Identity and Territory: Ethnic mapping a noble cause or a point of conflict?

The indigenous understanding of territory does not utilize the rational mapping approach that governments use to depict land, instead they follow the ethnic identity the groups have derived from the land.  It is possible to translate this understanding of land to maps, through finding traits in the landscape that are used as markers (Knapp, 2011).  These traits include language, religious, and physical appearance, and are derived from cultural habit and livelihoods of the people.  In order to do ethnic mapping of indigenous groups, the cartographic agent has to embed themselves into the groups and often need a participatory approach (e.g. Dana, 1998; Sletto, 2009).  This ‘on the ground approach’ is needed for two main reasons: (1) in order to understand traits and markers associated with ethnic territories, one must understand the ethnic culture, and (2) from a far a territory may appear to be ethnically uniform, but closer study often reveals internal ethnic diversity (Knapp, 2011).

Ethnic mapping can have both positive and negative outcomes, and researchers should be aware of unattended consequences. Mapping ethnic territory can empower indigenous groups and provide a ‘counter representation’ of indigenous landscape against state powers (Sletto, 2009).   An activist researcher may believe they are doing a great service to the community they are working with by mapping out territorial land, but this formalization of lands into boundaries can lead to unintended consequences (i.e. dispute among local ethnic groups).  Indigenous people have a fuzzy approach to territory, where land claims can vary by intensity.  Some land areas may only be used seasonally and groups may not know of other use of the land.  Land can also have multiple claims through cultural and religious significance.  These competing claims are often not known between ethnic groups, and highlighting the multiple claims can cause a source for conflict.  If the claims are known, formalizing boundaries of what land belongs to what group will drive competition for land.  Often these boundaries will result in dividing instead of uniting indigenous peoples. 

Land is valuable, and maps are powerful. Mapping ethnic territories formalizes the resource making it into a commodity, and something to fight over.  This raises an important question before doing ethnic mapping, what are the consequences of this map to the community?  Will it be a tool to unite or divide?  Is it able to protect land claims or lead to conflicts?

Works Citied

Peter Dana, "Nicaragua's GPSistas: Mapping their Lands on the Caribbean Coast," GPS World Sept 1998: 32-41

Gregory Knapp, "Ethnic Mapping" in Mapping Latin America: A Cartographic Reader edited by Jordana Dym and Karl Offen, University of Chicago Press, pp 283-287 (2011).

Bjørn Sletto, "‘Indigenous people don’t have boundaries’: reborderings, fire management, and productions of authenticities in indigenous landscapes," Cultural Geographies 16:253-277 (2009)