Los mapas de tierras y la cartografía convencional: dos vías de pensamiento contrastantes

David Pájaro Huertas

doi:10.17533/udea.unipluri.12122

Authors

David Pájaro Huertas Institute of Natural Resources

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.unipluri.12122

Keywords:

land, land maps

Abstract

We definedthe landmapsas the projection of graphic symbols of the spatial relationships from the available knowledge in cognitive maps of the milieu of the peasant, against to the sophisticated methods as the soil survey. A conventional map must have scale (for communicating distances), a projection (for communicating directions), and a set of abstract signs (for communicating the semantic meaning o landscape features). Such assumptions inherited from the Classical world included: Euclidean and projective geometrics as the only ways to formally structure space; standardized linear an angular measures as the only metrics by which space could be represented cartographically. Therefore, two visions of geographic milieu are derived and result in two classes of maps. The peasant speaks of lands and croquis both results of his experience, the cartographer speaksof soils and maps just do it by assistance to school. Is true the appearance of two epistemology perspectives.

|Abstract

= 769 veces | PDF (ESPAÑOL (ESPAÑA))

= 457 veces|

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

David Pájaro Huertas, Institute of Natural Resources

Master of Science. Senior Researcher in the Edaphology Program, Institute of Natural Resources, Postgraduate College- Montecillo Campus, Mexico.

References

Amster, Pablo (2009). La matemática como una de las bellas artes. Primera reimpresión. Siglo Veintiuno editores. México.

Blaut, J. M. and David Stea. (1971). Studies of geographic learning. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 61, No. 2,Jun, pp: 387-393.

Cachon A., L. E., Nery G. H. y Cuanalo de la C. H. E. (1974). Los suelos del área de influencia de Chapingo.Rama de Suelos. Colegio de Postgraduados, Chapingo, México.

Cruz, L. C. (1949). Estudio agrológico regional del Estado de Tlaxcala.Sobretiro de la Revista“Ingenieria Hidráulicaen México”.Secretaría de Recursos Hidráulicos. México, D. F.

Dubiel, I. (1982). Educación superior y campesinos: los lics e inges. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos, Vol. XII, No. 3, p: 97-121.

Edney, M. H. (1993). Cartography without “progress”:Reinterpreting the nature and historical development of mapmaking. Cartographica. Volume 30, Number 2 and 3, Summer/Autumn, pp: 54-66.

Frake, Ch. O.(1983). Did the literacy cauce the great cognitive divide?American Ethnology, Vol 10, pp: 368-371.

Frake, Ch. O. (1985). Cognitive maps of the time and tide among medieval seafarers.Man, New Series, Vol 20, No 2, June, pp: 254-270.

Fregoso, U.A. (1988). Universidad y vida.Editorial Trillas. México.

Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man.New York. Free Press.

Goody, Jack yIan, Watt. (2003). Las consecuencias de la cultura escrita.En: Jack Goody (comp). Cultura escrita en sociedades tradicionales. Editorial Gedisa, S. A. Primera reimpresión. pp: 39-82.

Gutiérrez, C. (1997). Conocimiento científico y sentido común.Colección Nueve Ensayos Epistemológicos. CONICIT. Costa Rica.

Huntington, S. P. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remarking of world order.Simon and Schuster. U.S.A.

Illich, I. (1982).“Computers Are Doing to Communications What Fences did to Pastures and Cars did to Streets”. http://www.oikos.org/ecology/freedom.htm. Reviewed19 may 2006.

InegI. (1982). Carta edafológica de Texcoco, Estado de México. Texcoco E14B21, escala 1:50000. Dirección General de Geografía. Secretaría de Programación y Presupuesto. México, D. F.

Latour, Bruno. (1987). Centres of calculation; prologue: the domestication of the savage mind. In: Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society.Harvard University Press. pp: 215-257.

Latour, Bruno. (1996).Visualisationand cognition: drawing things together. In: Kuklick and E. Long (EDS). 1996. Knowledge and Society: Studies in the sociology of culture past and present.Vol.6. JAI press, pp: 1-32.

Lee, D. (1977). Lineal and non lineal codifications of reality. In: Dolgin, J. L. (Editor). Symbolic anthropology: Areader in the study of symbols and their meanings.New York. Columbia University Press. pp: 151-164.

Lewis, G. M. (1993). Metrics, geometrics, signs, and language: sources of catographic miscommunication between native and euro-americans cultures in north america. Cartographica. Volume 30. Number 1. Spring. pp: 98-106.

Lloyd, B.(1972). Perception and cognition: a cross-cultural perspective.Harmondsworth. Penguin books. Australia.

Mundy, B. E. (2000). “Mesoamerican cartography”.In: The History of Cartography.Volume two, Book three, edited by Woodward, D. and G. Malcom Lewis. The University of Chicago Press: 183-247

Niemeijer, D.and Mazzucato V. (2003). Moving beyond indigenous soil taxonomies: local theories of soils for sustainable development. Geoderma 111,pp: 404-424.

Nisbett, R. E. and Takahiko Masuda. (2003). Culture and point of view.The National Academy of Sciences of USA. PNAS. September, Vol 100, No. 19, pp: 11163-11170.

Nisbett, R. E. (2004). The geography of the thought: how asians and westerners think differently...and why. The Free Press. New York. 263 pp. ISBN 0-7432-5535-6 (Pbk).

Orlove, B. S. (1991). Mapping reeds and reading maps: the politics of representation in Lake Titicaca. American Ethnologist.Vol. 18. no. 1. pp: 3-38.

Orlove, B. S. (1993). The ethnography of maps: the cultural and social contexts of cartographic representation in Peru.Cartographica.Volume 30. Number 1. Spring. P: 29-46.

Ortiz, S. C. A., D. Pájaro, H. y V. M. Ordaz CH. (1990). Manual para la cartografía de clases de tierras campesinas. Serie Cuadernos de Edafología15. Centro de Edafología. Colegio de Postgraduados. Montecillo. México.

Pájaro, H. D. y C. A. Ortiz S. (1987). El levantamiento de suelos y su relación con la clasificación y cartografía de clases de tierras campesinas.Centro de Edafología. Colegio de Postgraduados. Chapingo, México. Informe mimeografiado.

Pájaro, H. D. (2006). ¿Por qué deben cambiar las instituciones de educación superior?Revista Uni-pluri/versidad, Vol 6, No. 1, pp: 9-11. Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia.

Pájaro, H. D. (2010ª). Lands cartography: a mesoamerican heritage.Ra Ximhai. Revista de Sociedad, Cultura y Desarrollo Sustentable, Vol 6, No. 2, pp:153-167. Universidad Autónoma Indígena de México. Mochicaui, El Fuerte, Sinaloa, MÉXICO.

Pájaro, H. D. (2010b). La cartografía de tierras: un contraste epistemológico. En prensa. Revista de Geografía Agrícola, No. 44. Centros Regionales. Universidad Autónoma Chapingo. Chapingo, México.

Pájaro, H. D. (2011).La cartografía participativa y los mapas campesinos. Manuscrito. Colegio de Postgraduados, Montecillo, MÉXICO.

Posey, D. A. (1992). Interpreting and applying the “reality” of indigenous concepts: what is necessary to learn from the natives?In Conservation of neotropical forests: Working from traditional resources use, ed. K. H. Redford and C. Padoch, pp: 21-34. New York: Columbia University Press.

Robinson, A. H. and Petchenik, B. B.(1976). The nature of maps: essays toward understanding maps and mapping.Chicago. Chicago University Press.

Scribner, S. and Cole, M. (1973). Cognitive consecuences of formal and informal education. ScienceVol. 182, No. 4112, pp: 553-559.

Scribner, S. and Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy. Harvard University Press.

Watson, H. (1989). Aboriginal-australian maps. In: Turnbull, D. Maps are territories: science is an Atlas: a portfolio of exhibits. Deakin University. pp: 28-36.