In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

July/August 2004 · Historically Speaking27 On the Relations of History and Geography Alan R.H. Baker "H "istory is not intelligible without geography." Thus wrote Oxford .historian Hereford B. George more than a century ago in whathas endured as the onlycomprehensive studyofthe interdependence ofthe two disciplines.1 But what did George understand by the term "geography "? He asserted that his claim was obviously true in the sense that the reader ofhistory must learn where are the frontiers of states, where wars were fought, whither colonies were dispatched. It is equaUy, ifless obviously, true that geographical facts largely influence the course ofhistory. Even the constitutional and social developments within a settled nation are scarcely independent of them, since the geographical position affects the nature of geographical intercourse with other nations, and therefore ofthe influence exerted byforeign ideas. AU external relations, hostile and peaceful, are based largely on geography, while industrial progress depends primarily, though not exclusively, on matters described in every geography book—the natural products of a country, and the facilities which its structure affords for trade, both domestic and foreign. For George, then, "geography" meant mainly physical resources and position. At about the same time, similar ideas shaped the work of an influential American historian, FrederickJackson Turner, who stressed the part played by the physical environmentin deteirniningthe lines ofAmerican development: he emphasized the need for a thorough study ofthe physiographic basis of American history. Such ideas about "geographical influences" on history were discussed by many American historians during the 20th century but they were not considered very critically or lengthily—at least, not until recently. The conception ofgeography by many American historians has been relatively limited. They have seen the physical (geographical) environment as a structure, as a stage upon which the drama ofhistory was enacted, but because different groups came with differentideas and used the stage in different ways, the precise unfolding of the drama depended on them. History has thus been given primacy overwhatwas considered to be geography. Historians have railed to recognize either geography's diverse character or the changes ithas undergone in the 20th century. This has resulted in what one place-sensitive British historian,J. D. MarshaU, has described as "the Great Divide" between history and geography .2 Bridging that gap requires historians to widen their geographical horizons and geographers to deepen their historical understandings . I have tried to take some steps in that direction in myrecentlypubUshed book Geography and History: Bridging the Divide (Cambridge University Press, 2003). There are multiple readings ofthe nature ofgeography, as there are ofhistory, butI consider it appropriate to workwithin the four main intellectual traditions of geography: the three "peripheral" discourses concerned respectivelywith distributions, with environments, and with landscapes, and the one central tradition concerned with places, areas, and regions. Describing and explaining the specific location and general distribution ofboth "natural" and "cultural" phenomena have longbeen and remain major themes ofmuch geographical writing. For some ofits practitioners, geography is the science oflocation and distribution; it is the art of describing the spatial or geographical patterns ofphenomena in particular places. All phenomena have their own geographies at a moment in time and also geographies that change over time. Thus "objects" studied by historians—such as art and alcohoUsm, breeds and ballots, cultures and consciousness—have their own geographical (spatial) distributions. Although distribution is not exclusivelya geographical concept, it is quintessentiaUy so. It has certainly been the foundation ofone ofthe major discourses in geography. "Where?" and "Why there?" are basic geographical questions, just as "When?" and "Why then?" are basic historical questions. Mapping distributions is thus a key form ofgeographical description, afirststep toward geographical understanding. Reconstructions of geographies of the past based on clusters ofhistorical sources can be justified either for their own intrinsic interest, providing a snapshot ofthe geography ofa particular place at a specific moment in time, or employed in series to provide an indication ofthe changing geographyofa place through time. Mapping sources in this way has long been a feature ofwork in historical geography. Recent advances in data management and cartography , particularlythe appUcation ofgeographical information systems analysis (GIS) to historical sources, are enhancing enormously studies of past distributions. Historical GIS makes possible the spatial integration oflarge sets ofboth...

pdf

Share