Locating London’s Past creates a multi-layered map of London, with John Rocque’s 1746 map of London as the basis, and later 19th century and modern Google map as additional layers. The direct comparison of maps from different time is made possible by geo-referencing and indexing the place names in Rocque’s map.
As I browse through the map and play around
with switching between the maps, Turnbull’s statement that “those who are imbued with what is sometimes called ‘the Western world view’ think of objects as having fixed characteristics and defined boundaries and as having a position specifiable by spatial co-ordinates” comes to my mind (Exhibit 1, page 2).
As suggested by its name, the essence of the map is to “locate” London’s past, by geocoding the places in the old map so that they are in the same modern spatial dimension. Therefore, spatiality is the central framework through which users can explore the linkage between the past and the present of London.
However, as Turnbull argues, maps are the mapmakers’ interpretative representations of the world. Such subjectivity is much more prevalent in the maps created in the time periods before the advent of modern technology. Therefore, spatiality, an interpretation of the world much central in the modern maps due to the accuracy of technology, cannot fully embody the interpretations of John Rocque and the mapmaker of the 19th century map.
One interesting comparison I can think of is to directly compare how the style of portraying the world through maps has changed throughout time and what might account for that change. For example, in Rocque’s 1746 map, many boats are drawn on the River Thames, but in the 19th century map, such emphasis disappears. What might explain this change in portraying the River Thames?
To fully demonstrate the comparison of the maps’ styles, a single map that layers the three maps together can be created. While the similarities between the maps can be deemphasized by fading them into the background, the differences can be highlighted, with explanations that elaborate on the cause of the changes, possibly due to a shift in social or cultural norms. In this way, the map can locate London’s past within the shifting social or cultural perspectives of different time, rather than the fixed spatial perspective of the present.
I looked at Locating London’s Past for my post as well and I have no idea how I missed the feature by which you can blend all three of the maps together! Thanks for demonstrating that because I believe examining those maps by relating them to one another would probably be the best way to asses changes in social and cultural perspectives. Your question about the representation of River Thames made me wonder if taking them out of newer mapping models was in aim to appear more neutral and objective?