archaeography

When does a map become a map? Some cartographers suggest any depiction of spatial relationships constitutes a map. That is, as long as a map can do work in the hands of a map-user then it ought to be acknowledged as a map. Literally, 'mapwork'. This broad definition emphasizing the action of a thing would include the etak 'star charts' for Micronesians traversing the Pacific to a hand-held, GPS-enabled Google map on a iPhone for a lost tourist on the lower-east side of Manhattan. Too broad a definition?

When does mapping the ruins of Teotihuacan become recognized as such? The 19th century witnessed the proliferation/professionalization of cartography. Indeed, a network of actors link the advances being made at the Paris Observatory with longitude determination to the rough portrayals of pyramids amidst the cactus of Teotihuacan. Amongst other characteristics - notice maps are now oriented with north to the top - we might underscore optical consistency as the single most important development over the course of five centuries of mapping the great site. This will soon become apparent with the great utility of the 'Millon map' of 1973.

Yet even in the spread presented here, by the time of Almaraz's 1865 work we can confidently remove the quotes from around map. There is a standardized, consistent quality that is facilitated by the impossible 'view from nowhere'. There is also a selective fidelity going on: what to visualize and what to leave blank. Gone are the personages of the Mazapan depiction, the church facades of the relación geográfica and the individual maguey cactus of the Mayer and Charnay renderings. What has been gained and what has been lost through the action of mediation?