5 UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON ADJUSTING TRANSATLANTIC HISTORY METHODOLOGY HISTORY 6301 September 7, 1999 JASON CARR The study of Transatlantic history is problematic for two reasons: it looks reasonable and straightforward to the laity (and perhaps to its scholars), who then make judgements based on the field's obvious and commonsense nature. Under its outer shell, though, a multivalent complex that rewards the pragmatic, imaginative student. This makes the exploitation of Transatlantic History to useful ends dependent on successful navigation of the methodology. A description of some adjustments to existing technique may shed light on the nature of Transatlantic history and its relationship to History and other liberal arts disciplines, and may help nourish the discipline.1 This adjustment has at least four parts that deviate from earlier and mainstream examples of Transatlantic scholarship: admit and embrace the complex nature of Transatlantic history, declare one's position within the Transatlantic historiography and vocabulary, apply similar critical readings to cartographic and technical documents as one would to more commonplace primary resources, and write histories and analysis free from chauvinism and tropic oversimplifications. The first piece may be the most difficult. To admit complexity, multivalence, and the need for human interpretation and expedience in one's field can lead to a historian doubting the reason for laboring at all. Here the historian might crib from his colleagues in art history, linguistics and semiotics among others. A historian might draw art historical or architectural techniques to assess the fullness of a map or plan drawing. Similarly, awareness of current linguistic and literary thought would inform the historian who attempts to create meaningful history from fragmentary sources. Misunderstandings are common enough between contemporaries, and probably more common between a subject and historian separated by a few hundred years. Add to that the inherent complexities of multiple nations with their agendas, attendant languages, and self-conscious national identities and the delicate and subjective position of our historian comes to the forefront. Perhaps some of our collective discomfort (if present) at this shift is a hangover from the nineteenth century attempt to make liberal arts disciplines into scientific [or pseudo-scientific) endeavors. It may be useful to throw off that rigid and ill-fitting mantle from time to time and adopt the stance of homo ludens, man at serious play. The ability to this interdisciplinary, playful, pragmatic stance requires the admission that such a thing is possible and perhaps useful, and the temperament to pursue historical studies in an movable, fluid, flexible mental model. To be cognizant of Chaos and relativity is not the same as being lost in it. Once the intrepid Transatlantic historian has come to a peaceful understanding with the subjective and interdisciplinary nature of his craft, he can begin to limit himself and define his position in order to provide structure and style to his work. This limitation is necessary to encourage understanding by heading off the human willingness to believe everyone else holds the same a priori beliefs.2 The apparently simple act of defining one's terms can negate potentially divisive and hostile arguments. As Wilcomb Washburn noted, seemingly innocent and widely-believed statements like "Columbus discovered America" can contain enough fodder for long and emotionally- charged arguments.3 The basic vocabulary of Transatlantic and cartographic histories is in contention: "'new world', 'Asia'," and presumably scientific terms like "continent" may have ambiguous, competing, or overlapping meanings. The way out of this trap is to define any discipline-specific words or phrases that may be misconstrued. An additional technique for reducing confusion is for the historian to self-consciously align himself with a known body of thought, author, or approach. A brave word at the onset, professing sympathy for a Marxian or Weberian or other schema would position the historian within a pre-existing model. A bonus side-effect of these vocabulary and ideological clarifications is that possibility of offense and otherwise ruffled interpersonal or international feathers is greatly reduced. The next concern for our historian is the application of nontraditional resources like cartographic and technical documents as evidence in writing history. J.B. Harley points out that there are no general primers on cartographic interpretation available to cartographers or those with more casual contact. Harley lays out a tripartite approach to interpreting old maps: the evidence on the maps themselves, external sources with may inform the interpretation of the map, and the differences between maps and other documents. 4 It is this third section that might yield the most result for effort. Although Harley urges the community not to dismiss "conventionally inaccurate" maps, he emphasizes the differences of maps from other documentary evidence rather than the similarities. Harley notes the "generalization, selective emphasis and conventionalization" of cartographic documents as if these same distortions do not occur in written documents.5 Likewise with Rudolf Arnheim's description of the "problem of generalization" when scaling cartographic elements.6 It does not take much of an imaginative stretch to see writers using their own prose "projections" when writing, not unlike the theoretical and mathematical models used to make maps. Hayley even discusses the similarity between the economics of book printing and cartographic engraving without hinting at the connection between such similar concepts as "cartographer's intention" and theories of authorial intention in literature.7 This artificial division of cartographic construction and writing does cartography a disservice. A greater interest in and utilization of cartographic evidence might be realized if cartographic experts were to stress the fundamental identity of assessing written and cartographic documents. A final adjustment to the Transatlantic history methodology would involve a careful review of how that history has been written stylistically. There are two inter- related several areas for concern: the problem of interpersonal, international or racial Chauvinism, and the assumption that everyone holds what the author's contend to be common sense. Because Transatlantic history plays out the evolving rates of the Americas, Europe, and Africa, some amount of nationalist tension is predictable. How the conversants manage these tensions is the concern. Little is gained by the use of borderline ad hominem attacks such as Washburn's upon "hard headed historians and writers of Latin America", whose enemy may be "a true historian", intimating that O'Gorman is no true historian (and one with a "personal problem").8 Perhaps a larger intellectual problem is the widespread belief that one's own beliefs are commonsense for everyone. Arnheim claims that map "transmits information to the eyes, not by sound, smell, or touch. That is obvious enough."9 Is that really obvious? Are there no maps that use sound, smell, or touch? None at all? Harley claims we all know that while maps need use scale and convention, this alters their evidential value. And evidentiary court maps carry more weight than cadastral maps. "All of this is pretty obvious."10 Obvious to whom, and for what purpose? Is there no use for which the cadastral maps might be more useful than the court maps? All is not lost, though. The amount of assumption and personal attack seems to decrease as the discipline matures from the 1960s to the 1990s. By the time James McDermott writes in 1997, we see the non-apologetic and unqualified application of quasi-technical journals and navigational notes as primary resources.11 Harley noted that maps are "being ignored in the solution of historical problems."12 The same might be said for Transatlantic history outside of the England-United States complex. A slight tweaking or tuning of Transatlantic methodology along the lines mentioned here may help to correct this lack of attention. _______________________________ 1 These useful ends might include greater public awareness of Transatlantic histories, greater academic presence, application of Transatlantic resources and methodology to political , economic, military and intellectual histories, etc. 2 To limit oneself is the "greatest art." Goethe, 20 April 1825. In the usage above, the ability to define (to literally limit) one's vocabulary and approach heads off needless (perhaps intentional) misunderstandings and academic wars. 3 Washburn, Wilcomb. "The Meaning of 'Discovery' in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries." The American Historical Review LXVIII (October 1962):1. 4 Harley, J.B. "The Evaluation of Early Maps: Toward a Methodology." Cartographica XVII (1980): 62. 5 Ibid., 74. 6 Arnheim, Rudolph. "The Perception of Maps." The American Cartographer 3 (1976): 9. 7 Harley, 68-9. 8 Washburn, 20, 4. 9 Arnheim, 5. 10 Hayley, 68. 11 McDermott, James. "The Navigation of the Frobischer Voyages," The Hakluyt Society Annual Talk 1997. 12 Hayley, 73. Originally noted by G.R. Crone, Hayley says. http://www.mousetrap.net/~mouse/uta/transatlantic/