Argument: In this chapter, Bruckner’s overarching argument is that in the eighteenth to nineteenth century, American mapmaking departed from the standard imperial model and began creating its own place in the world. Paralleled with this rise in mapmaking was a rise in colonial ambitions that set the stage for competition between Philadelphia and London.
Assertions/Claims:
- “At the same time, the map’s signs and symbols re-flected the ideological expectations of imperial politics and colonial practice … Furthermore, these markings sug-gested expansionary land schemes debated by colonial pro-prietors and governments, in particular by members of the Pennsylvania Assembly. Indeed, by dedicating the map to Thomas Pownall, who, as a recent observer of the Albany Congress, had expressed support for an intercolonial alli-ance against the French, the map implicitly aligned itself with parties interested in ideas and concepts advocating colonial political autonomy” (Bruckner 36).
- “Second, and less obvious but perhaps more significant, Evans unknowingly announced a major reversal of the eighteenth-century system of knowl-edge production. By selling out his American-made map within the colonies before shipping it to the metropolis—indeed, by generating demand for a colonial-made map in the imperial metropolis—Evans not only pitted Philadel-phia against London as a center of calculation but inadver-tently decentered the imperial model of mapmaking and scientific communication” (Bruckner 40).
- “The material biography of the Evans map outlines the dual rise of the artisanal map as a popular commodity and commercial cartography as a profitable enterprise” (Bruckner 41).
Assertion #2:
An unintentional long-term effect of Evans’s map was a shift in worldwide knowledge production. As a map sold in the colonies, before being sold in Britain by popular demand, A General Map of the Middle British Colonies put Philadelphia (the colonies) on par — and in competition — with London (Britain) as a center in calculation and communication. For evidence, Bruckner describes the production process of the map, including its struggles and subsequent deviations from the imperial model, thus introducing innovative new colonial methods and establishing the map as American-made. In addition, Bruckner details the commercial success in the colonies, then back in England in order to demonstrate the shift in demand and source of knowledge/information. These uses of evidence heavily support the claim, which in turn supports the overarching argument by showing the map-relevant ways in which the colonies’ position began aligning with Britain’s.
