National atlas (toward a definition of the concept)

Summary

This article examines the evolution of the concept of the “national atlas” and seeks to establish more precise criteria for identifying this distinctive type of cartographic publication. Its argument is based on a comparative analysis of the thematic structures of fourteen comprehensive atlases of individual countries that have commonly been classified as national atlases. The author first reviews definitions proposed in 1958, 1960, and 1966. Although these definitions emphasize territorial correspondence with state boundaries, comprehensiveness, scientific authority, national importance, and prestige, they do not adequately distinguish genuinely national works from educational or popular atlases, narrowly sectoral compilations, or publications shaped by colonial interests. The institutional origin of an atlas is likewise insufficient as a criterion: foreign participation may impose metropolitan priorities, but international cooperation can also support national goals. The National Atlas of Cuba is presented as a positive example in which cooperation advanced geographical research, cartographic production, and the training of national specialists. The thematic comparison reveals a notable structural regularity: in most of the atlases studied, maps of natural conditions and resources, population, and the economy account for approximately 70–85 percent of all maps. These themes therefore constitute the substantive core of a national atlas, while introductory, political-administrative, social, cultural, and historical sections generally play supplementary roles. On this basis, the atlases of Colombia and Kenya are questioned because less than half of their maps address the central themes, while the Atlas of El Salvador is judged structurally unbalanced by its overwhelming concentration on commercially oriented agriculture and limited treatment of the natural environment. The Tanganyika atlas meets the quantitative ratio but remains colonial in its selection and representation of social information, demonstrating that interpretation and ideological orientation matter as much as formal structure. The Australian publication is more accurately characterized as a resource atlas. The author consequently defines a national atlas as a comprehensive scientific geographical atlas covering a country within its state boundaries and presenting the contemporary state of knowledge and development of its territory, population, resources, and economy. Four principal criteria are proposed: national territorial coverage; comprehensive organization with priority given to nature, population, and economy; a scientific level consistent with current knowledge; and a scientific-applied function supporting territorial assessment, use of natural and labor resources, organization of productive forces, and national socioeconomic development. A national atlas should thus be understood not merely as a repository of knowledge or an emblem of prestige, but as an explanatory instrument that communicates geographical ideas and assists in solving major national problems. Clarifying the concept is especially important for developing countries seeking to overcome colonial cartographic traditions and employ modern science and technology in autonomous territorial research, resource use, and social, economic, and cultural progress.