The decline of the Ottoman Empire in the late 19th century led to fierce territorial competition between the Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians and Turks, in particular over the contested region of Macedonia. As a result, a large number of maps attempting to depict the ethnic demographics of the Balkans were published at this time, particularly from 1876 onwards, following a Serb and Montenegrin uprising and the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878. Maps were produced and used by the various sides to justify their claims. The phenomenon has been labelled as a "map mania".
Greeks, Serbs, and Bulgarians tended to manipulate and distort the maps, also relying on fake sources and modifying old data. The maps depicted ethnic groups as blocks of solid colors, obscured ethnic diversity, merged sub-groups into dominant ethnicities, and ignored population density. In order to provide an impression of uniformity and stability, substantial minorities (even up to 49 percent in some cases) and scattered communities were omitted; map's scale was adjusted according to the map's aim whether to include or exclude specific minorities.
The maps by Ami Boué and Guillaume Lejean were influential in the early period, and were generally favorable to the Bulgarians, but they greatly exaggerated Albanian presence towards the south, and their reputation suffered as a result. The 1876 map by Heinrich Kiepert was particularly influential and used at the Congress of Berlin. In response, three pro-Greek maps were generated due to Greek efforts (Stanford, Bianconi, Synvet), but these had little impact, and no one outside Greece took them seriously. The standard Greek practice in all the maps it produced was to consider as Greeks not only the Greek-speakers, but also all the Christian Vlachs (Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians), the Christian Albanians, and the Exarchist Slavs, an approach rejected by international figures.
| Image | Date | Cartographer | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1847 | The first map to show Slavic preponderance in the Balkans (until 1880). Among the maps' major mistakes are that it greatly exaggerated the southward presence of Albanians, while underrepresenting Ottomans and Muslims in Macedonia, Thrace, and northeastern Bulgaria, thereby ruining its reputation.[1] Boué was supported by the Austrian government and served Austrian imperial interests. | ||
| 1861 | The map further served to legitimize Bulgarian aspirations. Although it was the first map to rely on historical documents, it confused historical arguments with the contemporary situation, and secondly, incorrectly extended Albanian presence too far southwards.[2] | ||
| 1867 | Pro-Bulgarian map, which served as the basis of the Slavic Congress of 1867. It expanded the boundaries of the Bulgarian nation past Adrianople, and following Boué's map, also greatly exaggerated Albanian presence west of the Pindus, extending it down to the Gulf of Corinth. As a result, the map's reputation suffered and it was labeled unreliable with regards to the rest of its content. | ||
| 1876 | Kiepert was considered the foremost cartographer of his day, particularly by Bismarck, and his map was used at the 1876 Congress of Berlin. | ||
| 1877 | Pro-Greek map. Southern Albanians are not depicted as "Albanians", but as "Greeks" and "Muslims". The coast of the Black sea is indicated as "Greek". The map's coloring with thick and dense cross-hatching makes it more or less useless. | ||
| 1877 | Former Austrian consul working for Austrian interests. His map undermined Slavic presence and also attempted to show the complexity of the demographics of Macedonia. The map was generally well-received. | ||
| 1877 | Ioannis Gennadios, prepared at Stanfords Geographical Establishment | Extreme pro-Greek map, which covers most of the Balkan peninsula with the color associated with the Greeks. Cartographers Sax and Kiepert 'dismissed the map as utter nonsense'. | |
| 1878 | Extreme pro-Greek map, falsely attributed to Heinrich Kiepert who publicly disclaimed it. | ||
| 1880 | |||
| 1881 | Andrees Allgemeiner Handatlas | ||
| 1897 | Pallas Nagy Lexikon | ||
| 1898 | |||
| 1911 | Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 | ||
| 1911 | William Robert Shepherd | ||
| 1916 | War Office, London | ||
| 1918 | Pro-Serbian map. | ||
| 1918 | Jovan Cvijić | Pro-Serbian map. | |
| 1918 | George Soteiriades | Pro-Greek map. Less extreme than the previous Greek maps, but continuing the Greek approach that considered Vlachs (Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians), Christian Albanians, and Patriarchate Bulgarians as Greeks, although acknowledging the existence of "Macedonoslavs". It was presented at the Paris conference of 1918 and represented the more realistic approach of Eleftherios Venizelos. | |
| 1918 | National Georgaphic Society | ||
| 1922 | J. N. Larned et al. | ||
| 1924 | Unknown author - Historische alte Landkarte (Sammlerstück) 1924 | ||
| 1932 | Der Grosse Herder Atlas | ||
"It was Ami Boué, five years later, who drew the attention of the Western public opinion to the ethnic question and the Slavic predominance in the Balkans. In fact, the series of maps indicating Bulgarian predominance over the peninsula (a tendency remaining dominant until the 1880s) starts with Boué. Being a geologist (and not an ethnographer), he was among the first men trained for scientific fieldwork to explore the Balkan Peninsula in 1836–38. His attempt to separate Albanian tribes based on religion and dialects is remarkable, but his map contains major mistakes: the Albanian ethnos extends to the Bay of Arta in Greece, and the Ottomans are underrepresented in Macedonia. These mistakes ruined the reputation of the whole map. Compared to Šafarik's work, the map of Boué (published in 1847 in Berghaus's atlas) indicates fewer Greeks in Thrace and more Albanians in Kosovo and indicates the Vlachs separately in the Pindos Mountains. This map also underestimated the Turkish/Muslim presence in northeastern Bulgaria and in Thrace (App. 28). It is noteworthy that Boué was also supported by the Austrian government in his endeavour."
"The map of Guillaume Lejean also served as a basis for the legitimization of Bulgarian aspirations (App. 30). Traveling the Ottoman Balkans in 1858–9, the consul pointed out in the introduction of his work (1861) that studying ethnographic relations is no longer an "object of purely scientific curiosity", but a political issue as well, implicitly stating that science cannot remain neutral in its attitudes toward the national question. He separated himself from the previous ethnographers, claiming that language alone is not an adequate criterion for determining nationality in a region where "religious hatred and political inequality" overwrite original patterns, and people adopt languages that did not correspond to their "race". Instead he advised the use of historical evidence to determine nationality. This is why he indicated small Serbian patches around Lake Ohrid, confirming their existence by using historical arguments (in the nineth century, the whole area as far as Durazzo was Slavic; a local saint – Jovan Vladislav of Duklja – was well-known to Serbs and was executed by a Bulgarian ruler in the 11th century; the neighbouring patriarchate of Ipek was a 'Serbian' one). Although he was the first to use historical documents to prove his statements, he committed two serious errors: he confused arguments from history with the contemporary situation; secondly, the southern limits of the Albanian nation were wrongly drawn."