by Bonine, Michael E. ; Amanat, Abbas; Gasper, Michael Ezekiel
Finally, in Lydia Mihelic Pulsipher’s World Regional Geography (2000), there is a chapter on North Africa and Southwest Asia.59 North Africa includes Western Sahara and Sudan, but Southwest Asia does not include Afghanistan. The author states that
the term Middle East is not used in this chapter because of the Eurocentric bias it carries: the term is symptomatic of the tendency to lump the whole of Asia together, differentiating it only by its distance from Europe (near, middle, far). Furthermore, the term does not normally include the western sections of North Africa or eastern portions Southwest Asia—Iran, for example. On the other hand, the reader should know that some people who live in the region do use the term themselves.60
ATLASES AND MAPS OF THE MIDDLE EAST
A student looking for the Middle East might first consult a world atlas or look at one of the numerous world maps. However, after examining dozens of maps and atlases, he or she either would not find the Middle East at all or would encounter a rather wide disparity in identifying where this region is located. On a global scale the term “Middle East,” or for that matter, the names of some of the other world cultural regions (e.g., “South Asia,” “Latin America”) often do not appear on maps or in atlases. By convention, atlases are organized by continents and countries (i.e., nation-states). Although the Middle East remains unidentifiable on many world maps, one may find an atlas with one or two sentences that mention the fact that part of a continent has specific regional names, such as “North Africa” or “Southwest Asia”—or the “Middle East.” However, large atlases published since World War II often now do have a map that is identified as the Middle East.
I could not find any use of the terms “Near East” and “Middle East” in early twentieth-century atlases. There, was, however, some rather interesting information provided about the continents where our region of the Middle East resides. For instance, the 1908 Rand, McNally Indexed Atlas of the World, presented the following perspective:
The oldest of historical lands, [Asia] is yet relatively one of the least developed. ... Asia has itself been wonderfully lacking in the inner impulses of vitality and natural spurs to advancement that characterize the truly progressive historical countries.... Its ancient empires, unable to keep pace with the springing step of onward progress, either have been relegated to oblivion or have fallen backward out of the march like stragglers, their civilizations crystallizing, as it were, into fixed forms, offering almost insuperable obstacles to further change and progress. The very name of Asia has become symbolic of conservatism, despotism, tyranny, and official corruption, and the epithet Asiatic, when applied to the institutions, the governmental methods, or the tendencies of Western lands, is one of recognized opprobrium.61
The atlas contained the following about Africa: “Africa still remains a continent of political chaos. Since before the Christian era it has been the seat of no important empire. Its peoples are characterized by a remarkable lack of political cohesion, living largely under nomadic conditions or divided into many petty tribes, waging incessant wars among themselves.”62 Of course, part of the reason for this condition has to be the climate: “[W]hile the northerly continents [i.e., Europe and North America, but obviously not Asia] were endowed by nature with the conditions of accessibility and climate most favorable to development and were thus the predestined scene of the greatest historical evolution, civilization in the southerly continents [i.e., Africa and South America] has been retarded by their relative isolation and enervating climatic conditions.”63
More recent atlases (published in last half of the twentieth century), contain maps of the Middle East, although often with rather confusing—and differing—locations. For instance, a recent edition of Rand McNally’s Goode’s World Atlas (2005) depicts a map of the Middle East that includes from part of Libya, Chad, and northern Sudan on the west to Iran on the east.64 Turkey, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are not part of this Middle East. There is another map titled “Asia Southwestern” (“Southwest Asia” in the Rand McNally Quick Reference World Atlas), and (to thoroughly confuse the reader) it includes the Arab states of Southwest Asia plus Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India—and spans east to even include Myanmar (Burma) and Tibet and southern China!65 But Turkey is still not part of Rand McNally’s Southwest Asia. In the earlier Rand McNally The New International Atlas, there is a map of the Middle East that includes the states of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel—but it includes neither Turkey nor Egypt (and only parts of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan fill out the page).66
So where is the Middle East in that most prominent of atlases, the National Geographic Atlas of the World?67 In the Asia section of maps, there is one map titled “Middle East,” which focuses on Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian territories, and Cyprus. Yet, the map includes only the western half of Iran, the northern parts of Saudi Arabia (and Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar), and a part of Egypt to fill out the rectangular region. In the 1990 edition, part of the Caucasus SSRs are included (reflecting part of the Soviet Union), but in the 2005 edition more of the Caucasus area is shown, and hence all the new nation-states are part of this map. What really constitutes the Middle East on this map is somewhat confusing. There is a separate map titled “Eastern Mediterranean” (Levant, Sinai and Nile Valley of Egypt, Israel and Palestinian territories, Lebanon, Cyprus, and the western portions of Jordan and Syria), whereas another map is titled “Southwestern Asia,” which includes the Arab states of Southwest Asia plus all of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Interestingly, only a portion of southern Turkey is included. Another map is “Southern Asia,” which is mainly India, and even part of Pakistan is not included. Unlike the 1990 edition, the 2005 edition also has a new map of Central Asia that depicts the five “stans” that emerged as separate states from the breakup of the Soviet Union.
The subregional or subcontinental maps of Africa in the National Geographic Atlas of the World are even more confusing in their references to world cultural regions. One map, titled “Northwestern Africa,” includes all of North Africa and West Africa, east to parts of Egypt and Sudan—and on the southern borders, Cameroon and the Central African Republic—and even an edge of Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo). The map titled “Northeastern Africa,” however, includes parts of Libya and Chad, Egypt and Sudan to the Horn of Africa, and on south to Tanzania and Zaire (again, including everything that fits onto a rectangular page).
Continuing this survey, The World Atlas by John Bartholomew has a map titled “The Middle East,” which shows Southwest Asia to western Afghanistan and Pakistan—and it does include Turkey (and parts of Egypt and Sudan fill out the page).68 Other maps include “France and Northern Algeria,” “Levant Coast,” and “North-West Africa,” the latter including most of the entire northern half of Africa! The 1966 Encyclopaedia Britannica World Atlas has no map of the Middle East, although there are separate maps for Eurasia (Europe and Western Asia, but the Arabian Peninsula is cut off), the eastern Mediterranean (including Greece and Turkey in addition to the Levant), Israel and Egypt, Iran and Afghanistan, and Northwest Africa (the Maghreb basically).69 The Times Atlas of the World has a rather confusing map titled “The Middle East: Asia, South,” which includes from Turkey and Egypt on the west to Mongolia and parts of Vietnam and Thailand on the east.70 North Africa is never named as a region, and there are separate maps for (1) Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia; (2) Egypt and Libya; and (3) Africa, West (which only goes eastward to the western part of Niger). I could cite many more examples from other atlases, however they would only emphasize the confusion and lack of agreement on how to depict the region of the Middle East (and North Africa) in world atlases and on maps.
Furthermore, the dearth of atlases produced specifically on the Middle East, despite the significance of this region on the world stage, is noteworthy. The National Geographic Atlas of the Middle East covers Southwest Asia (without Afghanistan) and includes only Egypt within Africa (Figure 3.13a).71 Howev
er, the introductory sentence to the first edition sets the (melodramatic) stage: “Fixing the Middle East with ink on paper is like reviewing a play in the middle of the second act. So volatile is the region, so unpredictable its continuing drama, that we can only set the stage and name the players. The ending—what will ultimately happen to political borders, resources, governments, and peoples—is yet to be written.”72 In the first edition, “The Focus” is Southwest Asia plus Egypt (Figure 3.13a), which is called the “traditional Middle East” in the second edition. Then in the second edition the “Featured area of this atlas” adds Afghanistan and Pakistan on the east and Sudan on the west (Figure 3.13b).73 In both editions North Africa, including Libya, has been added as part of a “broader definition of the Middle East... used in a cultural sense” (first edition), which is simply referred to as the “cultural Middle East” in the second edition (Figure 3.13c).
Figure 3.13a. Middle East: The Focus. National Geographic Society, National Geographic Atlas of the Middle East, 2003. By kind permission of the publisher.
The CIA’s Middle East (at least in the 1970s), shown in its 1973 Atlas: Issues in the Middle East, is from Libya to Iran (Figure 3.14).74 The atlas contains various topical maps (religion, agriculture, environment, etc.) as well as larger scale maps that focus on such issues as the emergence of Israel, Palestinian refugees, Jerusalem, and Cyprus. The preface contains the following statement about the region:
The Middle East is torn by tension and bitterness. Hostility among ethnic, religious, and traditional groups constantly threatens, and at times erupts into, open warfare; rivalries among outside powers with political, economic, and strategic interests in the area pose the possibility of wider conflict. The issues in the Middle East that set peoples and nations against one another are numerous, complex, and diverse. Some are recent; the origins of others may be traced thousands of years into the past.75
Figure 3.13b. Middle East: Featured Area. National Geographic Society, National Geographic Atlas of the Middle East, 2008 (original in color). By kind permission of the publisher.
Figure 3.13c. Middle East: The Broader Definition. National Geographic Society, National Geographic Atlas of the Middle East, 2003. By kind permission of the publisher.
Figure 3.14. The Middle East as defined by Central Intelligence Agency, Atlas, 1973.
Needless to say, if this statement represents (or represented) the U.S. intelligence community’s perception and understanding of the Middle East, then it is no wonder that the region has presented a puzzle and perplexity for the U.S. government.
One of the more informative atlases is The Cambridge Atlas of the Middle East and North Africa, which covers North Africa (without Western Sahara but with Sudan) and Southwest Asia (without Afghanistan) (Figure 3.15).76 Although dated (1987), the series of regional maps and text, as well as specialized larger-scale maps, provide considerable useful information. The authors emphasize that “there is no standard definition of either Middle East or North Africa,” and although there is a brief history of the use of the term “Middle East,” there is no attempt to justify the reason that the atlas chose the (twenty-two) countries it includes in the region.77
Figure 3.15. The Middle East and North Africa as defined by Blake, Dewdney, and Mitchell, The Cambridge Atlas of the Middle East and North Africa, 1987. By kind permission of the publisher.
A more recent atlas is An Atlas of Middle Eastern Affairs by Ewan W. Anderson and Liam D. Anderson, published in 2010. The authors state that
for this Atlas the Middle East will be used as a term to include North Africa and to extend from Mauritania in the west to Afghanistan in the east and from Turkey in the north to Sudan in the south. ... This delimitation includes all the states generally accepted as Middle Eastern together with those of the Maghrib and its westward extension into Western Sahara and Mauritania. In the East it includes Afghanistan, at the present time closely linked in the public mind with Iran, Iraq, conflict and terrorism.78
Similar to Brice and Held (and Cummings), they indicate the central location of their Middle East, which “abuts on to all the major global cultures other than these of North Africa and South America” (see Figure 3.16 and Figure 3.5c).79
Published maps of the Middle East are rather interesting, for they do not necessarily follow the spatial delimitations that the various textbooks or even atlases mentioned above might use. The current maps of the Middle East available at Barnes and Noble or Borders bookstores, for instance, focus on Southwest Asia, and usually include Afghanistan and Pakistan (especially since 9/11). Usually most of Egypt except for a small southwest corner is also shown, as is all of Turkey except for a small part of European Turkey, for, similar to atlases, these maps depict what can be included in a rectangle placed upon a world map. This is also the case for the maps of the Middle East by Map Link (1:4,500,00; 1998), Cartographica (1:4,000,000; 2003), and Hammond International (titled Near and Middle East, 2006). National Geographic Society also has a recent map titled Iraq and the Heart of the Middle East (1:1,983,000; 2003), which, in addition to Iraq, includes Israel, the Palestinian territories, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria.
CONCLUSION: IS THERE A GEOGRAPHER’S MIDDLE EAST?
So, is there a geographer’s Middle East? And where might that be? We have seen the great variety of countries that different geographers (and cartographers) regard as the Middle East. There certainly is no agreement on the definition and boundaries for this region. And often the Middle East (or the Middle East and North Africa) is never defined, but instead it seemingly arbitrarily comprises a group of states in this “region.” We have also seen that maps and atlases are even more confusing and inconsistent, varying widely in their depiction of the Middle East—or Southwest Asia, or Near East, or North Africa, or Northwestern Africa. There certainly is a major disparity between what academics and students learn about the Middle East as a world cultural region, on the one hand, and what the public and media perceives as the region and what atlases and maps depict as the Middle East (or Southwest Asia—and any other name) on the other hand. There also appears to be a strong geopolitical (and commercial) element to what constitutes the Middle East for many of the mapmakers and atlas makers. Since 9/11, Afghanistan and Pakistan have suddenly taken on new importance—and now they are included on maps of the Middle East. After moving west after World War I and subsuming the Near East and even part of northwest Africa, the Middle East, which once centered on the Indian subcontinent, is now moving back eastward—incorporating Afghanistan and Pakistan!
Figure 3.16. The Middle East as defined by Anderson and Anderson, An Atlas of Middle Eastern Affairs, 2010. By kind permission of the publisher.
But is there a geographer’s Middle East? Or should there be a geographer’s Middle East? I propose such a region—despite all the problems and inconsistencies that are prevalent in the attempt to identify any world (cultural) region. Certainly, one might make an argument that world cultural regions are somewhat artificial. A cultural region is defined basically in contrast to other artificially defined cultural regions, despite that there are, of course, many similarities across cultural regions and many differences and diversities within a defined cultural region. In order to redefine—or relocate—the Middle East, I return to The Myth of Continents.
Lewis and Wigen note that “clearly, the world regional system has some serious flaws. In most presentations, it is contaminated both by the myth of the nation-state and by geographical determinism. Similarly... it still bear[s] traces of its origin within a self-centered European geographical tradition.”80 They propose a new set of world regions, which is similar to the standard geographic world cultural regions but with a few subtle and important differences. They “endorse the global architecture that has emerged within the North American academic world.”81 They propose the “Heuristic World Regional-ization Scheme,” which has fourteen world regions (Figure 3.17). Compared with the many (different) delineations of the Middle East that we have examined, t
heir Middle East (referred to as “Southwest Asia and North Africa”) is similar to the broadest definitions. Their southern border in Africa is considerably south of most of the definitions of North Africa, and they include their “Islamic Zone” as part of Central Asia. Lewis and Wigen emphasize that they give “primacy... to the spatial contours of assemblages of ideas, practices, and social institutions that give human communities their distinction and coherence.”82
Now I return to de Blij and Muller’s Geography: Realms, Regions, and Concepts. It is, in fact, the “realm” that I want to address. Of all the interpretations offered in geographies, maps, and atlases of the Middle East / Southwest Asia (and North Africa), de Blij and Muller’s concept of realms is the most intriguing—and closest to my own concept of a wider “cultural region of the Middle East.” The difference between a realm and a region is only a matter of semantics—and size, according to de Blij and Muller, who refer to their larger cultural region as a realm. (We might call the realm a region and use subregions as the next lower level as well, of course.) All the various cultural regional delimitations of other authors, as we have seen, have nation-states as the regional boundaries; but what de Blij and Muller propose, similar to what Lewis and Wigen assert, are several “transition zones” rather than sharp boundaries as one cultural area merges into another. Within these transition zones the nation-state is not the unit of definition.
Figure 3.17. A Heuristic World Regionalization Scheme. Lewis and Wigen, The Myth of Continents, 1997. By kind permission of the publisher.
I suggest that de Blij and Muller, indeed, have defined a viable “Middle East,” or as they have designated their realm: “North Africa / Southwest Asia” (see Figure 3.11). Their North Africa particularly is more realistic culturally and environmentally: Mauritania, Mali, Niger, and Chad are really not part of “sub-Saharan Africa” (or tropical Africa) and indeed there is a transition zone from the southern parts of these states into the northern parts of Nigeria, Ghana, Ivory Coast, and so forth. Similarly, southern Sudan and the Horn of Africa are cultural transition zones. The addition of Turkestan (Central Asia) is yet another region that seldom is considered part of our region. But, in fact, it is quite relevant to note that the anthropologist Dale Eickelman has incorporated Central Asia into his region (Figure 3.18). The first two editions (1981, 1989) of his popular anthropology of the Middle East textbook are titled The Middle East: An Anthropological Approach, whereas the third and fourth editions (1998, 2001) are titled The Middle East and Central Asia: An Anthropological Approach.83