Abstract
Recent appraisals of historical geography range widely in their assessment of the field. Donald Meinig (1989), writing of ‘The Historical Geography Imperative,’ concludes: ‘historical geography is not, has never been, just another item in the proliferating diversity of our grand enterprise. Rather, like physical and environmental geography, it is one of the foundations of the whole enterprise. In its own way historical geography encompasses and contributes to all of geography. Micheal Dear (1988) disagrees. In ‘The postmodern challenge: Reconstructing human geography,’ he states that historical geography is ‘overde-termined,’ and ‘an empty concept' conveying ‘few (if any) significant analytical distinctions …. He concludes that historical geography does ‘little more than confirm what geography is about. Both writers agree on the pervasive and comprehensive nature of historical geography, but Dear sees this inclusiveness as more of a cincture, whereas Meinig conveys the fundamental and embracing understanding of geography inherent in the practice of historical geography.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
