We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 October 2007
Maps are graphic interpretations of real or imagined space. Although utilitarian by nature, they are of intrinsic aesthetic and artistic value. In addition to their material qualities, they are constructs of the human mind at a specific time and in a specific culture. Traditionally judged on the basis of their Cartesian rather than artistic qualities, maps are categorised by their spatial accuracy according to a positivist construct. This criterion has recently been re-examined to address mapmaking across cultures and through time. A new definition developed by the History of Cartography Project not only treats maps as material culture, but further broadens the concept of the map to include all artifacts that depict space.1 In this theoretical framework, maps discovered in archaeological contexts are rare artifacts that provide a window into the minds of their makers and users, the way in which space was perceived, as well as the relevance and function of maps in ancient societies. By definition, this is an attempt to address an emic perspective.2
The authors are grateful to Mr. Chen Jianming 陳 建 明, Director of Hunan Provincial Museum, for granting permission to reproduce photographs of the original maps from their permanent collections. Thanks are also offered to Paul Goldin, Dana Tomlin, Robert Preucel, and Terrance Rusnak for their comments on previous drafts of this study.
1 J. B. Harley and D. Woodward (ed.), Cartography in Prehistoric, Ancient, and Medieval Europe and the Mediterranean (Chicago, 1987), vol. 1, pp. xxiii–xxvii.
2 K. Pike, Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior (The Hague, 1967), 2nd edition.
3 R. R. C. de Crespigny, ‘Two Maps from Mawangdui’, Cartography, 11 (1980), p. 212.
4 Mawangdui Han mu boshu zhengli xiaozu (Study Group for Han Silk Manuscripts from Mawangdui), “Changsha Mawangdui sanhao Han mu chutu ditu de zhengli”, (Report on the ancient maps found in Han Tomb Three at Mawangdui, Changsha), Wenwu, 2 (1975), pp. 35–42.
5 The exact translation of this research unit is the Study Group for Han Silk Manuscripts from Mawangdui. We use the abbreviated form, Mawangdui Study Group, throughout this paper.
6 Mawangdui Han mu boshu zhengli xiaozu (Study Group for Han Silk Manuscripts from Mawangdui), “Changsha Mawangdui sanhao Han mu chutu ditu de zhengli”, (Report on the ancient maps found in Han Tomb Three at Mawangdui, Changsha), Wenwu, 2 (1975), pp. 35–42; Mawangdui Han mu boshu zhengli xiaozu (Study Group for Han Silk Manuscripts from Mawangdui), “Mawangdui sanhao Han mu chutu zhujuntu zhengli jianbao”, (Report on the military map discovered in Han Tomb Three at Mawangdui), Wenwu, 1 (1976), pp. 18–23.
7 Several studies on the Mawangdui maps were published in Chinese archaeological journals in the late 1970s. Much progress in the areas of restoration, historical landscape, and accuracy was the result of these studies. In addition to the previously cited articles, also see S. Huang and C. Niu, “Youguan Changsha Mawangdui Han mu de lishi dili wenti”, (Questions of historical geography related to the Han tombs at Mawangdui, Changsha), Wenwu, 9 (1972), pp. 22–29; Q. Tan, “Mawangdui Han mu chutu ditu suo shuoming de jige lishi dili wenti”, (Explanations of some questions of historical geography provided by the topographic map from Mawangdui Han Tomb Three), Wenwu, 6 (1975a), pp. 20–28; Q. Tan, “Liangqian yibai duo nian qian de yifu ditu”, (A silk map of 2,100 years ago), Wenwu, 2 (1975b), pp. 43–48; L. Zhan, “Mawangdui Han mu chutu de shouwei tu tantao”, (A discussion on the military garrison map excavated from a Han tomb at Mawangdui,” Wenwu, 1 (1976), pp. 24–37; J. Fu, “Mawangdui Han mu chutu de zhujuntu”, (The military garrison map excavated from a Han tomb at Mawangdui), and Z. Han, “Guanyu Mawangdui boshu gu ditu de zhengli yu yanjiu”, (Concerning the restoration and study of the ancient silk maps from Mawangdui), in Zhongguo Gudai Ditu Ji: Zhangguo – Yuan (An Atlas of Ancient Maps in China – From the Warring States Period to the Yuan Dynasty, 476 BC – AD 1368), ed. W. Cao, X. Zheng, S. Huang, et al. (Beijing, 1990), pp. 9–11, and pp. 12–17.
8 D. D. Buck, “Three Han Dynasty Tombs at Ma-wang-tui.” World Archaeology, 7 (1975), pp. 30–45; A. G. Bulling, “Ancient Chinese Maps Two Maps Discovered in a Han Dynasty Tomb from the Second Century BC,” Expedition, 20 (1978), pp. 16–25; K. Chang, “The Han Maps: New Light on Cartography in Classical China,” Imago Mundi, 31 (1979), pp. 9–17; M.-L. Hsu, “The Han Maps and Early Chinese Cartography.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 68 (1978), pp. 45–60.
9 J. Needham (with the research assistance of L. Wang), Mathematics and the Sciences of the Heaven and Earth from the Science and Civilisation in China Series, vol. 3 (Cambridge, 1959).
10 M.-L. Hsu (1978).
11 Positivism is based on the theory of August Comte. In the most simplified form, positivism is a theory of knowledge with three premises: the primacy of the scientific method which relies on observable and testable phenomena in both physical and social spheres, the unity of both natural and social science, and the link between the growth of knowledge and social progress. The Vienna Circle further refined the theory with the verification principle. The application of positivism to the question of map making involves the assumption that maps are graphic depictions of mathematically determinable space. Therefore, a “good” map represents the scientific and mathematical sophistication of its makers, or that scientific development is equated with linear ideas of social progress. R. W. Preucel, ‘Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies’, in Philosophies of Archaeology, ed. R. W. Preucel (Carbondale, 1991), pp. 17–29.
12 Yee (1994), pp. 71–95.
13 Current archaeological theory is comprised of two primary schools of thought, processual and postprocessual. While this development of multiple theoretical perspectives does not represent a linear progression, it does indicate the impact of theoretical debates in other disciplines such as sociology, philosophy, and linguistics on anthropology. Postprocessual archaeology is a direct response to the underlying positivism of processual theory which in turn was a critic of cultural-historical archaeology. L. R. Binford, “Archaeology as Anthropology”, American Antiquity, 28 (1962), pp. 217–225; I. Hodder, Symbolic and Structural Archaeology (Cambridge, 1982); I. Hodder, “Postprocessual archaeology”, in Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, ed. M. B. Schiffer (Orlando, 1985), pp. 1–26; C. Tilley (ed.), Interpretive Archaeology (Oxford, 1993); B. Trigger, A History of Archaeological Thought (Cambridge, 1989). Cognitive archaeology encompasses cosmology, religion, ideology, and iconography or “the study of all those aspects of ancient culture that are the products of the human mind”. K. Flannery and J. Marcus, “Cognitive Archaeology”, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 3 (1993), pp. 260–270. Marcus and Flannery advocate the Direct Historical Approach (DHA), which for them entailed the use of ethnographic and ethnohistoric materials, examinations of space and architecture, and a contextual analysis of religious paraphernalia. J. Marcus and K. V. Flannery, “Ancient Zapotec Ritual and Religion: An Application of the Direct Historical Approach”, in The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology, ed. C. Renfrew and E. Zubrow (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 55–73.
14 J. B. Harley, “Maps, Knowledge, and Power”, in The Iconography of Landscape Essays on the Symbolic Representation, Design and Use of Past Environments, ed. D. Cosgrove and S. Daniels (New York, 1988), pp. 277–312; C. D. K.Yee, “Reinterpreting Traditional Chinese Geographical Maps” and “Concluding Remarks: Foundations for a History of Chinese Mapping”, in Cartography in the Traditional East and Southeast Asian Societies, ed. J. B. Harley and D. Woodward (Chicago, 1994), vol. 2 book 2, pp. 35–70, and pp. 228–231.
15 T. Ingold, “The Temporality of the Landscape”, World Archaeology, 25 (1993), pp. 152–174.
16 D. E. Cosgrove, Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape (Totowa, 1984), p. 9.
17 A. B. Knapp and W. Ashmore, “Archaeological Landscapes: Constructed, Conceptualized, Ideational”, in Archaeologies of Landscape Contemporary Perspectives, ed. W. Ashmore and A. B. Knapp (Malden, 1999), pp. 1–30.
18 Crumley (1994), pp. 1–16; W. M. Denevan, “The Pristine Myth: The Landscapes of the Americas in 1492”, Association of American Geographers, 82 (1992), pp. 369–385; P. W. Stahl, “Holocene Biodiversity: An Archaeological Perspective from the Americas”, Annual Review of Anthropology, 25 (1996), pp. 105–126.
19 S. Daniels and D. Cosgrove, “Introduction: Iconography and Landscape”, in The Iconography of Landscape Essays on the Symbolic Representation, Design and Use of Past Environments, ed. D. Cosgrove and S. Daniels (New York, 1988), pp. 1–10.
20 Q. Tan (1975a); Q. Tan (1975b); Study Group for Han Silk Manuscripts from Mawangdui (1975); Study Group for Han Silk Manuscripts from Mawangdui (1976).
21 The Fundamental Digital Map of China was based on the Digital Chart of the World developed by the Defense Mapping Agency. China in Time and Space Project (CITAS) added to this database set, creating a series of layered themes. CITAS, Fundamental GIS: Digital Chart of China (Seattle, 1994).
22 Army Map Service (Washington, DC, 1952), Chung Shan G49V, Hsin Tian Sheet 62, Lien Hsien Sheet 70, Tao Hsien G49P.
23 This result is not unexpected. Previous studies have shown that the “accuracy is highest in the better known areas at the centre and the north, with the scale varying between 1:80,000 to 1:100,000”. See M.-L. Hsu (1978), p. 52.
24 The military garrison map was re-oriented and warped in terms of the topographic map to approximate longitude 111.30–112.28 east and latitude 25.12–25.63 north.
25 The results show a slightly skewed image that appears almost perpendicular to the topographic map. The four points and respective Root Mean Square Errors (RMS) were Shenping (RMS error 44.56), Poli (RMS error 145.46), Geli (RMS error 178.69), and Heli (RMS error 77.8). An acceptably low level of Root Mean Square error for rectifying modern map data with satellite or aerial photos is 1. Therefore the degree of warping and skewing of the military garrison against the topographic map was severe resulting in a horizontally oriented rectangular shape apparent in Figure 2.
26 Study Group for Han Silk Manuscripts from Mawangdui (1975); Study Group for Han Silk Manuscripts from Mawangdui (1976).
27 ESRI, Introduction to GIS I (2000–2004), pp. 2–12. In GIS, “real-world entities are abstracted into three basic shapes, points, lines, and polygons” for representing geographic features in vector data.
28 As the data were coded and entered, the influence of modern biases were recognised on the part of the researchers. The category names were derived from careful consideration of the original meaning of each annotation. In some cases, the meaning may well have shifted over time. The authors also recognised that the absence of detailed annotations for a feature did not necessarily indicate greater or lesser importance. The goal was to view the map from the perspective of the maker and the military officers who used it.
29 For a comprehensive history of the Nanyue kingdom, see juan 113 in Shiji (Records of the Grand Historian), Sima Qian, c. 145–86 BCE, (Beijing, 1959).
30 For an in-depth discussion of the debate on the political and linguistic significance of the two yue graphs, see D. Lary, “The Tomb of the King of Nanyue – The Contemporary Agenda of History: Scholarship and Identity”, Modern China, Jan (1996), pp. 3–27.
31 Hanshu (History of the Former Han), Ban Gu c. 32–92 CE, (Beijing, 1962), 13, 365, note 5.
32 De Crespigny (1980), p. 212.
33 Lary (1996), p. 8.
34 Shiji 97, 2698.
35 Shiji 113, 2967.
36 Ibid.
37 E. Schafer, The Vermillion Bird, (Berkeley, 1967), p. 5; de Crespigny (1980), p. 213.
38 Shiji 113, 2967 and 2968.
39 Buck (1975), p. 41.
40 Hanshu, 50, 2321.
41 D. Wagner, State and Iron Industry in Han China (Copenhagen, 2001), p. 54.
42 Shiji 113, 2969.
43 Ibid.
44 B. Watson (trans.), Records of the Grand Historian, Han Dynasty (Hong Kong, 1993), p. 209.
45 Shiji 113, 3853
46 For a description of the tomb and some of the artifacts, including the gold seal, see X. Yang (ed.), The Golden Age of Chinese Archaeology (Washington, DC, 1999), pp. 410–437.
47 Shiji 116, 2994.
48 M. Loewe, “The Structure and Practice of Government”, in The Ch'in and Han Empires, 221 B.C.-A.D. 220, ed. D. Twitchett and M. Loewe (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 169.
49 L. Zhan (1976), pp. 24–37; M.-L. Hsu (1978), p. 52; de Crespigny (1980), p. 220.
50 Shiji 113, 2969.
51 These facilities are indicated in the past tense with the term gu. They include the former Chengcheng, the former administrative quarter, and the former military defence quarter.
52 Study Group for Han Silk Manuscripts from Mawangdui (1976), p. 23.
53 Ibid.
54 This series of observation towers could have existed as early as Phase I but is more likely part of Phase III in which additional facilities were established as part of a future tactical plan.
55 M.-L. Hsu (1978), p. 54.
56 Ibid.
57 Unlike the other eight, this particular garrison is not named after its field commander.
