**1. Introduction**

Maps have long been central to geographical inquiry. The most usual approach to maps and cartography until recently dealt with its role in presenting a factual statement about geographical reality within the frames of actual survey techniques and skills of a cartographer. Recent researches since the end of 20th century tend to subvert the traditional, positivist model in analyzing the maps, replacing it with one that is grounded in iconological and semiotic theory of the nature of maps. According to J.B. Harley, one can understand a map as a social construction of the world expressed through a medium of cartography, or as a socially constructed image of reality.

Maps always represent much more than merely physical nature and inventory of space. Maps understood and considered as social construction of reality have a number of layers, including the symbolic one. They are conveyors of meanings, messages and perceptions of the world – and not only of an individual cartographer, but also of common societal and cultural values. They reveal what may be called the spirit of time: philosophical, political, religious and general socio-cultural context.

As images, maps should be put and studied in the appropriate context, i.e. period and place. Moreover, maps as images are never neutral or value-free; they are all social, political and cultural. Understood as images, maps can be used on one hand as a tool of disseminating messages, and, on the other hand as a source in analyzing the perceptions of past places, territories and societies.

Researching past images through maps is of particular interest in multicultural spaces, where a variety of different cultures, religious systems, complex ethnic structures and

© 2012 Fuerst-Bjeliš, licensee InTech. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2012 Fuerst-Bjeliš, licensee InTech. This is a paper distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

imperial systems have met. Borderlands are typical spaces where a multiplicity of such contacts reflect and produce a multiplicity of perceptions and images.

Imaging the Past: Cartography and Multicultural Realities of Croatian Borderlands 297

geographic representations have been commonly accepted as realistic, although constructed according to the conventions of artificial perspective [3]. Geographic faith in maps has been made possible largely by the development of techniques of scientific cartography and the maps "conquered the world of representation under the banner of reason, science and objectivity" [1]. However, geographic "reality" is not a nonimage, as argued by Phillips [2]. "Reality" is humanly constructed and merely conventional, and the "truth" is constructed, theoretically and politically committed. At this point we start to question the "unquestionable scientific objectivity" of the cartographic representation of the world and to question the map as a "mirror of reality". Recent researches witness these developments as "epistemic break between a model of cartography as a communication system, and one in which it is seen in a field of power relations, between maps as presentation of stable, known

On the other hand, since the 70s, the subjectivity and "*naïveté*" of images have been questioned by iconographers and iconologists as well [2]. They have shown that images can be read as explicitly social and political texts and not just as mental representations.

Eventually the two concepts begun to merge particularly in Harley's understanding of maps as socially constructed images. Although some scholars anticipated main ideas earlier, for instance in well known Korzybski's statement that "the map is not the territory it represents" [4] or that "every map is… a reflection partly of objective realities and partly of subjective elements" [7]. Harley formulated a broad strategy for understanding how maps redescribe the world, like any other document, in terms of relations of power and of cultural practices, preferences and priorities [8]. "…Maps are at least as much an image of the social order as they are measurements of a phenomenal world of objects" [9]. He derived basic ideas from writings of Michel Foucault about the "omnipresence of power in all knowledge even it is invisible or implied", including the particular knowledge encoded in maps, as well as Jacques Derrida's work on the rhetoricity of all texts. The concept of "text" does not imply the presence of linguistic elements, but the act of construction, so that maps, as "construction employing a conventional sign system become texts. By accepting the textuality of maps we

In his seminal work on deconstructing the map Harley [9] argues that deconstruction as discourse analysis, demands a closer and deeper reading of the cartographic text and may be regarded as a search for alternative meaning. It means reading between the lines of the map – "in the margins of the text" and a search for metaphor and rhetoric in the textuality of the map [9]. Deconstruction is, as Harley sees it, a broad strategy, more than a precise

However, there are some important presumptions, or contexts in the research agenda of map deconstruction. Harley articulated the importance of context around three issues [8]. The first one is the context of the cartographer, including the appreciation of personal views,

Iconography defines images as a sign system and locates them at the social level [6].

information and mapping… in which knowledge is constructed" [4,5].

are able to embrace a number of different interpretative possibilities [9].

method or set of techniques.

**2.2. Deconstruction as a methodological strategy** 

Early modern period in Croatian history is burdened with frequent changes of borders between three imperial systems with different religious systems and cultural traditions that have intertwined on the Croatian territory, and consequently reflect different attitudes toward borderlands. Accordingly, a map could and often did represent an image with multiple layers of meaning and perceptions. What one can put into relation here is Habsburg and Venetian cartography. Through a number of examples of the Croatian borderlands, the main aim is to reveal the symbolic layer of the map that leads us into the process of imaging the past, i.e. opening the abundance of different perceptions in the multicultural realities of the Croatian borderlands.

Through an analysis of the symbolic layer through graphic elements, place-names and other inscriptions, maps of Croatian borderlands have revealed two distinct levels of meaning. The first one is related to the specific relation of the state authorities to the border region, their particular interests and understanding of its importance. Maps have been used as a tool for disseminating the political message of power and control primarily through methods and techniques of emphasizing (over-exaggerating) or ignoring and omitting. At this particular level of meaning, we are dealing with directly opposing images of the borderlands realities, depending on the political sides and their official cartographies.

At the second level of the meaning maps have revealed the most common socio-cultural images of the borderlands that are, unlike cartographic expressions of different state power interests, expressed equally in all European cartographic traditions. These images include: environmental perceptions of the borderlands as depopulated and devastated area; distinction of social groups, related systems of beliefs, territorialization and deterritorialization of borderland communities; perception and formation of regional identities; and comprehension of the temporality of the border and the continuity of Croatian territory.
