of the graphics) on population; immigration; war; energy reserves, consumption, and balance;

mineral exports; wealth creation; trade; and health, wealth, and standards of living data. These are

significant modifications but it might be important for prospective buyers to know that that portion of

the atlas most often used (the geographic and political maps) has been very little changed between

these two editions.

Choice between the Oxford Atlas of the World and the National Geographic Atlas of the World is

largely a matter of personal preference. The National Geographic lacks much of the information to

be found in the thematic pages of the Oxford Atlas but the National Geographic seems to be more

preoccupied with providing the reader with the most complete and largest scale coverage of every

part of the world. There is considerably more overlap between the National Geographic maps which

thus offers the reader a variety of representations of border areas. On the other hand, it is so

concerned to make the best use of its greater size (110 £ 150 versus 120 £ 180) that its maps flow into

the gutter of each page. I prefer the Oxford Atlas’s physiographic depiction but I actively dislike its

political maps (they remind me too much of old school atlases: great blotches of dirty colour). The

index map on the front endpaper of the Oxford Atlas is incomplete: the reader is directed to the back

page for a key to Europe and obliged to lift the full weight of the atlas pages to begin looking at that

portion of the atlas.

When all is said and done, given the interactive capabilities of software technology these days, why

are most great atlas producers not also trying to compete with the relatively unexciting Encarta

software? Maps on the computer screen are easier to access than heavy, bulky and hard-to-store

atlases. Searching for place names and even rough locations is far easier (and therefore more likely to

be pursued to the end). The scales at which one can consult the map are greater and one can shift scales

far more easily than with conventional maps. And, when one is traveling one can bring a volume of

atlas material that no one would carry in book form. I am not suggesting that we give up on the paper

atlas. But couldn’t we just slip a CD-Rom atlas into a pocket affixed to the back endpaper of the

atlas?… Please?

Michael Crutcher

Department of Geography

University of Kentucky

USA

doi:10.1016/j.jhg.2004.03.009

David Meyer, The Roots of American Industrialization, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore,

2003, xi þ 333 pages, £32.00 hardback.

As a reviewer, this is a difficult book to pin down. Since debates about the sources of industrialisation are

well-established, any new addition has the challenge of providing a new angle or interpretation.

In general, Meyer provides an impressive work of synthesis rather than a major re-interpretation. The

book analyses the contributions of agriculture and rural society to the emergence of industrialization in

Reviews / Journal of Historical Geography 30 (2004) 419–447428

the north-eastern US between 1790 and the 1850s. The book deals with the period from 1790 to 1820 and

then with developments after 1820. The intention is to critique a conventional picture of north-eastern

agriculture as a declining sector, constrained by poor soils and the increasing competition from more

productive mid-western farmers. This image certainly exists and often general texts moved swiftly past

north-eastern farming in pursuit of industrial glamour. Even so, the book risks being an attack on an

elderly or partial strawman and Meyer spends little time establishing the contributors to, and parameters

of, this negative interpretation. Certainly, a fuller introduction and conclusion would be required to

establish the novelty of Meyer’s interpretation within the field. The book’s thesis is that rural society was

dynamic, productive and an important support to the development of improved transport and

manufacturing industries. There was slow growth from 1790 to 1820, but a good economic and social

basis was laid for later rapid industrialization. The case is well-argued and reasonable in its conclusions,

but it carries conviction, in part, because it rests on an extensive and existing literature that has already

developed this line of argument.

The book’s strength and main contribution lies in offering a very effective synthesis and, even more, in

providing a detailed exploration of the economy and society of the north-east between 1790 and 1860.

Although in relative decline, the absolute numbers engaged in agriculture increased in the north-east to 1860.

Meyer characterises the region’s farmers as innovative and highly responsive to the market signals and to the

implications of changes in transport costs. The book discusses in great detail the ways in which farmers in

various locations shifted their output away from staples into dairying, market gardening and other higher-

value crops. As a result agriculture aided industrialization by increasing its own productivity, facilitating the

expansion of urban populations, eventually releasing labour, promoting transport improvements and

providing a market for manufactured goods. These linkages are carefully documented through discussions of

the various local economies of the north-east. The underlying methodology is based on Von Thunen

principles, though Meyer identifies various departures from this theory and draws on elements of historical

geography and economic history. There are thorough discussions of urban development and its relationships

to various rural hinterlands and to changes in the balance between rural industries and agriculture. This

aspect involves careful depictions of the processes of decline in handicraft industries and the shifting patterns

of specialisation among local industries such as cotton textiles, footwear, hats, brass, and clocks. Again the

synthesis of existing literature works well, though the accounts of the different forms of textile

manufacturing, such as the Boston Associates or the smaller scale ventures in Philadelphia, are orthodox.

The analysis has some notable elements. For instance, Meyer offers a sustained argument for the

effectiveness and scope of road transportation as part of his case for the early roots of economic development.

He emphasises the need for two transhipments and wagon carriage of any produce shipped by canal or

railway. Road transport’s competitiveness also relied on farmers devoting their own labour to hauling

produce on long journeys. Thus, roads rather than canals or railways are seen as the beginnings of successful

transport systems. In addition, the evaluation of rural–urban links relies a good deal on the key roles of

wholesalers and merchants. Their activities are placed within the context of local and regional social

networks as important sources of information, trust and co-operation in industrial, commercial and

infrastructure projects. This perspective works well in explaining differences between regions in terms of

their economic performance. In places a wider comparative dimension would have been useful, perhaps

through drawing on the debates about proto-industrialisation in Europe. It might have helped in defining the

distinctive features of the north-east region. Overall Meyer’s work is a notable contribution to clarifying

the economic development of a major region, though perhaps more an extension of a trend in the

historiography than a challenge to convention.

Reviews / Journal of Historical Geography 30 (2004) 419–447 429

Michael French

Department of Economic and Social History

University of Glasgow

UK

doi:10.1016/j.jhg.2004.03.008

Peirce F. Lewis, New Orleans: The Making of an Urban Landscape, second edition, University of

Virginia Press, Charlottesville, Virginia, 2003, 208 pages, $19.50 paperback.

In 1976 Pierce Lewis penned a New Orleans ‘vignette’ for the Association of American Geographers’

Comparative Metropolitan Analysis Project. As Lewis would write in the text itself, at the time there

existed ‘an uncommon scarcity of serious scholarly work on the city’. Lewis’s vignette filled that void.

Despite the utility of the study, however, the book existed out of print for many years. The second edition

(2003) reproduces the original work with minor revisions as ‘Book One’, and appends four chapters as

‘Book Two’ titled ‘The City Transformed, 1975–2002’.

From the outset, Lewis’s original account of New Orleans establishes the city as unique and eccentric.

He uses an island analogy (New Orleans as: ‘The Island city’, ‘Island among Cajuns’, ‘Island in the

South’ and ‘Island as World City’) to cleverly discuss the uniqueness of the city at various scales. The

second chapter, ‘A Place on the River’ attempts to reconcile what Lewis describes as the city’s ‘evil site’

and ‘excellence of situation’. The discussion may seem excessive for those unfamiliar or unconcerned

with the natural environment but Lewis effectively communicates that the uniqueness of New Orleans is

inexorably linked to its physical site. The third chapter, ‘The Stages of Metropolitan Growth’ weaves

together the threads of economy, technology, innovation, migration, and public policy to present an

image of New Orleans as a city that developed in four stages. Lewis concludes the first edition by

commenting on the additions to New Orleans’s built landscape associated with the oil boom of the 1970s

and bleak outlook based on what Lewis calls the city’s ‘racial geography’.

‘Book Two’ begins with the chapter ‘Rediscovering the River’. In contrast to Book One’s river

chapter concerning the fluvial and geomorphological aspects of New Orleans and the Mississippi River,

Chapter 4 chronicles the development of a downtown riverfront tourist landscape beginning in the oil

boom years of the 1970s and 1980s and continuing to the present day. The story of tourism is juxtaposed

to the transformation of the Port of New Orleans in the uptown area from deteriorating wharves to a

modern container port. The following chapter (5) addresses the social fallout that accompanied the mid

1980s oil bust. Lewis links the economic despair that accompanied the loss of oil revenues with the

decades old phenomena of out-migration (particularly white) to the out-lying parishes. The migration

inescapably led to increases in the percentage of blacks as a percentage of the population, concentrating

poverty and contributing to the crisis in public education and housing conditions. The population shift

Lewis alludes to in Chapter 5 is fleshed out in Chapter 6 where Lewis discusses St Tammany Parish’s

replacement of Jefferson Parish as the suburban destination of New Orleaneans. Lewis returns to the

topic at hand with a discussion of the current trends in gentrification and a revealing look at New

Orleans’s gay landscape. Lewis’s omission of geographer Lawrence Knopp’s work on gay gentrification

in New Orleans is puzzling however.

Reviews / Journal of Historical Geography 30 (2004) 419–447430