I guess this isn't really historiographic pe se, but it has to do with something in writing, and I need to get it off my chest: maps. You would think maps would be fairly simple to get right: You have an accurate map of the region, a collection of points, and you make sure that geographic references in the text show up in the maps. Make sure the maps are readable, with a clear legend. But you would be wrong. So frequently I see maps that don't really correspond to the information in the text, or just as badly, are so horribly overcluttered that they are useless. I recently read an article where the map had thirty six references, and the text corresponding to them was scattered throughout the writing. It would have been very easy to, in the middle of the text, simply add little parenthetical references, so something like "Arsinoe, (6.2, 13)", but that wasn't done, and the numbering on the map was in some sort of bizarre logic to complex for simple mortal minds. And there are countless examples of a map putting on so much information (geographic, topographic, feature, references, political, chronological), and then shrunk down to a minuscule size, that it is basically impossible to read. Also not difficult: making it easy to distinguish land from water.

So I guess my question is, to those who have actually written works with map references, why are so many so terrible? Is there some publishing difficulty? Something like you only being allowed one or two maps in the entire text?

I have assignment in my modern philosophy class to write a short literature review on any topic of philosophy. Obviously I want to research philosophy of history but have no idea where to start. Any suggestions?

Ooh, I hope you lovely people can help me out.

I'm working on adapting my doctoral thesis into a book and one of the comments that my readers gave is that I need to engage more with current historiography and philosophy of history when I discuss how the public uses history to make sense and meaning in their lives.

So far in my reading the vast majority seems to focus instead on the nature of professional history writing, rather than wider engagements with and uses of the past in everyday life.

I would be very ggrateful if yall might be able to point me towards some resources, even just some key words to find works that might help me better engage with debates that are, I am told, going on.

Thanks in advance!

A bit late to the thread but even though it's ticked over to Friday here in the UK, it's technically still Thursday in the states.

I'm writing an historiographical review focusing on Pieter Spierenburg's Violence and Punishment: Civilizing the Body Through Time and I'm having trouble getting to grips with his historiographical approach.

Throughout the book he mentions that both he and Elias prefer a long term analysis of the interconnection and interdependence of trends, changes and impetuses therefore, and criticizes the common scholarly focus on CAUSE --> EFFECT.

The thing is, he goes on to fully engage in historical developments in the decline of violence with a really causal slant - this caused this caused this. He obviously engages with the long-term interconnection of each factor in his analysis but the causality of it seems pretty inescapable in his study.

In addition to that, I can't seem to wrap my head around the scholarly and historiographical dispute he's participating in. He differs in his approach and conclusions and regularly addresses other scholars' works - usually in defense of Elias' theory or his own developments thereon - but I don't quite understand how he fits into the wider histiographical debate on the subject.