Читать книгу Reading the Gaelic Landscape онлайн
24 страница из 56
ssss1
In 1984, four groups of students taking part in a hydrology field course were asked to make a sketch map of the same short stretch of river in northern Manitoba. Their subjects were biology, engineering, landscape architecture and technology. The biologists saw the stream as habitats grouped around a sinuous flow. They mapped areas of deposition, erosion and former water channels. The engineers drew a straight watercourse, which they thought was causing problems for the land upon either side. They mapped areas of slumping and active bank erosion. Landscape architects produced a plan whose graphics, though rendered with beauty and clarity, communicated little about place, natural phenomena or landscape process. Technology students made a drawing, which communicated accurately, if crudely, what was there and what was really happening (Hough1990).
The exercise showed how hard it is to represent the natural world even when drawn from life. What was omitted and included on the students’ maps was strongly influenced by their background, what they wanted to see and what they valued. Despite the advanced techniques available to modern cartographers, maps remain selective about what they choose to include and how it is represented. Place-names are no exception, particularly when what is being mapped, and who is carrying out the mapping, may come from different cultures. And especially when there is an asymmetry of power between those providing information and those recording it. Maps are documents of both commission and omission.