gallery

KATE B. SHOWERS ON MAPPING AFRICAN SOILS

THE 1977 AFRICA map sheets of the FAO/UNESCO Soil Map of the World demonstrate how scientifically accepted techniques of data manipulation can create apparently authoritative misinformation and perpetuate stereotypes about Africa.1 Like the Mercator projection created for navigation and misused as a "map of the world," the African map sheets moved from generalized description to misuse as a factual representation of African soils from which a range of activities could be planned, and with which crisis narratives could be supported. In this way, the intellectually interesting exercise of mapping the African continent's soils fell prey to the biases and ignorance of an era and, using the most advanced scientific techniques, became a respected contribution to misinformation. A comparison of Maps 1 and 2 underscores three key points: the ability of technology to elevate belief to fact and endow it with authority; the power inherent in decisions about data manipulation and transformation; and the persistence of European experts' definitions of African reality.	1
The Broad Soil Regions Map (Map 1) is a summary of the Africa Map of the Soil Map of the World, which was coordinated by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations in Rome, and published by the United Nations Educational and Scientific Organization (UNESCO) in Paris. This summary map was constructed by aggregating specific soil mapping units to form soil regions that corresponded roughly to Africa's major ecological regions.2 The numbers on the map link these soil regions to a descriptive key. The accompanying Map of Information Sources (Map 2) shows clearly the very limited data base from which the more detailed Africa soil map was made. When it was prepared, approximately 7 percent of the continent had been covered by large or medium scale survey maps with some grounds for accuracy; 38 percent had coverage by reconnaissance maps that showed soils in relation to other features such as climate, geomorphology, or vegetation, and 55 percent of the continent was "virtually unknown."3 This meager data base calls into question the lines drawn on both the Africa and the Broad Soil Region maps, and also explains the inconsistent soil region descriptions.4 To fill the obvious data gaps, scattered observations and data from a few detailed surveys were extrapolated to areas for which no information existed. These estimates, based on expert opinion, once displayed in map form, had the appearance of accuracy.	2
Map 1. Broad Soil Regions Map. Soil Map of the World, Vol. 6, Africa (Paris: FAO/Unesco, 1977).
The process by which the extreme lack of data shown in Map 2 became the acceptable base for official institutional maps of 20 percent of the Earth's surface typifies the way in which ignorance of, and assumptions about, Africa have been transformed into representations of reality for more than a century. With colonial administrations in Africa (English, French, Belgian, German, Portuguese) came expert opinion. Individuals with (or without) relevant background knowledge were sent by governments to tour an area, collect documents, and meet with local officials in order to provide advice about a topic in the form of a report. As a result of their tours, these individuals were considered to be experts, and their opinion authoritative and factual. The resulting reports, whose veracity was not questioned, influenced—even determined—government policy and programs. It was this tradition of unquestioned expert opinion combined with the authority of science that gave international soil mappers license to make the extrapolations that filled in the many gaps, as well as the credibility to the mapping exercise.	. . .