Infrastructure Linkages in Patron-Client Relations

Roles

Author: Lena Pieber

Visualisation concepts: Iaroslav Boretskii and Mela Žuljević 

Cartography: Iaroslav Boretskii

DataLab: Ivaylo Dinev

Advisor: Jana Moser

Iaroslav: Unfortunately, the original e-mail thread with the discussion on what exactly the map was supposed to show was lost. But likewise with many other map requests, Lena needed a more general overview map of Abkhazia, showing settlements, transport infrastructure, relief, and border crossing points (the data for the border crossing points was taken from OpenStreetMap). Technically I approached the mapmaking process through the juxtaposing and checking multiple maps from the web and adding needed data while restyling the existing SVG map of the region, link: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Abkhazia_map-de.svg 

Abkhazia map from Wikimedia Commons.

First version of Abkhazia infrastructure map made by Iaroslav Boretskii.

Contested Place Name Labels 

Although the restyling process was rather straightforward, the biggest challenge emerged within a process of visualizing the toponyms. The issue of place names in Abkhazia is particularly complex. The most prominent example of the naming option issue is demonstrated with the settlement of Novy Afon / Afon Tsytz / Akhali Atoni / New Athos, whose name has entirely different writings in four languages (Russian (with English transliteration of Russian name), Abkhazian, Georgian and English (with is a translation of Russian name). The question is simple: which one to choose?

Ultimately, the first version of the map followed the logic of displaying both Abkhaz and Georgian toponyms on the territory. However, the hierarchy between these languages in the labels was chosen primarily from the standpoint of visually distinguishing one language from the other, so that’s why top labels are more readable than bottom ones. Over time, however, by the stage of preparing the case for the atlas, such an approach inevitably brought a certain hierarchy into the way these toponyms stand. This can be seen in more detail in the email correspondence provided below.

In the revised logic of the map, we came to understand that the first version tended to present Abkhazia more as an entity separate from Georgia, contradicting international law. For this reason, in the second version of the map it was decided to focus on presenting the Georgian name of each location as the primary one, while also including the Abkhaz name of the city in order to account for local linguistic particularities.

Finally, in order to demonstrate the diverse range of possible double labelling options, I developed a somewhat provisional matrix of different approaches that may be used for visualizing toponyms on a map.

Label design proposals by Iaroslav Boretskii.

Mela: While these different label designs are very interesting and with lots of potential, I am not sure that the issue of hierarchy is addressed with the ones focusing on Difference. If one language appears first in the order of reading, it is already favoured. The radial positioning might be the one which manages to confuse this. Overlapping, as we tested in the case of Gäelle Le Pavic, might be something to add to this table. Combining different options is also interesting (for example, colour + positioning).

Then we continue with our email discussion:

Lena: We discussed the toponyms, but there are some more thoughts on this. I would like to share a feedback that I received: “the maps, as they are right now, create the impression that Abkhazia’s viewpoint is prioritized over the principles of international law” (part of Georgian territory). This is definitely not the intention. We have both toponyms, but I was wondering in which way we could highlight the Georgian version of the names? What do the two of you think?

Mela: I agree with the reviewer that it is a political choice on your side on which viewpoint you would want to put first. This is the issue of using multiple labels one above each other as it creates a hierarchy. In Gaelle's case, we are experimenting with overlapping labels but with international names as the most visible one. This works as her project is more ethnographic and it is about how the contested borderlines and territories appear in the field. Also, since she is looking at the borderline from the Georgian side, Georgian names in Latin script are preferred in the hierarchy and Abkhaz ones are only included for border crossing labels. In your case, however, you are presenting the economic agency of Abkhazia, so it might be important to keep the labels as they are with Abkhaz names preferred, with an inclusion of a statement clarifying that this position does not mean to challenge international law. But again, maps are expected to communicate quickly and clearly, so it is more important to take a clear political position. 

Iaroslav: I would like to also add up some thoughts that maybe could become uncovered later in the reflection mode of the Atlas, but Lena, you can also just keep it for your records. The initial decision on the labelling, if I am not wrong, had nothing to do with the Abkhazia's viewpoint to stand out regardless of its belonging to Georgia in the first place. The main challenge obviously laid in this whole complexity of toponyms as a phenomenon. In particular, the case of Afon Tsytz / Akhali Atoni / Novy Afon / New Athos made it quite puzzling to decide what should be the solution to all other settlements' labels, considering that the map initially should've been published as an attachment for the article of the English-speaking academic journal.

The logic behind this solution was following: it is the Abkhaz people who represent the majority there (51%) as well as the Abkhaz language that serves as a dominant one in the extent of Abkhazia. Moreover, the Russian' influence was kept in mind as something that possibly alters the toponymic landscape (with the aforementioned settlement example) and makes it even more complicated when the toponym is translated fro, Russian name of the city to the direct English translation or it gets transliterated from Cyrillic to Latin in order to make it readable for English-speaking audience.

The hierarchy of the Abkhaz/Georgian language on the map, though, was not discussed as such between us back then, but the Georgian toponym was added there rather as a matter of respect to the international law, actually showing the initial connection between Abkhazia and Georgia on a different layer, not only from the notorious dashed borderline. Since the toponyms names are not always matching, the decision was to combine and prioritize the real experience of the place, but taking into account its legal affiliation with Georgia, as stipulated in international law. All of these seemed quite reasonable during the map-making process, in my opinion. 

Lena: I am still thinking about how to best resolve the labeling issue. Historically, the issue is just very complex. I agree with much of both of your thoughts and I like the project of Gaelle, however, it probably won’t work for the maps in my case, as the overlaps might interfere with the images on infrastructure. 

I guess the aim would be to find a visualization that remains consistent with international law while also making visible on the map that the naming of places in Abkhazia is disputed and contested. I therefore believe that a visualization in which both Abkhaz and Georgian place names are equally visible would work best, as this would reflect the politics of naming in a disputed territory.

In the long run, I am considering including all three toponyms (Abkhaz, Georgian, and Russian), but for that we would need to find a solution that works with the more “classic” map we are having, so as not to make it confusing. Perhaps the additional names could appear only when the user hovers over them? While it is true that my case focuses on Abkhazia, the aim of the paper is to highlight the interconnectedness and characteristics of its relationships with both Russia and Georgia, including their historical dimensions. In this way, I believe that foregrounding the different narratives and toponyms comes closest to capturing what I am trying to do in my work.

Showing 'invisible' infrastructuring

Two maps showing the use of 'patches' to represent invisible infrastructure.

Mela: We wanted to indicate that there are visible marks of economic agency on the map, such as built infrastructure. But we also wanted to experiment with visualising the less visible aspects of economic agency - or less material ones, such as economic agreements while indicating that these can be difficult to trace and show. For this reason, we used an icon resembling ‘patches’ with labels which shortly appear to indicate an agreement, and then disappear again. 

Lena: My only question is whether the names of the agreements could be placed at the side instead of directly on the map. 

Or, maybe better: if we keep them “on the map”, I would suggest removing the “empty fields” reserved for contracts. It seems sufficient for contracts to appear only when they are actually shown, and then once more at the end. Keeping these empty fields visible throughout may be unnecessarily confusing for the viewer.

Mela: I agree that they turned out too visually “present” in the final maps - my idea was that the remaining patches would be a subtle sign of the agreement on the map, but now they look too overpowering. However we ran into an issue with the original files…. But we plan to adjust this in the next stages.

Iaroslav: While working on the timeline map sequence I ran into a rather unexpected, somewhat foolish, but at the same time very real problem connected to working in a local environment. Since I preferred to handle this project through vector files (Affinity Designer), I was working on them locally. Unfortunately, after a password change, I lost access to my work laptop and could no longer use the files there. Because of a very ordinary but consequential login error, I was effectively locked out of the laptop and had to erase all the data on the device in order to use it again.

This led me to a very simple lesson: it is absolutely essential to maintain a reliable connection between local work and cloud storage. By now, this issue has been resolved in my own workflow, and of course keeping backup copies of files is something that has long been considered standard practice. Still, even in 2026 I found myself running into exactly this problem. 

So cloud-first, keep backups, write passwords, save iterations – essential workflow approach! It was a good reminder to have.