ACTA GEOGRAPHICA
SLOVENICA GEOGRAFSKIZBORNIK
2023
63
2
0101661851779
ISSN 1581-6613
A
C
TA
 G
E
O
G
R
A
P
H
IC
A
 S
LO
V
E
N
IC
A
 •
G
E
O
G
R
A
FS
K
I 
Z
B
O
R
N
IK
 •
63
-2
 •
20
23ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA
GEOGRAFSKI ZBORNIK
63-2 • 2023
Contents
SPECIAL ISSUE – Old maps in geography and cartography
POSEBNA IZDAJA – Stari zemljevidi v geografiji in kartografiji
Blaž Komac, Primož GašPerič
Cartographic time travel: Reflecting the past, defining the present, and challenging
the future using old maps 9
Primož GašPerič
A new standardized methodology for analyzing cartographic information on old maps 23
Primož GašPerič, Saša BaBič
The semiotics of cartographic symbols on old maps 51
rožle Bratec mrvar, Primož GašPerič
Traditional and modern cartographic materials for geography teaching: 
From Blaž Kocen to the present 73
Drago PerKo
The first world atlas in Slovenian, and Slovenian territory in some early world atlases 91
naslovnica 63-2_naslovnica 49-1.qxd  4.12.2023  6:29  Page 1
ACTA GEOGRAPHICA
SLOVENICA GEOGRAFSKIZBORNIK
2023
63
2
0101661851779
ISSN 1581-6613
A
C
TA
 G
E
O
G
R
A
P
H
IC
A
 S
LO
V
E
N
IC
A
 •
G
E
O
G
R
A
FS
K
I 
Z
B
O
R
N
IK
 •
63
-2
 •
20
23ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA
GEOGRAFSKI ZBORNIK
63-2 • 2023
Contents
SPECIAL ISSUE – Old maps in geography and cartography
POSEBNA IZDAJA – Stari zemljevidi v geografiji in kartografiji
Blaž Komac, Primož GašPerič
Cartographic time travel: Reflecting the past, defining the present, and challenging
the future using old maps 9
Primož GašPerič
A new standardized methodology for analyzing cartographic information on old maps 23
Primož GašPerič, Saša BaBič
The semiotics of cartographic symbols on old maps 51
rožle Bratec mrvar, Primož GašPerič
Traditional and modern cartographic materials for geography teaching: 
From Blaž Kocen to the present 73
Drago PerKo
The first world atlas in Slovenian, and Slovenian territory in some early world atlases 91
naslovnica 63-2_naslovnica 49-1.qxd  4.12.2023  6:29  Page 1
ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA
63-2
2023
ISSN: 1581-6613
UDC: 91
2023, ZRC SAZU, Geografski inštitut Antona Melika
International editorial board/mednarodni uredniški odbor: Zoltán Bátori (Hungary), David Bole (Slovenia), Marco Bontje (the Netherlands),
Mateja Breg Valjavec (Slovenia), Michael Bründl (Switzerland), Rok Ciglič (Slovenia), Špela Čonč (Slovenia), Lóránt Dénes Dávid
(Hungary), Mateja Ferk (Slovenia), Matej Gabrovec (Slovenia), Matjaž Geršič (Slovenia), Maruša Goluža (Slovenia), Mauro Hrvatin
(Slovenia), Ioan Ianos (Romania), Peter Jordan (Austria), Drago Kladnik (Slovenia), Blaž Komac (Slovenia), Jani Kozina (Slovenia),
Matej Lipar (Slovenia), Dénes Lóczy (Hungary), Simon McCarthy (United Kingdom), Slobodan B. Marković (Serbia), Janez Nared
(Slovenia), Cecilia Pasquinelli (Italy), Drago Perko (Slovenia), Florentina Popescu (Romania), Garri Raagmaa (Estonia), Ivan Radevski
(North Macedonia), Marjan Ravbar (Slovenia), Aleš Smrekar (Slovenia), Vanya Stamenova (Bulgaria), Annett Steinführer (Germany),
Mateja Šmid Hribar (Slovenia), Jure Tičar (Slovenia), Jernej Tiran (Slovenia), Radislav Tošić (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Mimi Urbanc
(Slovenia), Matija Zorn (Slovenia), Zbigniew Zwolinski (Poland)
Editors-in-Chief/glavna urednika: Rok Ciglič, Blaž Komac (ZRC SAZU, Slovenia)
Executive editor/odgovorni urednik: Drago Perko (ZRC SAZU, Slovenia)
Chief editors/področni urednik (ZRC SAZU, Slovenia):
• physical geography/fizična geografija: Mateja Ferk, Matej Lipar, Matija Zorn
• human geography/humana geografija: Jani Kozina, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc
• regional geography/regionalna geografija: Matej Gabrovec, Matjaž Geršič, Mauro Hrvatin
• regional planning/regionalno planiranje: David Bole, Janez Nared, Maruša Goluža
• environmental protection/varstvo okolja: Mateja Breg Valjavec, Jernej Tiran, Aleš Smrekar
Editorial assistants/uredniška pomočnika: Špela Čonč, Jernej Tiran (ZRC SAZU, Slovenia)
Journal editorial system manager/upravnik uredniškega sistema revije: Jure Tičar (ZRC SAZU, Slovenia)
Issued by/izdajatelj: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU
Published by/založnik: Založba ZRC
Co-published by/sozaložnik: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti
Address/naslov: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU, Gosposka ulica 13, p. p. 306, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija;
ags@zrc-sazu.si
The articles are available on-line/prispevki so dostopni na medmrežju: http://ags.zrc-sazu.si (ISSN: 1581–8314)
This work is licensed under the/delo je dostopno pod pogoji: Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Ordering/naročanje: Založba ZRC, Novi trg 2, p. p. 306, SI – 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenija; zalozba@zrc-sazu.si
Annual subscription/letna naročnina: 20 € for individuals/za posameznika, 28 € for institutions/za ustanove
Single issue/cena posamezne številke: 12,50 € for individuals/za posameznika, 16 € for institutions/za ustanove
Cartography/kartografija: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU
Translations/prevodi: DEKS, d. o. o.
DTP/prelom: SYNCOMP, d. o. o.
Printed by/tiskarna: Present, d. o. o.
Print run/naklada: 300 copies/izvodov
The journal is subsidized by the Slovenian Research Agency and is issued in the framework of the Geography of Slovenia core research pro-
gramme (P6-0101)/Revija izhaja s podporo Javne agencije za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije in nastaja v okviru raziskovalnega
programa Geografija Slovenije (P6-0101).
The journal is indexed also in/revija je vključena tudi v: Clarivate Web of Science (SCIE – Science Citation Index Expanded; JCR –
Journal Citation Report/Science Edition), Scopus, ERIH PLUS, GEOBASE Journals, Current geographical publications, EBSCOhost,
Georef, FRANCIS, SJR (SCImago Journal & Country Rank), OCLC WorldCat, Google Scholar, CrossRef, and DOAJ.
Design by/Oblikovanje: Matjaž Vipotnik
Front cover photography: The image shows part of the cartouche of the map Ducatus Carnioliae tabula chorographica by Janez Dizma
Florjančič from 1744. The personified Carniola is surrounded by the coats of arms of noble families and a mountainous landscape
showing the entrance to a mine, a waterfall, a river gorge, and people on stilts (Geographical Museum GIAM ZRC SAZU).
Fotografija na naslovnici: Na sliki je predstavljen del kartuše zemljevida Ducatus Carnioliae tabula chorographica Janeza Dizme
Florjančiča iz leta 1744. Personificirano Kranjsko obdajajo grbi plemiških rodbin in gorska pokrajina, kjer so upodobljeni vhod
v rudnik, slap, rečna soteska in osebi na hoduljah (Zemljepisni muzej GIAM ZRC SAZU).
63-2-uvod_uvod49-1.qxd  4.12.2023  6:24  Page 4
Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-2, 2023, 51–71
thE SEmIOtICS Of CArtOgrAPhIC
SYmBOLS ON OLD mAPS
Primož Gašperič, Saša Babič
Part of Wolfgang Lazius’s 1561 map of Carniola.
N
A
C
IO
N
A
LN
A
 I 
S
V
E
U
Č
IL
IŠ
N
A
 K
N
JI
ŽN
IC
A
 U
 Z
A
G
R
E
B
U
 
Introductory figure caption. NAME SUR-
NAME (of photographer)
63-2_acta49-1.qxd  4.12.2023  6:25  Page 51
Primož Gašperič, Saša Babič, The semiotics of cartographic symbols on old maps
52
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.10930
UDC: 912.43:528.91(497.4)"15/18"
81'22:528.91(497.4)"15/18"
Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Primož Gašperič1, Saša Babič2
The semiotics of cartographic symbols on old maps
ABSTRACT: This study analyzed selected cartographic symbols on old maps depicting the territory of
Slovenia from the sixteenth to nineteenth century. A semiotic approach was applied to establish connec-
tions between cartographic symbols on old maps and the characteristics of society at the time the maps
were created. This semiotic approach was used to discuss the impact of the interpretation of four sym-
bolic cartographic elements, their iconic basis, and the reading of the five maps analyzed. Cartographic
symbols changed in line with the development of cartography at the time, as well as society. The depic-
tions of settlements were first stylistic and then geometric. Relief depictions were first stylized and then
shown through plastic or spatial methods. Cartographic symbols gradually changed into symbolic signs
(in the semiotic sense), including the quality of the map display, as a result of developments and the demands
of changing society.
KEY WORDS: geography, semiotics, cartographic element, map, history of cartography, Slovenia
Semiotična sporočilnost kartografskih znakov na starih zemljevidih
POVZETEK: Analizirali smo izbrane kartografske znake na starih zemljevidih ozemlja Slovenije od 16.
do 19. stoletja. S semiotičnim pristopom smo ugotavljali povezave med kartografskimi znaki na starih
zemljevidih in značilnostmi družbe v času nastanka zemljevidov. S semiotičnim pristopom smo obravnavali
vpliv interpretacije štirih simbolnih kartografskih elementov, njihove ikonske podlage in družbenega kon-
cepta na branje analiziranih petih zemljevidov. Kartografski znaki so se spreminjali glede na razvoj takratne
kartografske stroke in družbe. Upodobitve naselij so bile najprej stilizirane, nato geometrijske. Reliefne
upodobitve so bile najprej stilizirane in nato prikazane s plastičnim ali prostorskim načinom prikaza.
Kartografski znaki so se postopoma spreminjali v simbolne znake, vključno s kakovostjo prikaza zemljevida,
kot posledica razvoja in zahtev spreminjajoče družbe.
KLJUČNE BESEDE: geografija, semiotika, kartografski element, zemljevid, zgodovina kartografije, Slovenija
The article was submitted for publication on June 30th, 2022.
Uredništvo je prejelo prispevek 30. junija 2022.
1 Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Anton Melik Geographical Institute
primoz.gasperic@zrc-sazu.si (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6736-1308)
2 Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Institute of Slovenian Ethnology
sasa.babic@zrc-sazu.si (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3050-757X)
63-2_acta49-1.qxd  4.12.2023  6:25  Page 52
1 Introduction
In many languages, the word for ‘map’ is cognate with chart (from Greek khártēs ‘sheet of papyrus’, Lat.
charta ‘paper, writing’), referring to »a generalized representation of the Earth’s surface reduced to a spe-
cific scale« (Kladnik 2001, 630) and depicted using agreed-upon symbols (Krušič 1982). A map can also
be defined as »[a] symbolised representation of a geographical reality, representing selected features and
characteristics, resulting from the creative effort of its author’s execution of choices, that is designed for
use when spatial relationships are of primary relevance« (International … 2003, 17).
Every map is a synthesis of cartographic signs (in the semiotic sense), which as a whole make up a map,
which, again in terms of semiotics, is a sign in itself. A map is thus a metonymic depiction of a certain
geographical area, which is denoted by the map as a sign. A map is a tool for depicting geographical areas,
natural features, and manmade changes. At the same time, the purpose of a map is to present as well as
promote space and the map itself as a commodity or social capital (Logar 2019; Razpotnik Visković 2021).
Like any technical product, a map is also created using a special code or language. Cartographic signs have
specific relations, details, and highlights that make up the content and thus communicate a message. The
elements and hence codes that make up a map differ to some degree; these differences also reflect the time
when the maps were created and the development of cartography.
Like »symbol« in cartography, »sign« is an established term in semiotics, even though it is not con-
ceived entirely the same way. However, what is key is that, in the part that semantically overlaps between
the two terms, they both refer to a means of communication and hence the same phenomenon. Both car-
tography (geography) and semiotics conceive a printed sign or symbol as a socially agreed-upon graphic
Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-2, 2023
53
Figure 1: Wolfgang Lazius’s 1561 map of Carniola.
N
A
C
IO
N
A
LN
A
 I 
S
V
E
U
Č
IL
IŠ
N
A
 K
N
JI
ŽN
IC
A
 U
 Z
A
G
R
E
B
U
63-2_acta49-1.qxd  4.12.2023  6:25  Page 53
Primož Gašperič, Saša Babič, The semiotics of cartographic symbols on old maps
element. It has its own meaning, which it acquires within the context of the map’s content as an »entity
reflecting … a landscape the way it was perceived and experienced by cartographers and the way it was
contextualized« (Štular 2010, 86), in which a geographical name marks a sign in itself, and the semiotics
reveals the signifier and the signified. The symbols used on a map hence build a code or a culturally agreed-
upon system of signs (Saussure 1974), which the map as a sign in itself uses to communicate its message.
Semiotics is the discipline that explores and interprets signs and sign systems. Semiotics defines signs
as part of our everyday lives. They are phenomena that we try to connect, they are the language we use to
convey a message, and they are the images and experiences that evoke various associations for us. Semiotics
is generally defined as the science of signs – that is, all the signs we use to communicate or receive infor-
mation. Its founder was the structural linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1974), who highlighted the fact that
signs are part of language and social life, and he called the discipline semiology.
The basic elements of semiology are: the signifier + the signified = the sign. With regard to the develo-
pments in research on the sign itself, a  further major contribution was made by Charles S. Peirce
(1931–1958), who expanded the dyadic model of the sign with an interpretant, turning it into a triadic
model: the object (the signified) + the representament (the signifier) + the interpretant = the sign. The inter-
pretant plays an important role in deciphering a sign because, based on his or her interpretation, he or
she can understand the sign correctly or incorrectly, regardless of the established codes. The interpretant
thus plays a key role in understanding a sign.
Signs and one’s prior knowledge of them evoke associations that form the basis for their division into
three types: a symbol, an icon, and an index (Peirce 1931–1958). Symbols are signs that do not resemble
the signified; they are either entirely arbitrary or entirely conventional, and must be fully learned (e.g., the
stop sign). Icons are signs that resemble or imitate the signified (e.g., portraits and onomatopoeia). Indices
54
Figure 2: Gerard Mercator’s 1589 map of Carniola.
K
N
JI
ŽN
IC
A
 M
IR
A
N
A
 J
A
R
C
A
 N
O
V
O
 M
E
S
TO
63-2_acta49-1.qxd  4.12.2023  6:25  Page 54
are signs that are not arbitrary, but directly connected with the signified, in which the connection can be
observed or affected (e.g., smoke is an index of fire, footsteps are an index of someone walking in the snow,
and pain is an index of injury).
Semiotics was primarily developed through the study of language in the broader sense. This article,
too, proceeds from language – that is, a specialized language that the map reader must know to under-
stand the map’s message. This language can be defined as a type of pictography or language depicted in
the form of pictures, or as elements on the map that show a specific structure, feature, or process more
clearly and in greater detail using a cartographic symbol (e.g., relief, a river system, roads, settlements, etc.;
Kladnik, Lovrenčak and Orožen Adamič 2005). Elements within this larger scale define in detail the phe-
nomena planned and required for every map; at the same time, these elements must be clear to the addressee.
In semiotic terms, the signs on maps include symbols and icons. Older maps contain more icons, where-
as modern maps primarily reflect the global conventionality and abstraction of geographical features in
the form of symbols.
On a map, the clarity or meaning of individual symbols can be provided in a legend, which does not
necessarily contain all the symbols. Therefore, this article does not focus on what a specific cartographic
element signifies (e.g., a line may signify a border), but rather on how cartographic symbols mean what
they signify (e.g., a point symbol defines the importance of a settlement). In addition, as fundamental build-
ing blocks, individual cartographic symbols (Gašperič 2022) create a »text« or, in this specific case, a map.
The semiotic approach provides access to the cultural code or the socially agreed-upon system of signs
that convey specific information, and to the premises that the author of the cartographic symbol used in
creating the map: what kind of a symbol he had to draw so that the local reader could understand it. In
any case, in these contexts, too, a sign refers to »correspondence between a signifier and a signified … a sign
Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-2, 2023
55
Figure 3: Nicolas Sanson’s 1657 map of Carniola.
K
A
R
TO
G
R
A
FS
K
A
 Z
B
IR
K
A
, N
A
R
O
D
N
A
 IN
 U
N
IV
E
R
ZI
TE
TN
A
 K
N
JI
ŽN
IC
A
63-2_acta49-1.qxd  4.12.2023  6:25  Page 55
Primož Gašperič, Saša Babič, The semiotics of cartographic symbols on old maps
56
function when two functives (expression and content) enter into mutual correlation« (Eco 1976, 48–49);
that is, whenever the signified and the content correlate, there is a sign. Signs on maps are divided into
two types: pictures or images of objects, and combinational units (e.g., a legend of cartographic symbols;
Schlichtmann 2009).
Comparisons of old and modern maps based on GIS have been very common in recent geographical
research across the globe (Zorn 2007; Zorn, Breg Valjavec and Ciglič 2018). State-of-the-art information
technology has turned old maps into an important source for determining landscape changes (Podobnikar
and Kokalj 2007). Thus, cartographic sources can serve as a means of representing spatial features, as well
as reliable documents of the specific time, place, and social conditions in which they were created (Slukan
Altić 2003). All of this confirms that they can also be treated as primary sources and used to »determine
the author’s direct contact with events or conditions« (Grafenauer 1960, 252). They often contain infor-
mation that is not provided in any other source. This includes various depictions of borders, rivers, roads,
landforms, and place names (Rumsey and Williams 2002).
Maps are often neglected as a historical source, and in the past their content has not been adequate-
ly taken into account (Gašperič 2022), even though they can reveal spatial dynamics over an extended period.
Because they depict how space was perceived at a given time, they provide access to the social conceptu-
al structures of that time; for example, how cartographers depicted settlements so that this was clear to
the readers. From the semiotic perspective, the focus is on cartographic symbols as »agreed-upon signs
used to depict structures, features, and processes on a map« (Kladnik, Lovrenčak and Orožen Adamič
2005, 167). Due to their large number and thematic diversity, they can be divided into several groups called
Figure 4: Johann Baptist Homann’s map of Carniola produced around 1718.
K
A
R
TO
G
R
A
FS
K
A
 Z
B
IR
K
A
, N
A
R
O
D
N
A
 IN
 U
N
IV
E
R
ZI
TE
TN
A
 K
N
JI
ŽN
IC
A
63-2_acta49-1.qxd  4.12.2023  6:25  Page 56
cartographic elements (Gašperič 2023). By using and depicting symbols, maps build their own sign sys-
tem or code and message, which is the primary focus of this article.
In historical literature, the conceived primary function of maps was to present results (Grafenauer 1960).
Now the importance of maps as sources of information on landscape changes is gradually growing, which
is also confirmed by the latest research (Gašperič, Perko and Zorn 2018; Perko et al. 2019; Zorn, Ciglič
and Gašperič 2020).
At the end of the twentieth century, maps began to be analyzed as part of a special branch of semi-
otics called cartosemiotics (Nöth 1998) or cartographic semiotics (Schlichtmann 2008). This branch
specializes in the semiotic study of cartographic material (e.g., maps, globes, and relief models). The first
analyses were already conducted by Wood and Fells (1986), but the first to tackle this topic systematically
was Schlichtmann (2009), who highlighted the importance of semiotics for analyzing maps and hence
providing broader insight into society. The subject of cartosemiotics is subsumed into five major themes:
map symbolism (map language), the sign process, the context in which signs and sign processes are embed-
ded, marginal notes (explaining the meaning of the entries and providing background information), and
peripheral signification phenomena, which are style traits or reflect ideologies.
Cartosemiotics studies map symbolism as a complex semiotic system with spatial and non-spatial com-
ponents; macrosigns (localized signs) are ultimately composed of minimal signs and in turn combined in
texts (Schlichtman 1985). Along these lines, Wood and Fels (1986) highlight ten codes that need to be decod-
ed on a map to understand what it depicts. Because these codes are inextricably related and dependent
on one another, they divide them into codes of intrasignification, which operate within the map or at the
level of language, and codes of extrasignification, which are composed of five categories: the thematic, the
topic, the historical, the rhetorical, and the utilitarian. All five indicate the map’s main focus or discourse
(Wood and Fels 1986) and operate outside the map or at the level of myth (Eco 1976): the map »succeeds
in persuading us that it is a natural consequence of perceiving the world« (Wood and Fels 1986, 63). This
article focuses on the codes of intrasignification, among which at least five categories can be distinguished
(Wood and Fels 1986): the iconic (roads, towns, rivers, mountains, and hypsometric layers; the invento-
ry or fragmentary world), the linguistic (the codes of names of places, roads, and areas), the tectonic
(relationships in space, normally expressed in the form of numeric ratios for measuring distances and sizes),
the temporal (this code is closely connected with the spatial code because it refers to the time needed to
get somewhere or the temporal aspect of distance between individual elements; in addition, maps can be
old or new, and some may refer to the future; e.g., they show projected roads), and the presentational (infor-
mation such as a title, a legend box, a map image, illustrations, the scale, and instructions). This article
primarily concentrates on part of the iconic codes of intrasignification – that is, on selected basic carto-
graphic symbols.
Most cartosemiotic analyses are conducted on modern maps (Nöth 1998; Schlichtmann 2009),
whereas this article relies on historical sources, providing insight into the development of symbols over
time and hence also the social conceptions reflected in the maps. The analysis of cartographic symbols
draws directly from maps, which has been rare in studying past developments in what is now Slovenia.
The main interest is in what is conveyed through the changes on maps between the sixteenth and nine-
teenth centuries.
This article identifies the potential influence of social conceptions by assessing cartographic symbols
based on a review of selected maps of Slovenian territory (e.g., a triangle representing a mountain or a cir-
cle representing a settlement as a complete whole). Because maps can also reflect the social and political
situation in which they were created (Zorn, Breg Valjavec and Ciglič 2018), attention was drawn to the
meaning conveyed by their fundamental building blocks: cartographic symbols. Therefore, a semiotic method
was used to analyze the most frequent cartographic symbols on all the maps studied (i.e., symbols for set-
tlements, vegetation, relief, and water).
The terms used in this article are »cartographic element« and »cartographic symbol« as defined by
geographers and cartographers (Gašperič 2023). They are both considered the fundamental building blocks
of any map. A cartographic element refers to the group of methods used to represent a specific topic, and
a cartographic symbol is the method of representing a cartographic element on a map. For example, the
cartographic element of ‘water’ can be represented with (single or parallel) line cartographic symbols or
area cartographic symbols for rivers, lakes, and seas; the cartographic element of ‘settlement’ can be depict-
ed with point cartographic symbols (e.g., a circle, triangle, square, or dot) or area cartographic symbols
Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-2, 2023
57
63-2_acta49-1.qxd  4.12.2023  6:25  Page 57
Primož Gašperič, Saša Babič, The semiotics of cartographic symbols on old maps
used for settlements of various sizes (i.e., a simplified plan view of a settlement). This article specifically
analyzes the cartographic symbols mentioned, determines the meaning of their diversity and changes through
time, and treats them as semiotic signs that build a map and its discourse.
2 Methods
The methods used were as follows: selecting old maps based on the area mapped, scale, and time of origin;
selecting cartographic elements that are depicted on all the maps studied and that varied by the time of ori-
gin and the cartographer’s knowledge; analyzing the cartographic symbols used for representing individual
58
Figure 5: Peter Kozler’s 1853 map of the Slovenian land.
ZE
M
LJ
E
P
IS
N
I M
U
ZE
J 
G
IA
M
 Z
R
C
 S
A
ZU
63-2_acta49-1.qxd  4.12.2023  6:25  Page 58
cartographic elements in terms of composition, type, and evaluation; and comparing results between
various periods and determining the main characteristics of changes in the representation of cartographic
elements.
The article examines natural cartographic elements (relief, vegetation, and water) and built cartographic
elements (settlements; Gašperič 2023). Cartographic symbols for the following were selected:
• Settlements (stylized point and area symbols);
• Vegetation (stylized point symbols);
• Relief (stylized, plastic, geometric, and combined method of representation; Perko 2001);
• Water (line and area symbols).
Five representative general geographical maps at a medium scale (approximately 1:500,000–1:800,000)
from the mid-sixteenth to the mid-nineteenth century (figures 1–5) were selected for analysis. They all
map the territory of what is now Slovenia, as well as parts of what is now Italy, Austria, Hungary, and Croatia
(Table 1). The 1561 map by Wolfgang Lazius is considered the first known map presenting Carniola per
se, and it stands out in the cartographic sense because of its great interplay of imaginary, historical, and real-
istic depictions and geographical names. Despite being created only a few decades later, Mercator’s map of
1589 is cartographically more accurate and geographically more complete. It also served as the basis for
the next two maps. The 1657 map by Nicolas Sanson and the map by Johann Baptist Homann created around
1718 are representative cartographic products of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, in which the
accuracy of the features mapped and their names (e.g., Lake Cerknica) improved. Compared to its pre-
decessors, Kozler’s 1853 map (also Kosler) exhibits a significant advance in quality and, in terms of its content
(i.e., the territory mapped and geographical names), its primary aim is to promote national identity.
This article focuses on the importance of symbols as pictorial signifiers of spatial features and, as such,
how they build the »text« or map. The semiotic approach provides access to the cultural code or socially
agreed-upon system of signs that represent specific information that the cartographer had and interpret-
ed through symbols. In these contexts, too, a sign or a symbol reflects a »correspondence between a signifier
and a signified« (Eco 1976, 48–49). The semiotic analysis of the maps selected relied on the theory of car-
tosemiotics, which considers a map a product made of signs – that is, a combination of various cartographic
elements depicted in the form of cartographic symbols. Cartosemiotics, too, is based on elements.
3 Analysis
The maps contain all five major groups of cartographic elements: natural and built elements, geographi-
cal names, and mathematical and explanatory elements (Gašperič 2023). Explanatory elements, such as
various illustrations and text added to the map, are more common on older maps (created before the nine-
teenth century). Their purpose was to attract the buyer’s and reader’s attention, and to highlight a special
feature or event that was geographically or historically connected with the area mapped. Even though they
cannot be found in the map’s legend, they have their own function, just like all the other cartographic sym-
bols, and they may even more clearly reflect the social systems and the predominant mindset (of the author,
society, and authorities). This can be clearly seen on Lazius’ 1561 map, which has a shape of an oval embraced
by the double-headed Habsburg eagle and is decorated with ten provincial coats of arms. Because an analysis
of all cartographic symbols on the maps selected would exceed the scope of this article, the analysis here
Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-2, 2023
59
Table 1: List of selected maps with basic information.
Year Title Author Scale (roughly) Cited (in text)
1561 Ducatus Carniolae et Histriae una cum Marcha Windorum Wolfgang Lazius (1514–1565) 1:500,000 Lazius 1561
1589 Forum Iulium, Karstia, Carniola, Histria et Windorum Marchia Gerard Mercator (1512–1594) 1:700,000 Mercator 1589
1657 Hertzogthūber Steyer, Karnten, Krain, & c./Duchés de Stirie, Nicolas Sanson (1600–1667) 1:800,000 Sanson 1657
Carinthie, Carniole …
c. 1718 Tabula Ducatus Carnioliae, Vindorum Marchiae et Histriae Johann Baptist Homann (1664–1724) 1:500,000 Homann 1718
1853 Zemljovid Slovenske dežele in pokrajin Peter Kozler (1824–1897) 1:576,000 Kozler 1853
63-2_acta49-1.qxd  4.12.2023  6:25  Page 59
Primož Gašperič, Saša Babič, The semiotics of cartographic symbols on old maps
60
is limited to the cartographic symbols representing settlements, vegetation, relief, and water. These symbols
are the (most) common ones on maps and the ones the reader (most) easily recognizes. Because they changed
and developed over time, this study assumes that they are good indicators of various directions of carto-
graphic and social development.
3.1 Settlements
General geographical maps show all settlements in the area mapped that meet the agreed-upon principles
for representation (e.g., detail of representation, and the population, size, and importance of the settle-
ment). Especially on maps produced before the nineteenth century, the selection of settlements depicted
was based on the author’s judgment. Depending on the size and importance of a settlement, a cartographic
symbol was selected for its depiction on the map. On older maps, settlements were predominantly depict-
ed with geometric symbols (e.g., circles and rectangles), stylized symbols (e.g., a panoramic image of one
or several structures), and area symbols (e.g., a simplified plan view of a settlement; Table 2).
Between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries, stylized symbols for settlements were depicted in four
predominant ways: a side view (up to three built structures drawn in a line), a stylized view (a line of uneven-
ly distributed buildings, creating a sense of depth), a bird’s eye view (a limited view of the entire settlement
from various height), and a vertical view (a perpendicular view of the settlement). The side view is used
on most maps from this period. However, it remains unclear whether settlements were represented sys-
tematically during that period, or the authors determined the number and importance of settlements
subjectively (Delano-Smith 2007). It is presumed that the author’s subjective judgment had considerable
influence because it is difficult to believe that cartographers of that time had the expertise and geographical
breadth necessary to objectively depict all places on a map. In any case, they at least tried to highlight the
prominent function of the more important places.
3.2 Vegetation
Vegetation is already shown on the oldest maps, which indicates its great importance, especially in terms
of the economy, defense, and travel. The term »vegetation« refers to all the vegetation depicted on a map
(Peterca et al. 1974). On old general geographical maps, its depiction depends on the detail of representation
Table 2: Types of cartographic symbols representing settlements on the maps analyzed.
Element Symbol Lazius Mercator Sanson Homann Kozler
1561 1589 1657 c. 1718 1853
Settlement Point (geometric shapes: square, triangle, etc.) No Yes No Yes Yes
Point (stylized images of buildings) Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Area (plan view of settlements / town walls) No No No Yes No
Other No No No No No
Table 3: Types of cartographic symbols representing vegetation on the maps analyzed.
Element Symbol Lazius Mercator Sanson Homann Kozler
1561 1589 1657 c. 1718 1853
Vegetation Grassland Stylized images of grassland (areas with
small vertical lines, clumps of grass) No No No No No
Forest Stylized images of trees (various
density of the same or different trees) Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Other Stylized images of grapevines, Yes (olive Yes No No No
wetland vegetation, olive trees trees, wetland (wetland
vegetation) vegetation)
63-2_acta49-1.qxd  4.12.2023  6:25  Page 60
envisaged by the cartographer, with representations of forest and distinctive vegetation (e.g., wetland plants,
olive groves, or vineyards) predominating.
Stylized representations of trees in the form of groups of various sizes, tree lines of various lengths,
and various individual trees predominate until the nineteenth century. Trees are a metonymic symbol or
an icon for forest and, on the two oldest maps, for olive groves and vineyards. The image of trees is often
the same throughout the map, but it may also differ, especially by the size of the symbol rather than type
of vegetation. Forests are depicted with stylized images of trees drawn from the side and, if they are depict-
ed in the form of a group of trees, they may cover a substantial part of the map. Wetland vegetation is depicted
on Lazius’s and Mercator’s maps; the iconic representation of wetland vegetation is probably important to
show impassable areas. Table 3 shows the representation of vegetation on the maps discussed.
3.3 Relief
In depicting relief, cartographers deal with the challenge of how to depict three-dimensional terrain in
two-dimensional form on the map. Representations of relief can be divided into four main categories (Perko
2001): stylized representations (simplified symbols resembling molehills and half-circles), plastic or spa-
tial representations (using colors, color shades, hachures, and dots), geometric representation (contour
lines and spot elevations), and combined representations (a combination of various methods). Stylized rep-
resentations predominated until the eighteenth century, hachures were widely used in the nineteenth century,
and combined representations have predominated since the twentieth century (Table 4).
The four older maps use brown or gray molehills and shading; a molehill is the iconic representation
of a mountain. It is primarily higher and more visible mountains that are marked on the map; the ones
that can be conceived as a barrier preventing access to a neighboring area, which was a key piece of infor-
mation at that time. Nonetheless, mountains are not drawn consistently, and mountain ranges are used
as an icon or metonymy representing an impassable area or an area that is difficult to pass. In this regard,
Kozler’s map shows a significant advance in quality because it uses spot elevations and hachures to rep-
resent relief. This is a more accurate and realistic method of depicting relief, and a shift to a completely
symbolic representation.
3.4 Water
Water can be divided into still and moving, surface and underground, and freshwater and saltwater. Lakes
and seas are depicted using an area symbol, which usually illustrates the envisaged size and shape of the
body of water. Rivers and creeks are most often depicted with single or double (parallel) line symbols and
area symbols. Area symbols are typical of older maps, on which a river is not depicted with two parallel
lines, but as an undefinable elongated form that in the upper reaches may resemble a short tail, which grows
thicker toward the mouth. The space between the two lines may be empty or filled with various patterns,
most often several parallel, solid or broken, or curvy or straight lines. Waterfalls and springs are rarely depict-
ed, usually with a stylized point symbol. Linear representation indicates that water was conceived as a line
that cuts through the land or as a transport route. Water symbols on these maps do not show individual
depths or major gradients, rapids, and so on.
Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-2, 2023
61
Table 4: Types of cartographic symbols representing relief on the maps analyzed.
Element Symbol Lazius Mercator Sanson Homann Kozler
1561 1589 1657 c. 1718 1853
Relief Molehills Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Contour lines No No No No No
Spot elevations No No No No Yes
Shading Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Hachures No No No No Yes
63-2_acta49-1.qxd  4.12.2023  6:25  Page 61
Primož Gašperič, Saša Babič, The semiotics of cartographic symbols on old maps
62
Especially on maps created before the sixteenth century, problems with depicting water were connected
with cartographic projection; these problems persisted on many maps up until the nineteenth century. On
these maps, the territory is overly stretched or expanded in the east–west direction, which is why the cours-
es of rivers are depicted disproportionately in the east–west direction and many also in the north–south
direction; other directions of the main watercourses are less common (Slukan Altić 2003). The question
is whether this can be understood within the context of the social conception of space and time: space seems
to be expanded based on the more frequent and, first and foremost, longer and more long-term travel from
central Europe toward the east or west (also because of sea travel or the route in stages to the final desti-
nation) than toward the north or south. Therefore, this map expansion could also be related to the general
spatial connection with time. Table 5 shows how water features were depicted on the maps selected.
4 Discussion
This article identifies the reflection of social conceptions in cartographic symbols on selected maps of
Slovenian territory. It analyzes the most common cartographic symbols on five maps published between
the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries: symbols for settlements, relief, vegetation, and water. These sym-
bols have a metaphoric character, which is why a semiotic approach is also used to analyze them.
Semiotically, signs on maps can be divided into symbols and icons. Older maps contain more icons,
whereas on more recent maps (especially those produced from the nineteenth century onward) the signs
already reflect global conventionality and abstraction in the form of agreed-upon symbols. Cartographic
signs are stereotypical metonymic images of a feature, which is clearly evident with the following: forests,
which are represented with a typical forest element (i.e., a tree or a group of trees): settlements, which are
represented with a building or a group of buildings; moving water, which is represented in the form of
curvy lines: and relief, which is represented through a group of (shaded) molehills on maps produced before
the nineteenth century.
Signs on older maps before the nineteenth century are partly arbitrary and motivated by the expected
understanding of the map reader. At the point of making the maps that were studied, no rules had been
established yet, and signs were chosen by predicted understandability. At this point, it is exactly under-
standability that creates the (social) convention: what kind of sign would be understandable to the recipient.
That is, in drawing the map, the cartographer had to take into account the stereotypical social images of
these features to make the map understandable. The stereotypical image of a feature depicted with a sign
or a symbol is often metonymic: a part of the feature representing a whole bears the entire meaning. Hence,
for example, it can be observed that with settlements the image of a whole is represented by a tower and
a few buildings. Based on his judgment or knowledge, the cartographer indicated the size of a settlement
by using different numbers of buildings. The image is stylized and, in terms of semiotics, symbolic, even
though it initially seems to be iconic (i.e., it imitates the image of a settlement). However, more or less the
same generalized image is applied to all settlements, regardless of their image in the real world. Due to
this uniformity, it can be semiotically referred to as fully symbolic, even though Wood and Fells defined
these signs as iconic. By taking into account that these are stereotypical metonymic signs, one can already
talk about conventionality within the representation: maps do not resemble that which they depict; these
Table 5: Types of cartographic symbols representing water on the maps analyzed.
Element Symbol Lazius Mercator Sanson Homann Kozler
1561 1589 1657 c. 1718 1853
Water General Point symbols Yes (waterfall) No No No No
River Line symbols (single line) No No Yes Yes Yes
Line symbols (double line, often parallel) No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Area symbols (colored areas) Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Others No No No No No
Sea, lake Area symbols (colored areas) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
63-2_acta49-1.qxd  4.12.2023  6:25  Page 62
images can only be connected by taking into account a series of complex principles or conventions – that
is, an agreed-upon code. An example of such a code is the color blue to represent rivers on colored maps
(Wood and Fels 1986), or (blue) lines used in graphs and diagrams, where they represent something entire-
ly different (e.g., changes in water level). Just as it is completely clear that blue lines represent rivers on
maps, it is also clear that a blue line in a medical diagram can refer to the human circulatory system. Hence,
iconicity is always based on a systemic structure – that is, it is always analogue, rather than (merely) based
on the image and subsequently metaphorical; for example, a blue line (Wood and Fels 1986). Thus, it is
about the code used and not the signifier, which would mean that the code, rather than the signified itself
(e.g., the river), determines the sign. To some degree, a sign can also be predictable due to its strong resem-
blance to real features. However, map users must know the code to successfully and fully decode (i.e., read
and understand) the map. Nonetheless, it should be highlighted that (in cartography) the code is primarily
founded on resemblance to features. For example, a river is represented with a line, a lake with an area
symbol, and stereotypical colors are used for specific features (blue for water, green for vegetation, etc.).
Hence, the iconicity of cartographic symbols is based on both their stereotypical symbolism and social
convention. By combining both perspectives, a stereotypical social conception of an individual feature can
be inferred. This article focuses on the interpretation of »intersignifications« or, specifically, the symbols
representing settlements, water, vegetation, and relief.
4.1 Settlements
Except for Kozler’s map, all the maps analyzed show a clear connection with a stylized conception of a set-
tlement expressed in the form of buildings of various numbers, which may also contain a dominating tower
or an iconic symbol resembling a fortress. At the time these maps were created, no uniform symbols had yet
been established for towns, boroughs, and villages, and so, as expected, the symbols used reflect the cartog-
rapher’s conceptions and subjective views. The predominating principle used on the first four maps is that
a larger settlement is depicted with a more imposing iconic symbol, usually a fortress. An interesting detail
on Homann’s map is the plan-view depiction of Palmanova (now part of Italy), whose distinctive star-shaped
defense walls have been preserved until today. On Mercator’s map and all later maps, smaller settlements are
marked with a circle (i.e., a geometric symbol), which is the second most frequent method used for repre-
senting settlements. Mercator and Homann used them to represent smaller settlements, but it was only Kozler
that finally began using a circle as a point symbol with various sizes and centers for marking settlements.
Settlements are various forms of permanent human habitation (Kladnik 2001), with more or less com-
pact buildings and various functions. Conceptually, this compactness is often understood as completeness,
which is most likely based on the image of earlier settlements, which, due to their defense role, had a more
clustered character and defense walls. The stylized depictions of settlements on maps also resemble fortress-
es with defense walls, and it can be presumed that every larger settlement was conceived as a larger cluster
of protected buildings. A settlement usually had at least a church, and there was often also a castle with-
in, above, or near it, which made it rank among major or more important settlements. Proceeding from
the completeness mentioned above, parallels can be drawn with the complete point symbol, most often
round or square in shape, which indicates that the settlement was conceived as a complete residential prod-
uct of society – society as an independent whole or a bubble separated from the neighboring settlement
or bubble. This hypothesis is supported by the use of such point symbols for smaller settlements on vari-
ous old maps, even though in many cases the settlements were neither clustered nor walled (e.g., settlements
in the Pannonian region, which have a distinctive oblong shape). The completeness of a settlement and
the metaphorical completeness of society as a relatively closed cell (or an inner circle of identity) is thus
transferred into the cartographic symbol.
It should also be mentioned that castles in the immediate vicinity of which there was no settlement at
all were also marked as settlements on maps; usually the settlement was at some distance from the cas-
tle – for example, Stein Castle (Stain) and Zaprice (Stainpuhl) on Mercator’s map – or there was none at
all; for example, Bogenšperk Castle (Wagensberg) near Litija on Homann’s map. The maps studied show
a clear trend of practical adaptation of signs in the direction of greater symbolism. Lazius’s map still tried
to distinguish between settlements and castles by using different icons; nonetheless, the signs largely do
not reflect the (metonymic) real image of the castle or fortress and are predominantly imaginary instead.
Mercator’s map already introduced symbolic signs – that is, circles, which are of the same size for all
Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-2, 2023
63
63-2_acta49-1.qxd  4.12.2023  6:25  Page 63
Primož Gašperič, Saša Babič, The semiotics of cartographic symbols on old maps
64
settlements. Sanson’s map predominantly depicts settlements using iconic images of a castle with a town,
which differ by settlement size. Smaller settlements are only marked with a small circle. On Homann’s map,
settlements are marked with circles and fully symbolic, tiny images of towers. In turn, Kozler’s map only
uses fully symbolic signs (i.e., circles of various sizes) to depict settlements.
4.2 Vegetation
As expected, the maps originating from before the nineteenth century most often depict forests, with larg-
er wooded areas standing out (e.g., the extensive Kočevje forests). Forests are represented with clusters of
Figure 6: Typical representations of settlements on maps by Lazius, Mercator, Sanson, and Kozler.
K
N
JI
ŽN
IC
A
 M
IR
A
N
A
 J
A
R
C
A
 N
O
V
O
 M
E
S
TO
ZE
M
LJ
E
P
IS
N
I M
U
ZE
J 
G
IA
M
 Z
R
C
 S
A
ZU
N
A
C
IO
N
A
LN
A
 I 
S
V
E
U
Č
IL
IŠ
N
A
 K
N
JI
ŽN
IC
A
 U
 Z
A
G
R
E
B
U
K
A
R
TO
G
R
A
FS
K
A
 Z
B
IR
K
A
, N
A
R
O
D
N
A
 IN
 U
N
IV
E
R
ZI
TE
TN
A
 K
N
JI
ŽN
IC
A
63-2_acta49-1.qxd  4.12.2023  6:25  Page 64
iconic stylized (green) trees of various sizes, with no distinction between deciduous and coniferous trees
because all trees are represented in a generic deciduous form. The maps analyzed do not depict grasslands,
and other types of vegetation are only included on the two earliest maps: Lazius’s map contains olive groves
and vineyards (depicted with a symbolic stylized sign representing an olive tree and grapevine), and Mercator’s
map also features wetland vegetation (Figure 2).
In representing vegetation, there was a gradual shift from icons to symbolic images or, later on, com-
plete absence (e.g., on Kozler’s map). On Lazius’s map, forests are represented with green stereotypical tree
icons (a large group of trees), and olive groves and vineyards are marked metonymically, using a single
green icon representing a plant. Green is the stereotypical color of vegetation, related to the immediate
experience of observing extensive green areas, such as forests and grasslands. This color is metaphorically
Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-2, 2023
65
Figure 7: Typical representations of vegetation on maps by Lazius, Mercator, Sanson, and Homann.
K
N
JI
ŽN
IC
A
 M
IR
A
N
A
 J
A
R
C
A
 N
O
V
O
 M
E
S
TO
ZE
M
LJ
E
P
IS
N
I M
U
ZE
J 
G
IA
M
 Z
R
C
 S
A
ZU
N
A
C
IO
N
A
LN
A
 I 
S
V
E
U
Č
IL
IŠ
N
A
 K
N
JI
ŽN
IC
A
 U
 Z
A
G
R
E
B
U
K
A
R
TO
G
R
A
FS
K
A
 Z
B
IR
K
A
, N
A
R
O
D
N
A
 IN
 U
N
IV
E
R
ZI
TE
TN
A
 K
N
JI
ŽN
IC
A
63-2_acta49-1.qxd  4.12.2023  6:25  Page 65
Primož Gašperič, Saša Babič, The semiotics of cartographic symbols on old maps
transferred to vegetation, signifying natural elements or nature. All representations of forests on the first
four maps contain an iconic image of a group of trees with trunks and crowns. Highlighting the size of a wood-
ed area had a similar motive as with mountain ranges: these were regions that were considered alien or
bordering another region, or even perceived as inaccessible or unpassable. Because people were unfamil-
iar with areas of extensive forests and mountain ranges (as well as seas) and considered them unattractive
to live in and inaccessible, they conceived of them as mythological places. Therefore, they were merely vague-
ly drawn on maps, or presented fairly metonymically. Only part of a mountain range or forest was drawn,
in a form indicating its presumed dimensions. Forests were often depicted linearly, in the form of green or
tree belts. It was only Homann that also used clusters of vegetation to depict forests. As already mentioned,
like mountain ranges, forests can be identified as a spatial barrier or dividing line between two areas; rivers
and roads stop at forests or go around them. However, most importantly, this element is depicted
metonymically on maps: merely as a part of a whole that is wider and larger than the one presented on the
map. In general, the maps depict only a small portion of the forests that at that time existed in the area mapped.
4.3 Relief
On the maps from before the nineteenth century, hills and mountains are drawn as shaded molehills of
various shapes and sizes, but with no relation to the actual elevation (Figure 3). Higher-elevation moun-
tainous regions represent the approximate location and area of elevated landscapes, which primarily
communicate the size of the geographic feature to the map reader. In the nineteenth century, relief was
primarily depicted using the plastic method with hachures, whereby the thickness and length of hachures
expressed the inclination and length of terrain, and their position and distribution indicated specific land-
forms. This method proved to be very accurate, which was greatly contributed to by its scientific justification
in 1799 (Gašperič 2010). On Kozler’s map, relief is thus depicted with spot elevations and hachures. Despite
its monotonous black-and-white depiction of relief, this plan-view representation shows the characteris-
tics of elevated areas across the entire map very realistically and evenly.
Before the nineteenth century, relief was represented using symbolic stylized signs for elevations, which
had the shape of mountains and were stereotyped, because they were always shaded on the right side, with
a typically narrower peak. Through this, the cartographic symbol reflected the understanding of a steep
rise and descent of a slope and of mountains forming a mountain range, which can represent an unpass-
able barrier. This is also how elevations are depicted on the four older maps: as spatial barriers at which
roads and rivers stop or must go around them. The conception of mountains as barriers is also reflected
in the Slovenian collocation gorska pregrada ‘mountain range’ (literally: ‘mountain barrier’), which can have
an impact on weather or road construction. In addition, Slovenian also uses the term gorska veriga ‘moun-
tain chain’, in which the linking of mountains together is metaphorically associated with a chain and
conceptually with forming a contiguous series. The latter confirms the thesis that the cartographic sym-
bols on older maps were based on the conception of mountains as chain-like spatial barriers.
The development of cartography around 1800 led to a change in the cartographic representation of
relief, which is why Kozler’s map differs greatly from the other maps. With the hachure method, elevated
areas can be represented in plan view (i.e., more realistically). The representation moves from the iconic
sign to greater abstraction and hence the symbolic sign: pointy peaks are iconically turned into triangu-
lar symbols on the map. This provides a higher-quality representation of terrain, and mountains no longer
evoke an explicit association with spatial barriers.
4.4 Water
The maps analyzed show rivers, lakes, and seas. On Lazius’s map, rivers are depicted with area symbols of
various oblong shapes. Rivers are represented disproportionately to other features, but the map nonethe-
less makes a distinction between rivers in terms of their size and length. The course of larger rivers is
accentuated with intermittent lines (most likely indicating waves and currents). The other maps studied
use a combination of line and area symbols, which have a more convincing cartographic effect. As expect-
ed, the representation of streams is of the highest quality on Kozler’s map, on which area symbols are rare.
However, it is difficult to distinguish between rivers and roads.
66
63-2_acta49-1.qxd  4.12.2023  6:25  Page 66
The sea is only marked in color on Lazius’s map. On all the other maps, the coast is marked with thin
parallel lines. The sea is depicted in various ways (parallel hachures, lines, or sea currents), but this is pri-
marily merely a decorative addition.
The maps analyzed also contain certain special features (Figure 4). On Lazius’s map, certain settlements
on or along rivers are depicted like islands in the middle of the river (in what is now Croatia), and Savica
Falls (Fons Saus) is the only water feature depicted with a point symbol. Imaginary creatures (Lazius) and
ships (Lazius, Homann) are also depicted on the sea. All the maps show Lake Cerknica, in which swal-
low holes are also depicted. As a typical karst feature and a natural wonder of Carniola (part of the year
it is its largest lake and part of the year it is its smallest lake), it is a prominent element on the map, which
cartographers before Homann depicted in the form of an excessively large ellipse.
Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-2, 2023
67
Figure 8: Typical representations of relief on maps by Lazius, Mercator, Homann, and Kozler.
K
N
JI
ŽN
IC
A
 M
IR
A
N
A
 J
A
R
C
A
 N
O
V
O
 M
E
S
TO
ZE
M
LJ
E
P
IS
N
I M
U
ZE
J 
G
IA
M
 Z
R
C
 S
A
ZU
N
A
C
IO
N
A
LN
A
 I 
S
V
E
U
Č
IL
IŠ
N
A
 K
N
JI
ŽN
IC
A
 U
 Z
A
G
R
E
B
U
K
A
R
TO
G
R
A
FS
K
A
 Z
B
IR
K
A
, N
A
R
O
D
N
A
 IN
 U
N
IV
E
R
ZI
TE
TN
A
 K
N
JI
ŽN
IC
A
63-2_acta49-1.qxd  4.12.2023  6:25  Page 67
Primož Gašperič, Saša Babič, The semiotics of cartographic symbols on old maps
On the maps analyzed, water features are represented with line or area symbols, which, as expected,
have a metaphorical reference to a natural feature. On color maps, water features are exclusively marked
in blue, which is stereotypically associated with water, regardless of its true color (e.g., brown or green).
Rivers represented with line symbols reflect the cartographer’s perception of the (linear) river course, rather
than the width of the riverbed or the river network. A river is perceived as water that flows through a riverbed
in a specific direction. The depictions of river basins on the map are reminiscent of a tree with a stem (i.e.,
the main river) and branches (i.e., tributaries). This is also reflected in the Slovenian expression razvejano
porečje ‘branched basin’, which shows a conceptual connection between a river basin and a tree. This con-
ceptual connection can be most clearly seen on Lazius’s map, on which the Sava and its tributaries clearly
resemble a tree. On the other maps analyzed, water is marked with black lines; rivers are represented with
68
Figure 9: Typical representations of water features on maps by Lazius, Mercator, Homann, and Kozler.
K
N
JI
ŽN
IC
A
 M
IR
A
N
A
 J
A
R
C
A
 N
O
V
O
 M
E
S
TO
ZE
M
LJ
E
P
IS
N
I M
U
ZE
J 
G
IA
M
 Z
R
C
 S
A
ZU
N
A
C
IO
N
A
LN
A
 I 
S
V
E
U
Č
IL
IŠ
N
A
 K
N
JI
ŽN
IC
A
 U
 Z
A
G
R
E
B
U
K
A
R
TO
G
R
A
FS
K
A
 Z
B
IR
K
A
, N
A
R
O
D
N
A
 IN
 U
N
IV
E
R
ZI
TE
TN
A
 K
N
JI
ŽN
IC
A
63-2_acta49-1.qxd  4.12.2023  6:25  Page 68
one line or two parallel lines with a light uncolored surface in between. The branched structure of river
basins is depicted more accurately and clearly on these maps, which is why the basins on them are not so
reminiscent of trees anymore. In general, rivers are oriented correctly, although in some places the tiny
meanders are clearly made up and only have a symbolic meaning. This reflects the stereotypical necessi-
ty for meandering riverbeds and branched basins, which also arises from the cartographer’s lack of familiarity
with the area mapped.
On Kozler’s map, it is difficult to identify the rivers and their basins because the linear river representations
resemble the representations of roads so much that it is difficult to distinguish between the two. In addi-
tion, it is also necessary to take into account the association between rivers and roads because both are
understood and depicted as lines connecting places. Thus, they represent a (communication) link between
two points or places. Even though rivers vary more in terms of width, from a cartographic perspective they
are stereotypically associated with a stable, one-way linear flow in the riverbed. Here, a connection aris-
es between the two symbols: both the river and road run or lead somewhere.
Lakes are depicted using area symbols, which mostly take a generalized form. Even though there are
only two major permanent lakes in Slovenia (i.e., Lake Bohinj and Lake Bled), they are not included on
Lazius’s map. Mercator’s map only shows Lake Bohinj, whereas the last two maps show both lakes. However,
all maps include intermittent Lake Cerknica with a detailed depiction of swallow holes, which testifies to
the uniqueness of this karst feature. On Homann’s map, a depiction of Lake Cerknica with marked and
named swallow holes and a description of this karst feature is added in the bottom right corner, follow-
ing Valvasor’s model.
The shores of lakes and the sea are marked with short parallel lines, which represent the border between
land and water. This has to do with the stereotypical conception of a shallow water area, possibly cliffs,
illustrating the change in relief at the contact of land and water.
5 Conclusion
Based on the analysis of five representative maps of Slovenian territory, certain trends related to social con-
cepts (settlements as complete units, vegetation stereotypically depicted as deciduous trees, mountains perceived
as spatial barriers, river basins depicted as branched trees, and rivers as lines cut into terrain) were identi-
fied in the development of cartographic elements from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century.
In cartography, a map is an aggregate of cartographic elements depicted with cartographic symbols.
In the semiotic sense, a map is a range of codes expressed in visual interpretations oriented in time and
space and combined into a final form: the map. These codes are fairly independent and can also differ (Wood
and Fels 1986). An old map is a cultural artifact, a culmination of choices expressing the conception and
value of a specific area or part of the world. This aspect is expressed in code, through which all meaning
is conveyed to the map reader in an intelligible way. Hence, maps are a good source for cultural analyses
because they often highlight various social views and values (e.g., forest areas, Lake Cerknica, or specific
settlements). At the same time, old maps cannot escape the grasp of myth within the context of semiotic
analysis. Namely, the purpose of a map is to persuade the reader that it is a realistic reflection of an area
and social system (Wood and Fels 1986). Because they always draw their content from a concrete area,
they seek to be reliable, even though they often deviate significantly from reality. However, this already
has to do with the development of cartography, rather than the cartographer’s perception, which has remained
the same until today.
Especially with regard to the representation of relief, the analyses presented in this article reveal the
development from a concrete and symbolic representation (e.g., a molehill representing a hill or moun-
tain) that imitates a stereotypical image from the environment into a more abstract representation and use
of iconic cartographic symbols (e.g., hachures). Other cartographic elements were also found to primari-
ly depict space in an iconic manner on maps created before the nineteenth century. Symbols are stereotypical
metonymic images of a specific feature depicted on the map. This can be clearly seen with forests, which
are depicted with a typical forest element (i.e., a tree or a group of trees); settlements, which are represented
with a building or a group of buildings; and rivers, which are depicted as curvy lines. It can be established
that the metonymic cartographic elements that the cartographers used were sufficiently illustrative and
clear for the maps to still be intelligible and readable today. However, with more recent symbolic cartographic
Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-2, 2023
69
63-2_acta49-1.qxd  4.12.2023  6:25  Page 69
Primož Gašperič, Saša Babič, The semiotics of cartographic symbols on old maps
signs, resulting from the nineteenth-century development of cartography, the readers must know the mean-
ing of an individual sign, regardless of their direct experience with the feature depicted on the map (e.g.,
vegetation, relief, etc.). This is also confirmed by the legend printed on Kozler’s map and the absence of
a legend on all the other maps.
The development from iconic to symbolic cartographic signs is generally apparent, and their conceptual
background can also be traced (e.g., of complete shapes, such as circles or squares). This development is
the most evident with the depictions of settlements, which moved from the symbolic depiction of a clus-
ter of buildings to a symbolic circle or square – that is, a complete form, which could also be interpreted
based on the conception of a settlement as a complete residential product of society. Rivers and roads are
marked very similarly on all maps (i.e., with lines) and on some (e.g., on Kozler’s map) they are difficult
to distinguish. These are conceptually similar representations (lines), which connect places (river routes)
and facilitate transport between them (with boats and rafts).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The authors acknowledge financial support from the Slovenian Research and
Innovation Agency, research core funding Geography of Slovenia (P6-0101) and Ethnological, anthropological
and folklore studies research on everyday life (P6-0088).
6 References
Delano-Smith, C. 2007: Signs on printed topographical maps, ca. 1470–ca. 1640. The History of Cartography 3:
Cartography in the European Renaissance. Chicago, London.
Eco, U. 1976: Theory of Semiotics. Indiana, Bloomington.
Gašperič, P. 2010: O Zemljevidu Ilirskih provinc avtorja Gaetana Palme iz leta 1812. Acta geographica
Slovenica 50-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS50205
Gašperič, P. 2022: Zgodovinska kartografija ozemlja Slovenije. Geografija Slovenije 37. Ljubljana.
Gasperic, P. 2023: A new standardized methodology for analyzing cartographic information on old maps.
Acta geographica Slovenica 63-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS10.867
Gašperič, P., Perko, D., Zorn, M. 2018: Cartographic presentations of borders on old maps of Slovenia. Acta
Geobalcanica 4-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18509/AGB.2018.08
Grafenauer, B. 1960: Struktura in tehnika zgodovinske vede: Uvod v študij zgodovine. Ljubljana.
International Cartographic Association 2003: A  Strategic Plan for the International Cartographic
Association 2003-2011. Durban. Internet: https://icaci.org/files/documents/reference_docs/ICA_
Strategic_Plan_2003-2011.pdf (21. 6. 2022).
Kladnik, D. 2001: Geografija. Tržič.
Kladnik, D., Lovrenčak, F., Orožen Adamič, M. (eds.) 2005: Geografski terminološki slovar. Ljubljana.
Krušič, M. (ur.) 1982: Leksikoni Cankarjeve založbe – geografija. Ljubljana.
Logar, E. 2019: Primerjalna analiza učinkov druženja in sodelovanja v prostovoljnih gasilskih društvih na
primerih podeželskih skupnosti z Gorenjske in Sauerlanda. Geografski vestnik 91-2. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.3986/GV91202
Nöth, W. 1998: Cartosemiotcs and the cartographic sign (Peirce, symbols, icons, maps). Zeitschrift für
Semiotik 20-1,2. Internet: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298943189_Cartosemiotcs_and_the_
cartographic_sign_Peirce_symbols_icons_maps (30. 5. 2022).
Peirce, C. S. 1931-1958: The Collected Writings (8 Vols.). (Ed. Charles Hartshorne, Paul Weiss & Arthur
W. Burks). Cambridge.
Perko, D. 2001: Analiza površja Slovenije s stometrskim digitalnim modelom reliefa. Geografija Slovenije 3.
Ljubljana.
Perko, D., Zorn, M., Ciglič, R., Breg Valjavec, M. 2019: Changing river courses and border determination
challenges: The case of the Slovenian–Croatian border. Geospatial Challenges in the 21st Century. Cham.
Peterca, M., Radošević, N., Milisavljević, S., Racetin, F. 1974: Kartografija. Beograd.
Podobnikar, T., Kokalj, Ž. 2007: Analiza zgodovinskega kartografskega gradiva Triglavskega narodnega
parka. Geografski vestnik 79-2.
Razpotnik Visković, N. 2021: Gastronomy as a social catalyst in the creative place-making process. Acta
geographica Slovenica 61-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.9409
70
63-2_acta49-1.qxd  4.12.2023  6:25  Page 70
Rumsey, D., Williams, M. 2002: Historical maps in GIS. Past Time, Past Place: GIS for History. Redlands.
Saussure, F. de, [1916] 1974: Course in General Linguistics, trans. W. Baskin, London.
Schlichtmann, H. 1985: Characteristic traits of the semiotic system ‘Map Symbolism’. The Cartographic
Journal 22-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1179/caj.1985.22.1.23
Schlichtmann, H. 2009: Overview of the semiotics of maps, Proceedings of the 24th International
Cartographic Conference. Santiago. Internet: https://icaci.org/files/documents/ICC_proceedings/
ICC2009/html/refer/30_1.pdf (7.3.2022).
Schlichtmann, H. 2008. Cartosemiotics. URL: http://www.semioticon.com/seo/C/cartosemiotics.html
(7. 3. 2022)
Slukan Altić, M. 2003: Povijesna kartografija – kartografski izvori u povijesnim znanostima. Samobor.
Štular, B 2010: Jožefinski vojaški zemljevid kot vir za preučevanje preteklih pokrajin. Geografski vestnik
82-1.
Wood, D., Fels, J. 1986: Designs on signs / Myth and meaning in maps. Cartographica: The International
Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization 23-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3138/
R831-50R3-7247-2124
Zorn, M. 2007: Jožefinski vojaški zemljevid kot geografski vir. Geografski vestnik 79-2.
Zorn, M., Breg Valjavec, M., Ciglič, R. 2018: Kartografski viri in viri daljinskega zaznavanja ter njihova
uporabnost za spremljanje dinamike rečnega toka: na primeru mejnih odsekov Drave in Dragonje.
Ustvarjanje slovensko-hrvaške meje. Vpogledi 19. Ljubljana.
Zorn, M., Ciglič, R., Gašperič, P. 2020: Državne meje na ozemlju Slovenije med drugo svetovno vojno na
podlagi kartografskega gradiva okupacijskih sil. Okupacijske meje v Sloveniji 1941–1945. Historia 32.
Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-2, 2023
71
63-2_acta49-1.qxd  4.12.2023  6:25  Page 71