On the Unification of National Atlases

Summary

This article re-examines the feasibility and proper scope of unifying national atlases in light of the rapid postwar expansion of atlas production and the experience accumulated by international cartography. The unification agenda arose from the expectation that national atlases could support comparative geographical research and provide reliable source material for international thematic maps. Yet national atlases primarily serve domestic economic, social, scientific, and cultural needs. Their contents and methods therefore reflect differences in national conditions, territorial size, levels of geographical knowledge, statistical systems, scholarly traditions, and practical priorities. The central problem is consequently how far national and international purposes can be reconciled within a single cartographic work. The article argues that certain formal and technical features are relatively amenable to standardization, including map projections, scales, coordinate grids, atlas formats, printing conventions, and basic graphic methods such as colors, areas, dots, and flow lines. A broadly comparable thematic structure may also be possible; the Soviet five-part model—nature, population, economy, culture, and political-administrative organization—is presented as useful, with the National Atlas of Cuba demonstrating that cultural maps are indispensable for addressing national development. By contrast, the unification of legends, classifications, and mapping indicators is highly problematic. Large-scale national maps permit detailed classifications shaped by national or regional scientific schools, which cannot easily be reconciled. Soil mapping in Cuba illustrates this difficulty: attempts to combine Russian genetic soil science with American soil-series principles required multiple versions of the legend and still failed to achieve full consistency, despite abundant field observations and source materials. Comparability is likewise constrained by unequal territorial knowledge; thematic mapping in developing countries may even advance ahead of adequate general geographic base mapping. Similar obstacles occur in socioeconomic cartography. Industrial centers, agriculture, and livestock can be represented through different physical, labor, monetary, technical, or social indicators, each selected according to country-specific data and objectives. Statistical dates also differ among atlases, further limiting comparison. The article therefore rejects comprehensive top-down standardization of national atlases, especially for socioeconomic subjects whose purpose is to reveal national specificity. It proposes reversing the conventional relationship between national atlases and international maps. Rather than first standardizing national atlases so that they can supply international products, international thematic maps covering continents or the world should become the main arena for developing integrated classifications, comparable indicators, and unified legends. Because their small scales require high-level taxonomic categories, such maps naturally synthesize different national approaches. Their results may subsequently inform national atlases, although adoption must remain the sovereign choice of each country. International scientific cooperation and exchange of experience can thus improve atlas quality and promote partial—not absolute—unification while preserving the national functions and intellectual diversity of cartography.