Visualizing
a
Map of Walter Christaller, Poland 1941
Part I: Benchmarking the Map
Sandra Lach Arlinghaus
Adjunct Professor of
Mathematical
Geography and Population-Environment
Dynamics
School of Natural Resources and Environment, The University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor
Please
set screen to highest
resolution and use a high speed internet
connection.
Please download the most recent free
version of Google
Earth®.
Make sure the
"Terrain"
box in Google Earth® is checked.
Links
to files to download for use in Google Earth®
|
Bringing an Historical Map Across the
Digital Divide
One complex
system
from the early
20th century in the history of
geography is the development, by Walter Christaller, of a
theory of
settlement locations: central place theory. The
communication of his ideas is in the printed format of the
times.
There are black and white maps of complex systems of pattern;
they tell
one story. What might they look
like, however, when recast using contemporary
capability? How
might
this capability expand the research frontier? The sequence
of images
and
text below will examine a single map of Christaller, from a
1941 document, and bring it into the virtual reality of Google
Earth®. When
the reader
downloads the files above, the power of the Internet is
harnessed to
permit him/her to replicate the results of the article while
reading it
and to experiment with related ideas at the same time.
Such
capability is an important aspect of scientific communication.
Settlements in Eastern
Europe:
Walter Christaller
Figure 1 shows
Christaller's 1941 map of a proposed settlement pattern
in Eastern Europe (in the western and central parts of what is
today,
Poland). Cities, towns, or villages are marked with
circles of
varying size where the size of the circle represents the
number of
inhabitants proposed to make up the population. The
largest
circles represent cities of 450,000 inhabitants, the next
largest 100,000, the third largest 30,000 and so on according
to the
legend. The regional boundaries of varying line weight
are drawn
also to include a fixed number of inhabitants: the
largest region
is to include 2.7 million inhabitants, the next largest
210,000
inhabitants, and so on according to the
legend. The map from 1941 is a remarkable cartographic
effort: layer upon layer is meticulously drawn and
labelled by
hand. One might speculate in various ways about
adjacency
patterns, spacing patterns, or others on the existing
map.
Understanding
such patterns from maps is often aided by having the full
picture on
the map: terrain, physical features, three dimensional
effects,
and so forth. The map that Christaller drew is already
complicated; introducing physical or other features would
clutter this two dimensional map and destroy its
legibility.

Figure
1. Christaller's map of proposed settlement
patterns in Eastern
Europe, 1941. Both city/town and regional values
are determined
by prescribed number of inhabitants to occupy the city
or region.
[See reference at end].
|
Figure 2 shows the map
from Figure 1 brought directly into Google
Earth® where one sees
immediately the possibility of visualizing the map in relation
to the
terrain. When the opaque
map is placed on the surface, it is
difficult to align the map with the globe. Activating
the
"populated places" checkbox in Google Earth® brings up a
set of
points
to use as established positions to see if the alignment of the
paper
map
with the software is reasonable. For additional context
in the
virtual environment of Google Earth® current
subnational
boundary files are introduced [see reference to Valery35 and
Barmigan
for link]. The paper map is made semi-transparent to see
simultaneously both the original map and
the globe under it. The paper map is manipulated in
various
ways, suggested in the animation sequence, to improve the
alignment. Despite considerable maneuvering, the paper
map does
not line up very well with the Google Earth® image. Bydgoszcz on
the globe
should line up with Bromberg on the map; Torun on the globe
should line up with Thorn on the map; Lodz on the globe should
line up
with Litzmannstadt on the map; Poznan on the globe should line
up with
Posen on the map; Wroclaw on the globe should line up with
Breslau on
the map; and so forth. The needed alignment is not
present
and cannot be made to work simply by importing the map and
adjusting
its position in relation to known positions. The reader
wishing
to try may do so using basemaps contained in the second
downloaded file
from the top of this article.

Figure
2
|
Aligning
the Paper Map on
the Virtual Earth
Benchmarks
The
set of cities already present in Google Earth®
was used in Figure 2 as a set of known positions against
which to test imported map position. There are two sets
of
locations:
- one
in the virtual world--cities and towns in Google
Earth®
- one
in a map from the physical world--cities and towns
depicted on
Christaller's map.
Choose
from the intersection of these two sets, all Christaller
cities and
towns in the three largest categories. Find their
corresponding
positions on the Google Earth®
globe. All of those Christaller cities and towns do
appear in the
Google
Earth®
set although one may need to do a bit of research on place
names to
translate the 1941 place names to the corresponding 2006 place
names. Benchmarks
are carefully positioned reference points from which to
infer,
or
interpolate, other positions. The set of locations just
identified in Google Earth®,
as the virtual locations corresponding to the top three point
categories in the Christaller hierarchy, will serve as a set
of
benchmarks in the virtual world against which to test position
in that
world. The image in Figure 3 shows these benchmarks
portrayed as
rods planted on the globe with rod height corresponding to
Christaller
hierarchical rank:
- The
largest Christaller point locations are represented by the
blue rods
- The
next largest Christaller point locations are represented by
the red
rods.
- The
third largest Christaller point locations are represented
by the gold
rods.
The
rods emphasize benchmark position. They are translucent
so one
can see the terrain through them. Structures such as
this are
easy to create in either Google SketchUp®
(free software) that can then be imported to Google Earth®
(free software) [see Appendix to
Part I of article by Arlinghaus and Batty in this
journal]. Or,
they can be created directly in Google Earth Pro®
(not free)

Figure
3. Benchmarks. The blue rods represent
locations for cities
in the top Christaller category; the red one in the
second; and, the
gold ones in the third.
|
Use
of the benchmarks for map alignment
The
maps in Figure 3 show the position of a subset of Christaller
points as benchmarks for extracting the rest of the
information from
the map. The remaining images in this section suggest
ways to use
these benchmarks to improve the fit of the map with the
surface of
the virtual Earth. Figure 4 illustrates the location of
the flat
map with
respect to the benchmarks: clearly, the benchmarks in
the virtual
world cannot be made to line up with the existing map. One
way to improve the fit may be to disassemble the Christaller
map into
smaller regions, fit thesmaller regions to the benchmarks, and
then
reassemble
the information.
Smaller
regions assigned to benchmarks produce a better fit of
benchmarks to
the map. Such an assignment strategy also spreads the
error
across the map, away from the benchmarks. Thus, while
there are
no
particular standards for accuracy associated with this sort of
mapping
in the virtual world, the same ideas apply as when mapping the
physical
world. Figure out where the error is and tell the reader
about
it. If
possible, develop a quantitative measure to ensure replicable
communication (often, when using control points to digitize a
map in
Geographic Information Systems software, one finds a Root Mean
Square
error of
0.004 as a default setting).

Figure
4
|
Map
Disassembly: Use of the Christaller 2.7 million
regions
The
Christaller hierarchy associated with place size was used to
create a
set of mapping benchmarks. It is natural, then, to use
the
regions in the Christaller hierarchy as the regions in which
to
disassemble the map. The largest regions in the
Christaller map
are those designed for 2.7 million inhabitants. Will
these
regions be small enough? Figure 5 shows the results of
using the
three largest 2.7 million regions: only the full regions
within
the map (with Danzig, Litzmannstadt, and Posen as largest
cities). The fit of benchmarks in
the virtual world to this set of smaller maps is better than
it is
using the entire
map. Nonetheless, there is still much room for
improvement.
The blue rods necessarily fit, as the foci of the 2.7 million
regions,
but many of the red rods and gold rods clearly miss the
mark. The reader wishing to experiment with alignment
may do so,
as well. These files are contained in the files at the
top of
this article.

Figure
5. Alignment of Christaller map with underlying
Earth
image. The blue rods necessarily fit, as the
foci of the 2.7
million regions, but many of the red and gold
rods clearly miss the mark.
|
Map
Disassembly: Use of the Christaller 210,000 regions
Assigning
transparency in Google Earth®
is helpful in seeing, simultaneously, both the map and
what is under the map. Another approach that is also
useful, especially when looking at detail, is first to remove
the
polygon
interiors from the map. This procedure is simple to
execute: save the map pieces in .gif format and assign
transparency to white colors. Figure
6 shows an animated sequence of Christaller 2.7 million full
regions
(Danzig, Litzmannstadt, and Posen)
disassembled into the smaller Christaller 210,000 regions and
saved as transparent .gifs. (One advance-reader noted
the
peculiarity that Danzig, as a highest order central
place, is not
in the center of its apparently "complete" region.)

Figure
6.a. Danzig--2.7 million region disassembled
into smaller 210,000
regions.
|

Figure
6.b. Litzmannstadt--2.7
million region disassembled into smaller 210,000
regions.
|

Figure
6.c.
Posen--2.7
million region disassembled into smaller 210,000
regions.
|
The
focal point of each of the 210,000 regions is assigned to the
corrresponding benchmark. One of these regions has a
blue rod as
focal point, others have red rods as focal points, and yet
others have
gold rods as focal points. There is no instance, in the
case of
the full regions, of assigning
more than one rod to a 210,000 region; in addition, the entire
set is
used. Thus, all blue rods, all red rods, and all gold
rods (with
none omitted) necessarily fit these three reassembled
2.7 million regions. They are shown in Figure 7: the fit
is true
on the rods with distortion and error increasing away from
them.

Figure
7.a. Christaller's 2.7 million Danzig region
formed from 210,000
regions assigned to benchmarks.
|

Figure
7.b. Christaller's 2.7 million region
Litzmannstadt formed from
210,000 regions assigned to benchmarks.
|

Figure
7.c. Christaller's 2.7 milion region Posen
formed from 210,000
regions assigned to benchmarks.
|
The
Reassembled Full Map
In addition
to the
three full regions of Danzig, Posen, and Litzmannstadt, there
are two
incomplete perimeter regions, one to the east and one to the
west, as
well as regions
centered on Breslau, the Katowice region, Krakow, and
Stettin.
They too were processed, as above, to force the blue, red, and
most
gold
rods to fit the Christaller map. Only in the Katowice region,
near the
bottom of the map, was there any lack of fit: in that
region a
red rod is the focal point and in addition there are a number
of gold
rods also within the same boundary as the red rod.
Because that
region is small in extent, the error in gold rod placement is
also
small but increases with distance from the red rod.
Finally, all
of these regions were
reassembled on the Google Earth globe. The result is
shown in
Figure 8. All blue and red fit exactly. Most gold
rods also
fit exactly (except those in the Katowice region). Error
is
distributed across the map,
away from benchmarks. It is also evident at the edges of
the
map. The fit of the map using smaller regions is
superior to any
other considered. Again, the reader has all files
available to
replicate results: to see the terrain in relation to the
Christaller map, to drive around through it, to study point
location
patterns from various perspectives, to visualize the
landscape, to turn
layers off and on, and to make history and associated policy
issues
come alive.

Figure
8. The reassembled map.
The Christaller map now fits the blue, red, and most
gold rods of the
virtual world. Error increases away from these
rods and at the
map
perimeter.
|
The Future
- A
logical
next
step is to use the map of Figure 8, with the benchmarks,
to interpolate
intervening Christaller locations (those lower in the
hierarchy).
That
task is completed in Part II
of this
article.
- These 3D maps might offer
insight into
studies of, or from, the past. Cosgrove notes
that "Few
geographers outside Germany who took up spatial
science were aware at
that time that this tradition of settlement landscape
study was deeply
compromised, not only by its connections with German
geopolitics but
through Christaller's work for Himmler. The
geographer's theories
were used in planning the resettlement of the eastern
Slavic lands
captured after 1939, directly connecting geographical
landscape studies
and the Nazi project of spatial domination and
population
engineering. The former Polish and Soviet
territories were
divided by German geographers into authentically
German zones, where
farmers from the Rhineland and other 'crowded' rural
regions could be
relocated, and spaces under German conrol but occupied
by lesser
(Slavic) races, were to be managed in the interests of
the Reich.
According to the plan,
the former zones were to be reshaped and redesigned
through the
management of field patterns, farmstead architecture,
and woodland
planting to resemble an ideal of 'German' landscape,
while the latter
regions, cleansed of 'undesirables,' could be treated
precisely as an
isotropic plain, a non-place whose landscape design
was merely a matter
of managerial efficiency and productivity"
[Cosgrove,
2004]. How might one use these maps with
enhanced
capability to
consider statements such as these? That task is
left to others.
- Work with the underlying
geometry--outline
of various projects underway:
- Incompatibility
of
geodesic uniqueness from globe (non-unique) to plane
(unique).
- The problem of moving
from sphere to plane
and back to sphere again is an interesting one that
is reminiscent of
creating a globe from flat sections bent to suggest
a sphere (globe
gores). What sort of symmetry is there, or is
there not, in
taking a map (already formed from the
imperfect transferral of a
sphere to a plane) and trying to stretch it in
various ways to fit a
globe?
- The
importance of the four color theorem (given
that regional adjacency is across non-trivial line
segments) and
the proof (based on stereographic projection) that four
colors are all
that is ever needed for map coloring on a globe
- Implications of the
one-point
compactification theorem (demonstrating that
stereographic projection
misses by one point of creating a one-to-one mapping
of the sphere to
the plane) and a consideration of mapping in the
non-Euclidean
world. For that work, a Non-Euclidean Atlas is
underway.
RELATED
REFERENCES [All links last accessed on Nov. 27, 2006.]
- Arlinghaus,
Sandra
Lach.
- 1986.
Terrae
Antipodum: Antipodal Landmass Map. Appendix
C, pp.
77-78, in Mathematical
Geography
and
Global
Art: the Mathematics of David Barr's `Four Corners
Project'. IMaGe Monograph Series, Number 1,
Ann Arbor: Institute of
Mathematical Geography.
- 1986: The
Well-tempered Map Projection, pp. 1-27, in Essays on Mathematical
Geography,
IMaGe Monograph Series Number 3, Ann Arbor: Institute
of Mathematical Geography.
- 1987: Terrae
Antipodum, pp. 33-41, in Essays
on Mathematical Geography--II, IMaGe Monograph
Series Number 5,
Ann Arbor: Institute
of
Mathematical
Geography.
- Publications in Solstice: An
Electronic Journal of
Geography and Mathematics (with older articles
reprinted in the
IMaGe Monograph Series). Ann Arbor: Institute
of Mathematical Geography.
- 1990: Beyond
the fractal, reprinted in IMaGe Monograph 13, pp.
17-35, part 1.
- 1990: Theorem
museum: Desargues's two-triangle theorem,
reprinted in IMaGe
Monograph 13, pp. 38-40, part 1.
- 1990: Scale
and dimension: their logical harmony, reprinted
in IMaGe
Monograph 13, pp. 20-23, part 2.
- 1990: Parallels
between parallels, reprinted in IMaGe Monograph 13,
pp.
24-36, part 2.
- 1990: Fractal
geometry of infinite pixel sequences:
super-definition resolution?
Reprinted in IMaGe Monograph 13, pp. 48-53, part 2.
- 1993: Microcell
hexnets? Reprinted in IMaGe Monograph 17, pp.
39-43, part 1.
- 1994: Construction
zone: the Braikenridge-MacLaurin construction,
reprinted in
IMaGe Monograph 19, pp. 44-45, part 2.
- 1996: Web
fractals, reprinted in IMaGe Monograph 21, part 2.
- 1991: Table for
Central
Place Fractals, pp. 6-15 in Essays
on Mathematical Geography--III, IMaGe Monograph
Series Number
14, Ann Arbor: Institute
of
Mathematical
Geography.
- 1991: Tiling
according to
the "administrative" principle, pp. 16-25 in Essays
on
Mathematical Geography--III, IMaGe Monograph
Series Number 14,
Ann Arbor: Institute
of
Mathematical
Geography.
- Arlinghaus, S. L. and
Arlinghaus, W.
C. 2005: Spatial
Synthesis: Centrality and
Hierarchy, Chapter 1. Ann Arbor: Institute
of
Mathematical Geography.
- Arlinghaus, Sandra and
Batty,
Michael.
2006. .Zipf's
Hyperboloid? Research
Announcement, Solstice:
An
Electronic Journal of Geography and Mathematics,
Volume
XVII, No. 1,
- Christaller,
Dr.
Walter. 1941. Die Zentralen Orte in den Ostgebieten
und ihre
Kultur- und Marktbereiche. Struktur
und Gestaltung der Zentralen Orte des Deutschen Ostens,
Teil
1. Leipzig: K. F. Koehler Verlag
- Cosgrove, Denis.
2004. Landscape
and
Landschaft.
Lecture
delivered at the "Spatial Turn in History"
Symposium. German
Historical Institute, February 19, 2004.
- Moellering,
Harold.
2005: World
Spatial
Metadata Standards: Scientific and
Technical Characteristics, and Full Descriptions with
Crosstable
(International Cartographic Association)
- Tobler,
Waldo.
- 1961:
World
map on a Moebius Strip. Surveying
and Mapping,
21, p. 486.
- 2001:
Spherical
measures without spherical trigonometry.
Solstice:
An Electronic Journal of Geography and Mathematics, Vol.
XII, No. 2,
Ann Arbor: Institute
of Mathematical Geography.
- Valery35 and Barmigen
23.02.2006
4:20:46 Boundary Files .kmz Checked and
updated by PriceCollins
http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/324595
Solstice:
An
Electronic Journal of Geography and Mathematics, Volume
XVII,
Number 2
Institute of Mathematical Geography (IMaGe).
All rights reserved worldwide, by IMaGe and by the authors.
Please contact an appropriate party concerning citation of this
article:
sarhaus@umich.edu
http://www.imagenet.org