Problems Caused by Generalisation on Ethnic Maps
ISBN 978-85-88783-11-9
Authors
1Jeney, J.
1TU DRESDEN Email: janos_gyoergy.jeney@tu-dresden.de
Abstract
A map represents a picture of a geographic area in reduced size when compared to reality. Ethnic maps have another criterion in that it has to present a full picture of the ethnic structure of a particular area to the map reader. Many areas are uninhabited, for example farmlands, while other areas, such as large cities are very densely populated. If one was to show the ethnic origin of the population exactly where the people live, one would have large areas left blank. Diagrams and symbols can be used to represent the population in the exact place where the live. These maps are used for representation of the exact number of people belonging to a certain ethnic group living in a particular geographic location. It gives the user an opportunity to make exact measurements, but deprives him/her of the opportunity to get an overview of the ethnic structure of the area. An advantage of this method is that one gets to see not only the majority in a specific area, but also the minority. When using such a map, depending on the experience the user has in reading such maps, it can be very time consuming to gain a realistic overall picture. It is also important to note, that this method usually requires larger scales, making the general picture of a large area very difficult to the user. One method of bridging this gap is to use surfaces to represent the ethnicity of the population. In most cases the ethnic majority in a given area is shown. For this reason most map users assume at first sight of such a map, that a coloured surface represents the ethnic majority. In this case a minorities will not be shown. This can be seen as a form of generalization. As far as what is considered a minority and what is shown, depends not only on the scale of the map, but also on how detailed the thematic content of the map is. It happens quite often on ethnic maps that the thematic content is not as detailed as it could be at the given the scale. If the content is more detailed, a certain ethnic group that lives in a small area will appear on the map, while if it is less detailed it will not appear, as it forms a minority within the larger area. Furthermore, if an ethnic group lives in an area too small to be shown on the scale of the map it will not appear. If an ethnic group would not appear because the surface showing it is too small, then in some cases the surface can be enlarged to show the ethnic heterogeneity of the area. As a rule, if surfaces get enlarged they should be enlarged in the case all ethnic groups that appear on the map. This is unfortunately not the case in many instances. For example on the ethnic map of Central Europe by Charles Burky published in 1937 the Romanian settlements near Oradea (hun: Nagyvárad, ger: Grosswardein) get enlarged, while the Hungarian and German settlements that are similar in size to the above Romanian settlement in southern Transylvania are not shown on the map. This gives a false picture of the ethnic structure of the area to the user. This can often result in an area to appear to be ethnically homogeneous whereas in reality it is ethnically heterogeneous. A method to overcome the latter was presented by Károly Kogutowitcz in 1929 on his ethnic map of Hungary (despite the title of the map he included all areas that belonged to Hungary before the ratification of the Treaty of Trianon). He had two categories for each ethnic group: one shown in a lighter shade of a certain colour representing a certain ethnic group which is in the majority but does not make up 50% of the population, and one with a darker shade of the same colour when the ethnic group makes up 50% or more of the total population. Taking the above into account, it is very important that generalization has to be consequent on the map, and should change according to which ethnic group is shown.