanding of a text: the preface to a book, the marginalia of a map and this note are all examples of paratext.

47. Studies of success and failure in using online catalogues include: Daniels and Yakel, ‘Seek and You May Find;’ Duff and Stoyanova, ‘Transforming the Crazy Quilt;’ Walton, ‘Looking for Answers.’ See also Wiedeman, ‘Historical Hazards,’ 403–405 on the lack of attention to paid to usability in developing digital finding aids; and Darwall-Smith and Riordan, ‘Bad and Dangerous,’ 116–118 on catalogue web interfaces’ inadequate support for navigability. Pugh, ‘Information Journeys’ is a broader study of uncertainty in users’ attempts to navigate archives.

48. Monmonier, How to Lie with Maps, 25; Delano-Smith and Kain, English Maps, 6.

49. Monmonier, How to Lie with Maps, 13.

50. Carroll, Sylvie and Bruno Concluded, 169.

51. Monmonier, How to Lie with Maps, 25–30, 35–36.

52. Ibid., 1, 25, 186.

53. Monmonier, How to Lie with Maps, 59–62, 99–107, 115–122; Harley, ‘Silences and Secrecy,’ 87–88.

54. Edney, Cartography, 20, 99–100. Edney argues that map scholars have mistakenly conflated the widespread endeavour of ‘mapping’ with an idealized ‘cartography’ that is narrowly rooted in a particular Western conception of mapmaking and map use. Ibid., 4, 8, 26 and passim.

55. The National Archives, MPG 1/532/5. Discussed in Mitchell and Janes, Maps, 182–183.

56. Monmonier, How to Lie with Maps, 34–35.

57. Ibid., 16–18, 40–42.

58. Ibid., 8–16, 30–31.

59. The National Archives, MPE 1/1611.

60. Duff and Harris, ‘Stories and Names,’ 278.

61. Gauld, ‘Democratising or Privileging,’ 238–240; MacNeil, ‘Picking Our Text,’ 278.

62. Procter and Cook, Manual of Archival Description, para. 8.6E.

63. Mayer, ‘No Old Maps.’

64. Paraphrasing Fintland, ‘Archival Descriptions,’ 138, descriptions offer distorted reflections, not windows or even direct mirrors.

65. Jenkinson, Manual, 66–68, 78–79; Darwall-Smith and Riordan, ‘Bad and Dangerous,’ 109, 111–112.

66. International Council on Archives, ISAD(G), Appendix A-1.

67. Some of the many meditations on the subtle intricacies of provenance and original order include: Bailey, ‘Disrespect des Fonds;’ Duchein, ‘Theoretical Principles;’ Light and Hyry, ‘Colophons and Annotations,’ 219–220; Millar, ‘Death of the Fonds;’ Yeo, ‘Continuing Debates about Description,’ 164–168.

68. Darwall-Smith and Riordan, ‘Archives for Administrators?’ and Darwall-Smith and Riordan, ‘Bad and Dangerous’ provide case studies of shifting arrangement and description practices over time. For traditional assumptions that a variety of finding aids will be needed, see: Jenkinson, Manual, 108–111; and Procter and Cook, Manual of Archival Description, paras. 3.2, 3.8.

69. These examples reflect the arrangement of some of the hard-copy supplementary finding aids at The National Archives.

70. An anonymous reviewer points out that conventions for identifying and naming places are an area where mapmakers’ and cataloguers’ interests converge.

71. See, for instance: MacNeil and Douglas, ‘Generic Evolution,’ 115–117; Haunton, ‘Case for Cataloguing,’ 15.

72. International Council on Archives, ‘Records in Contexts,’ para. 2.1.

73. MacNeil, ‘Picking Our Text,’ 276; MacNeil and Douglas, ‘Generic Evolution,’ 108. Jones, ‘From Catalogues,’ 10–13 argues for richly interconnected structures for museum and archive documentation to provide more rounded and effective contextualization.

74. Harley, ‘Texts and Contexts,’ 35–36.

75. Monmonier, How to Lie with Maps, 184–185.

76. Krygier and Wood, ‘C’est n’est pas le Monde,’ 192–193, 212–213 notes 5–6. Andrews ‘What was a Map?’ quotes 321 definitions of ‘map’ from the seventeenth to the twentieth centuries, none of which wholly excludes the concept of ‘representation.’

77. Rosenau, Postmodernism and the Social Sciences, chap. 6; Krygier and Wood, ‘C’est n’est pas le Monde,’ 194–195, 213 note 7.

78. Krygier and Wood, ‘C’est n’est pas le Monde,’ 195.

79. Ibid., 198.

80. Ibid., 199–201.

81. Harley, ‘Can There Be?,’ 204.

82. Harley, ‘New England Cartography,’ 188, 192; Harley, ‘Maps, Knowledge and Power,’ 57.

83. Yakel ‘Archival Representation,’ 2 and passim.

84. See, e.g. Procter and Cook, Manual of Archival Description, para. 8.4; International Council on Archives, ISAD(G), paras. I.2, I.8, 0.1.

85. International Council on Archives, ISAD(G), paras I.4, 0.1. Procter and Cook, Manual of Archival Description, paras. 1.2–1.6 note that UK archivists apply largely the same sets of descriptive practices and standards to corporate archives and to historical manuscripts, regarding both as archival records. We are not suggesting here that something cannot be a record without metadata, merely that metadata is how record status is asserted.

86. Darwall-Smith and Riordan, ‘Bad and Dangerous,’ 102, 105, 111–112; Gauld, ‘Democratising or Privileging,’ 237–238.

87. Monmonier, How to Lie with Maps, 133–137.

88. Janes, ‘Maps as a Recordkeeping Technology,’ 121–122. Woodward, ‘“Theory” and The History,’ 37 outlines a schema for the historical study of map production and use. Edney, Cartography, 64–67 decries the common scholarly focus on individual mapmakers and map users.

89. Mitchell and Janes, Maps, 182–183. Ibid., 174–175, 184–185 illustrate and discuss further examples of maps that combine the work of indigenous and colonizing people.

90. Delano-Smith and Kain, English Maps, 98, 104–105.

91. Fletcher, ‘Ordnance Survey’s,’ 136–142.

92. Janes, ‘Maps as a Recordkeeping Technology,’ 121–123.

93. The National Archives, WO 153/167. Discussed in Mitchell and Janes, Maps, 124–125.

94. Janes, ‘Maps as a Recordkeeping Technology,’ 130 note 31.

95. Cartobibliography (i.e. identifying the printing and publication histories of particular maps) is a subfield of scholarly endeavour in its own right.

96. McGarva, Morris and Janée, ‘Preserving Geospatial Data’ outlines the considerable issues and challenges involved in preserving the data underlying digital mapping.

97. For instance, Douglas, ‘Toward More Honest Description,’ 28–43 explains how arrangement typically reflects the input of multiple actors.

98. The established practice for analogue records of assembling metadata and description from mixed sources is anticipated to continue for born-digital records, albeit with significantly different emphases; see: Garmendia, ‘Digital Cataloguing;’ Hillyard, ‘Seven Pillars.’

99. Haunton, ‘Case for Cataloguing,’ 14 articulates this point particularly well.

100. Borrowing Jimerson’s metaphor of the temple, we can draw a parallel with the great medieval European cathedrals, which were built over decades or centuries by generations of workers and which now receive restoration and maintenance.

101. See, for instance, Chilcott, ‘Towards Protocols;’ 371–373; Fintland, ‘Archival Descriptions,’ 156; Haunton, ‘Case for Cataloguing,’ 15–16;” Yakel, ‘Archival Representation,’ 4. Yeo, ‘Continuing Debates about Description,’ 177 argues that description is ‘always beta’ (i.e. there is inevitably potential for improvement).

102. Douglas, ‘Toward More Honest Description,’ 49.

103. Eveleigh, ‘Crowding Out the Archivist?,’ 22; Wiedeman, ‘Historical Hazards,’ 382, 385; and Yeo, ‘Continuing Debates about Description,’ 182–183 each note from different perspectives that descriptive practices are pragmatic compromises heavily influenced by resource constraints.

104. Light and Hyry, ‘Colophons and Annotations,’ 217.

105. The National Archives, Index to Trust Deeds (1736–1870), volume TA-TI, f. 22.

106. International Council on Archives, ISAD(G), para. 3.7.1.

107. Hillyard, ‘Seven Pillars.’ See also: MacNeil, ‘Picking Our Text,’ 272; Pugh, ‘Information Journeys,’ 145; Light and Hyry, ‘Colophons and Annotations,’ 222–226; Light and Hyry’s colophons (i.e. statements about when and how archives have been processed) are a kind of precursor to Hillyard’s ‘meta-metadata’ (metadata about metadata).

108. Harley, ‘The Map and the Development,’ 3.

109. Monmonier, How to Lie with Maps, 58, 163, 184–185.

110. Laxton, ‘Preface,’ xiv; Harley, ‘The Map and the Development,’ 3, 36.

111. Edney, Cartography, 2–3.

112. Cook, ‘Evidence, Memory,’ 99–100, 102–103; Dirks, ‘Accountability, History and Archives,’ 30.

113. This informal model of four intersecting archival cultures arose from discussion with colleagues. The balance of these influences will vary between different organizations; for archives maintained outside the sphere of professionalized recordkeeping, some may be weak or absent.

114. Borrowing a computer programming metaphor, we see this as a feature, not a bug. For the opposite view, see e.g. Yakel, ‘Archival Representation,’ 24; Wiedeman, ‘The Historical Hazards,’ 386–387, 408–409.

115. Darwall-Smith and Riordan, ‘Archives for Administrators?,’ 111.

116. Yakel and Torres, ‘Archival Intelligence,’ 52–53.

117. The National Archives, ‘Digital Strategy,’ section 6.

118. Dirks, ‘Accountability, History and Archives,’ 46.

119. International Council on Archives, ‘Code of Ethics,’ para. 1; Archives and Records Association, ‘Code of Ethics,’ para. 1.

120. Jenkinson, Manual, 45.

121. For instance, Gilliland, ‘To What Lengths?’ examines the necessity and challenges of maintaining the physical and moral defence in conflict and other dangerous or difficult situations.

122. Jenkinson, Manual, 66–106; MacNeil, ‘Picking Our Text,’ 271–272. Hurley, ‘What Are Finding Aids for?,’ 60, 64 argues that metadata and description are intrinsic to recordkeeping across the whole continuum.

123. This particular expression of the philosophy behind archival processing grew out of informal attempts to explain it to non-archivist colleagues.

124. MacNeil, ‘Picking Our Text,’ 269, 272; Douglas, ‘Toward More Honest Description,’ 43.

125. Douglas, ‘Toward More Honest Description,’ 43–44, 48.

126. International Council on Archives, ‘Code of Ethics,’ paras 6–8, 10; Archives and Records Association, ‘Code of Ethics,’ paras 2, 4, 17, 28–34.

127. Jenkinson, Manual, 15, 44–45, 108.

128. Forde, Preserving Archives, 1.

129. Brikci-Nigassa, ‘Social Inclusion and Archives,’ 51, 60; Carpio, ‘Tales,’ 60.

130. See, e.g. Chilcott, ‘Towards Protocols,’ 368; First Archivist Circle, ‘Protocols;’ Rinn, ‘Nineteenth-Century Depictions,’ 5–8.

131. Gauld, ‘Democratising or Privileging,’ 241–243 notes that the purpose of a gatekeeper ought to be letting people in rather than keeping people out.

132. For a handful of the many perspectives on the desirability of user-generated description, see: Eveleigh, ‘Crowding Out the Archivist?;’ Thomas, Fowler and Johnson, Silence of the Archive, 149–153; Hillyard: ‘Seven Pillars;’ Light and Hyry, ‘Colophons and Annotations,’ 226–229; Yeo, ‘Continuing Debates about Description,’ 175–177.

133. Thomas, Fowler and Johnson, Silence of the Archive, 146.

134. Gauld, ‘Democratising or Privileging,’ 230–231; Jimerson, ‘Embracing the Power,’ 30–32.

135. The National Archives, ‘Archives for Everyone;’ Jimerson, ‘Archives for All,’ 254, 272–273. Although some (e.g. Greene, ‘Critique of Social Justice;’ Procter, ‘Protecting Rights,’ 302–303) are critical or sceptical about social justice per se as an imperative for archivists’ work, there is a broad consensus among UK practitioners that our profession, collections and services continue to be insufficiently inclusive, and that some remedial action is required.

136. Edney, Cartography, 95–98.

137. Harley, ‘Can There Be?,’ 199, 203–204; Jimerson, ‘Archives for All,’ 272–273.

138. Harley, ‘Can There Be?,’ 199, 204–205.

139. Monmonier, How to Lie with Maps, 184–186 and passim.

140. Langdon, ‘Describing the Digital,’ 38–39, 48–49; MacNeil and Douglas, ‘Generic Evolution,’ 118–119; Garmendia, ‘Digital Cataloguing Practices,’ section 3.

141. This framing is not intended to be prescriptive about appropriate data structures or modes of presentation for catalogues. However, emerging data models with an increased focus on relationships between entities and on metadata provenance and change over time (see e.g. The National Archives, ‘Project Omega’) are consistent with our map analogy.

142. See, for instance, Carpio, ‘Tales,’ 68–69, 73, who uses literal and metaphorical ‘counter-mapping’ in her discussion of the archives of marginalized people.

143. Edney, Cartography, 228.

144. Vandenburg ‘Using Google Maps’ is an example from the library sector. For an experimental interface, no longer live, see: The National Archives, ‘Collections on a Map.’

145. Caswell, ‘The Archive.’

146. Delano-Smith and Kain, English Maps, 241. Edney, Cartography, 92 notes that scholars have missed relevant material by mistakenly assuming that archives will contain manuscript maps but not printed maps. Edney himself, perhaps deliberately, uses the word ‘archive’ in various abstract and concrete senses.

147. Voltaire, Candide, 294.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Andrew Janes

Andrew Janes studied Archive Administration at Aberystwyth University before joining The National Archives in 2008 as a map curator and public services archivist. Since 2014 he has been a senior archivist in The National Archives' Cataloguing, Taxonomy and Data department. He currently serves on the committee for the Archives and Records Association's section for Archives and Technology.