Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros26Contre-cartographies, (Contre-)ca...Counter-Cartographies, Indigenous...

Contre-cartographies, (Contre-)cartographies amérindiennes

Counter-Cartographies, Indigenous (Counter-)Cartographies

Agnès Trouillet et Baptiste Lavat
Cet article est une traduction de :
Contre-cartographies, (Contre-)cartographies amérindiennes [fr]
Autre(s) traduction(s) de cet article :
Contra-cartografias, (Contra-)cartografias ameríndias [pt]
Contracartografías, (Contra)cartografías indígenas [es]

Texte intégral

1In his seminal work Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism, Benedict Anderson mentions the map as one of the three institutions of power, along with the census and the museum, which deeply influenced the way the colonial state imagined its domination: “the nature of the human beings it ruled, the geography of its domain, and the legitimacy of its ancestry” (Anderson B., 2006: 167). As full-fledged instruments of colonizing strategies from the 18th century on, maps set linear borders between territories where centralized authorities prevail, replacing myriads of entities which, until then, exercised various forms of sovereignty (Elden S., 2013). They not only represented the world according to geometrical references, but also began to define its visual representation, while forms of authority that were not represented any longer progressively disappeared from the colonial imagination (Branch J., 2014). The presence of Indigenous peoples was thus gradually, and literally, erased from European maps in the 17th and 18th centuries. New cartographic techniques relied on Euclidean geometry and geographical precision, as opposed to Indigenous conceptions of space and territory. However, Indigenous and Afro-descendant territorialities refused to be reduced to divisions originating in colonial modernity, as argued by authors such as Carlos Walter Porto-Gonçalves (2006), Arturo Escobar (2008), and Rogerio Haesbaert (2004), who write that cartography also represents a place of confrontation between, on the one hand, non-hegemonic knowledge and world representations and, on the other hand, dominant or dominating ethnocentric rationalities. Denis Wood (1992) uses the concept of the “power of maps” in order to highlight the biases resulting from the necessary selection processes their making implies. Far from being impartial objects, maps are instruments of communication, persuasion and power, and endure as norms of the Westphalian system of territorial sovereignty by embodying their commissioners’ interests. The ideal associated with maps as objective and neutral images of the world should then be questioned, as they include mistakes, omissions, points of view, and values.

2This thematic issue draws on the post-representational approach of cartography, based on the scholarship of geographer J. B. Harley, who has since 1989 suggested we “deconstruct” (Harley J. B., 1989) the map in order to highlight its omissions, its “cartographic silences” (Woodward D. and G. M. Lewis, 1998: 77), which are as important as the elements that are represented—geographer Matthieu Noucher (2023) mentions that, with even hyper-localization, maps still have “blanks”. This approach also allows us to go beyond the notion of the map as graphic representation of space, in order to show conceptions, practices, and methodologies of the way space is understood. The map should also be considered relationally, i.e. as expressing processes and not only one situation at one point in time (Edney M., 2019). Maps thus can serve as tools for the construction of counter-narratives and counter-cartographies, offering alternative cognitive modes and various ways of representing space and of inhabiting the world. In relation to critical or radical geography, counter-cartography questions the hegemony of the map as an instrument of universal representation of space (Bracco D. and L. Genay, 2021; Edney M., 2019; Harley J. B., 2002; Harvey, D., 2011; Monmonnier M., 2018; Peluso N. L., 1995; Wood D., 1992). The term “counter-cartography” was used for the first time in 1995 by rural sociologist Nancy Lee Peluso, to describe the maps of forest areas that were produced in order to protest against official maps, which threatened Indigenous peoples’ right to use forests in the Kalimantan, Indonesia region—counter-hegemonic maps that helped agitate for their rights. Over the last two decades, counter-cartographic processes have increased, as they have been used all over the world to question power relations and develop perspectives that allow for the emancipation of populations that are under-represented in political, as well as scientific and artistic, activism, as shown in Nephtys Zwer’s book (2023). Their effectiveness has been facilitated by the evolution of GIS technologies, and of databases like Native Land Information System (NLIS) which allow to create maps showing the delineation of Indigenous ancestral territories invisible on official land surveys. The democratization of cartographic practices, however, should not hide the fact that they require a favorable environment in order to fully express their potential (Cohen P. and M. Duggan, 2023).

  • 1 “d’une part l’appropriation des conventions cartographiques occidentales à des fins d’émancipation (...)

3This issue explores the plasticity of the map concept, by studying examples of objects and practices aiming at expressing and representing relationships to the land. In keeping with Cartographies autochtones (Ethier B., Gagnon J. and C. Coocoo, 2025), it considers the concept of Indigenous cartographies in a broad sense : “on the one hand the appropriation of western cartographic conventions for political emancipation and the recognition of rights, and on the other hand the techniques, knowledge, and forms of cartographic representations developed by Indigenous peoples themselves (Hirt I., 2009, 2022)”1 (Ethier B., Gagnon J. and C. Coocoo, 2025). We should consider the relationship with Indigenous geographies, as Indigenous peoples have a long tradition of cartographic practices (Woodward D. and G. M. Lewis, 1998). Critical cartography encourages us to view them as full-fledged maps, outside of western conventions, and it sees non-western maps as critical contributions to the expression of spatial epistemologies (Belyea B., 1998; Brückner M., 2011; Edney M., 2019; Jacob C., 1992; Wood D., 1992). It is however not our intention to essentialize, as if there were “one” Indigenous vision, but we can find common denominators in the several articles in this issue, particularly when it comes to Indigenous societies’ connection with the territory, in relation to the resources it offers, and whose knowledge should be transmitted to future generations, as shown through the importance of toponymy—identities being defined in particular by their inscription in places. The holistic conception of space—human and non human, terrestrial and celestial, living and non living—is another aspect of this issue, as spiritual and cosmological dimensions often prevail over the precise and exact topography required by western conventions. Finally, the claim for worlds beyond the colonial frame of reference (Pearce M. and R. P. Louis, 2008), as well as the expression of historical, political, territorial, environmental or cultural sovereignties, are an important part of the contributions.

4It is necessary to place such geographies and practices at the “center” if cartography’s decolonizing project should go beyond the framework of colonical cartography (Rose-Redwood R. et al., 2020: 151). As Frantz Fanon suggested before, there cannot be decolonization without the reconfiguration of colonial borders, which have imposed “knowledge” on territories and traced limits that have determined an oppressive frame (Fanon F., 1961). Only then can the postcolonial decentering of the Western world happen and a postcolonial, and decolonial, epistemology be formed (Renault M., 2018). We should finally underline the fact that counter-cartographies are not confined to being mere answers to colonial tools, but they represent a continuity with precolonial epistemologies and ontologies: Indigenous cartography preexisted colonial maps, which accounts for the parentheses between the term “counter” in the title of this issue.

5This issue gathers papers written by historians, geographers, archeologistes, Latin American and US studies scholars, specialists of cartography, GIS information technologies and satellite navigation, as well as actors of the cultural, museum and conservation world in France and the Americas. Their varied and innovative methodologies rely on various sources: archives, archeological research, oral history, field work allowing Indigenous voices to express themselves. One of the essays was written by the representatives of Indigenous communities in North America who work in a collaborative research project with members of the Musée du quai Branly-Jacques Chirac. We hope that this variety of approaches, which is the result of research at different stages, will contribute to a scholarship that needs to develop.

6Dealing with different periods and geographical, linguistic and cultural areas (Chaco, Colombia, the United States, French Guiana, Panama, Paraguay, Uruguay), the issue opens with a conceptual introduction, which presents a study of space and representations of the surface of the Earth, alluding to the first definition of the word “geography,” i.e. the drawing of the Earth. The diversity of the projections aiming at the “cartographic ideal” (Edney M., 2019), of a mimetic image of the Earth offering a reciprocal geometry, reminds us that there are as many maps as there are functions and uses. This text, by eminent specialist of the history of cartography Matthew H. Edney, the director since 2005 of the History of Cartography Project of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, differs from other contributions because of its focus on intellectual history and on (counter)cartography understood in a broad sense, without insisting on its Indigenous aspects present in the other essays. The articles are then presented in chronological order, from the colonial to the hyper-contemporary period, and are classified according to their methodological approaches. Reading French, English, and Spanish colonial maps reveals Indigenous epistemological contributions as well as their rich geopolitical and socio-cultural dynamics at work in the territory but which have been erased. The essays on the more contemporary period show the adaptation to geographical, cognitive and legal systems that are centered on Europe, as well as their subversive quality and capacity for resistance. Finally, in relation to this issue, we also present an interview with Colombian-Australian visual artist Luz Angela Hernandez, whose creative processes and experience with Indigenous communities in Colombia and other territories expand and diversify our argument and reflections.

7In his article, Matthew Edney, the editor of the volume Cartography in the European Enlightenment in the University of Chicago Press series on cartography (Edney, M. and M. Sponberg Pedley, 2020), studies the “modernist” counter-cartographies of three U.S. designers who redesigned the world map in the first half of the 20th century. Bernard Cahill, Richard Edes Harrison and R. Buckminster Fuller offered counter-cartographies that fragmented and restructured the globe, in order to represent the interdependence of continents and humankind. After analyzing the use of world maps in the 19th century, explaining the formation and fractures in normative world cartography, the author presents the innovative models of those designers: Cahill’s segmented Butterfly Map, Harrison’s circular projections centered on the Northern hemisphere, and Fuller’s Dymaxion™ polyhedron map. After initially rejecting them, post-WWII geographers appropriated such counter-cartographical acts, claiming for their inherent creativity in the conception of maps as geographers. The designers’ criticism of the map thus did not end the “cartographical ideal” (Edney M., 2019), but contributed to widening its contours.

8S. Max Edelson shows the way the first maps published in South Carolina distorted the picture of inner lands populated by Indigenous peoples. Such distorsions, originating in the compilation of erroneous and dated sources, or of inconsistent imaginary representations, show ignorance of geography and of cultural dynamics within this territory. In the 1720s, the Catawbas presented South Carolina’s Governor with a painted deerskin representing the Indigenous and European settlements in the region: the author suggests that this map, called Catawba Deerskin Map, shows a process of “countercartography,” through which the Catawbas questioned European representations by presenting an Indigenous view of places and populations of North American Southeast. It is the Catawba Map, one of the few Indigenous maps from the colonial period in North America to have survived, which was chosen to illustrate this issue.

9Casey Price analyzes the toponyms present in the first French and English colonial maps of the Southeast to examine the “coalescence” process in the Cherokee territories from the end of the 17th century on. It sheds light on the process, which is still not well-documented, through which Indigenous communities that are culturally different gathered to form a new distinctive society. The author shows that this coalescence took place within only a few generations and was fostered by demographic superiority rather than violence. He uses maps of the Mississippi Valley by Jolliet and Marquette (1673), Franquelin (1684), then de Delisle (1701, 1718) to trace those dynamics, insisting on the crucial contribution of Indigenous information integrated into the colonial maps in terms of cultural and geopolitical evolution, which were still largely ignored until recently.

10Kazuhisa Takeda and Guillermo Wilde explore missionary and Indigenous cartography in the Jesuit mission towns in the Rio de la Plata and Paraguay, focusing on the practices of memorization and territorial legitimation implemented in the 17th and 18th centuries. Their article shows how cartography was adopted by Guarani populations for the defense of their land rights and the construction of alternative territorial narratives. The analysis relies on a wide documentation that includes inventories, land deeds and maps, as well as the examination of the Guarani terms “retangue” and “tetangue”, which designate the territories claimed since “time immemorial.” The study of the cases of San Francisco Javier, San Miguel and San Cosme y Damián, among others, shows the way the territorial memory of mission towns was materialized and kept through maps and official documents, while integrating Indigenous peoples’ knowledge and memory.

11Laura Pensa’s article is based on Patricia Seed’s research on ceremonies of possessions (1995), in the South American lowlands and in particular Chaco. In the 18th century, only a small part of this space was controlled by the Spanish monarchy and the majority of Indigenous groups kept some autonomy based on mobility, dispersion and diversified subsistence modes. It was in this context that the tensions between forms of colonial possession and Indigenous territorialities took shape, as illustrated by the episode of the “Peace of La Cangayé” (1774): the map which was produced to represent it does not show evidence of pacification and control, but it proves to be a paradoxical document, showing Spanish diplomacy but also traces of Indigenous resistance and silence (blank spaces) of an unknown territory.

12The essay written by Sabrina Colmenárez Gómez, Camila Gianotti García, Valentina Febrero, Carlos Marín Suárez and Nicolás Gazzán deals with cerritos de indios—anthropic mounds in the plains of Uruguay—as real “islands of memory” shaped by prehispanic societies and invested with plural meanings over time. The authors’ lab uses GIS technologies to revisibilize those mounds, which are ignored by official databases. Considered within a larger perspective, at the junction of archeology, environmental history and anthropology of memory, those structures are symbolical and territorial systems, where agricultural, funerary and ritual practices meet. The essay offers a critical reading of inherited archeological categories, which for a long time reduced such structures to static artefacts, by underlining their dynamic role in the production of landscapes and sociabilities. Furthermore, it widens our understanding of cerritos by viewing them as places of memory, where a specific relation between humans, the environment and time is materialized.

13The essay written by Jonas Musco, Paz Núñez-Regueiro, Everett Bandy, Ryan Spring and Ian Thompson brings a singular dimension to this issue, as it originates in the scientific and cultural project CRoyAN (Collections Royales d’Amérique du Nord) hosted by the Musée du quai Branly-Jacques Chirac. Led collaboratively by Jonas Musco et Paz Núñez-Regueiro, who are the museum’s representatives, and partners from the Choctaw, Miami, Peoria and Quapaw nations, this project is about the historical and material study of textual and visual sources from Indigenous nations, as well as their conservation and transmission to future generations. The article offers a first feedback on this initiative, whose interest also lies in the renewal of classical historiographical questions. By adopting a counter-cartographic perspective, the scholars examine the underlying ideologies of colonial maps, and, thanks to toponymy, trace Indigenous peoples’ presence and agency in the spatial structuration of territories. As a meeting point between academic expertise and Indigenous nations’ knowledge, the project represents a model, where historical cartography is considered as a living object conveying both memory and history, and fuels both scientific thinking and cultural “reconnection” initiatives.

14Sandrine Baudry and Céline Planchou investigate Lakota cartographic and narrative practices, analyzing them as instruments of resistance and adaptation to colonialism and showing that, far from being mere answers to colonial tools, they testify to an epistemological and ontological continuity. Drawing from a bibliography in Indigenous studies, geography and ethnohistory, the authors examine contemporary Lakota cartographic practices around Rapid City, South Dakota. Examples of maps, some of which use ledger art, show the evolution of Lakota territory through stratification, while highlighting the way spatial and spiritual connections to that space have been maintained. Other artistic practices and contemporary projects reassert Lakota Indigenous sovereignty, whose positioning in the public space encourages activism around such issues.

15Lucie Genay offers a deep analysis of the relationships between the Shoshone and Bannock (Sho-Bans) communities and the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), highlighting the way Indigenous groups can influence institutionalized spaces while preserving their cultural and territorial sovereignty. The cradle of U.S. atomic electricity, the INL is located on the ancestral lands of the Shoshone and Bannock peoples, who were relocated about forty miles from what is now the nuclear facility in 1868, but who kept their hunting, fishing, picking and ceremony traditions, even on lands occupied by the nuclear site. This article illustrates how, on a territory that is dominated by power relations and energy policy, the Sho-Bans progressively transformed their invisibility into a recognized and legitimate presence, the result of years of protest and alliances with local antinuclear forces. By reappropriating their territory and controlling access to certain infrastructures, they have implemented a form of strategic cartography, transforming space into a lever of power and a negotiation tool.

16Caroline Delattre offers a contemporary approach to French Guiana around the land issue, a useful lens to explore historical, political and identity dynamics dominating this territory, through the approach of human geography. From the first claims made by Indigenous activist Kali’na Félix Tiouka in 1984 to the 2017 Agreement, which promised the restitution of 400,000 hectares, land is a tangible issue but also a symbol of local aspirations and frustrations, articulated around social and spatial justice and identity recognition. The analysis is based on a corpus composed of field observations and semi-structured interviews with various sociopolitical actors, as well as a documentary corpus from Guiana’s mediascape. This methodology allows us to understand the complexity of discourses and practices around territory, in a multicultural and postcolonial context, in which Indigenous, the descendants of Maroons and Creole peoples claim for their historical relationship to land, structuring processes of identity construction.

17Laura Lema Silva writes on the Wayuu people’s identity through their relationship to their original territory and the strategies implemented to preserve it against colonizing attempts. Drawing from interviews with anthropologist Weildler Guerra Curvelo, poet Miguel Ángel López Hernández and “palabrero” Guillermo Ojeda Jauariyú, as well as their writings, the study sheds light on the way the Wayuu people conceptualize their territory, combining tangible spaces and invisible territories. The analysis of oral narratives and territorial markers allows the author to show that those elements symbolize both mythical temporalities and real social systems, structuring daily life and reciprocity practices. The text also highlights the way movements “toward the outside,” whether they take the form of dreams, historical commercial exchanges or journeys, take part in the construction of alternative spaces and the defense of the Wayuu people’s territorial and epistemological autonomy.

18Finally, Yann Voisin, deals with the social, cultural, and territorial transformations of the Naso, an Indigenous group in Panama which was for a long time considered as close to cultural and linguistic extinction, through the study of the recent creation of the Naso Tjër Di Comarca in 2020 and the spiritual and daily practices that are linked to it. He shows the way the Naso have used their ancestral knowledge and corporeal practices, including walking, which is considered in the anthropological sense of the word as a social institution, which allows to examine the connections between corporality, territoriality and identity in changing Indigenous worlds. The article also explains the way the forest constitutes a place of knowledge transmission, of topographical memory and of encounters with non-humans, and how the figure of the grandmother Tjër still structures social organization and cultural transmissions.

19We hope that this issue will “show,” as a map would, the multiplicity of perspectives that we hoped to highlight. We would have liked to include more. In any case, our goal is to question the binary division between different types of objects and practices, in order to understand richness inherent to different epistemologies. The wealth of approaches, of interactions, is an invitation to continue work on such questions, in conversation and collaboration with Indigenous societies. This is a contribution to the defense of their sovereignities and the preservation of their cultures.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Anderson, Benedict, L’imaginaire national : Réflexions sur l’origine et l’essor du nationalisme, translated from English by Pierre-Emmanuel Dauzat, Paris, La Découverte, 2006 [1996].

Belyea, Barbara, “Inland Journeys, Native Maps”, in G. Malcolm Lewis (ed.), Cartographic Encounters, Perspectives on Native American Mapmaking and Map Use, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1998, p. 135-155.

Bracco, Diane, and Lucie, Genay (eds.), Contre-cartographier le monde, Collection “Espaces humains”, Limoges, Presses Universitaires de Limoges, 2021.

Branch, Jordan, The Cartographic State - Maps, Territory, and the Origins of Sovereignty, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Brückner, Martin (ed.), Early American Cartographies, Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press, 2011.

Cohen, Phil et Mike Duggan (eds.), New Directions in Radical Cartography - Why the Map is Never the Territory, Londres, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2023.

Edney, Matthew H., and Mary, Sponberg Pedley (eds.), The History of Cartography, Volume Four – Cartography in the European Enlightenment, Chicago and London, The University of Chicago Press, 2020.

Edney, Matthew H., Cartography – The Ideal and Its History, Chicago and London, The University of Chicago Press, 2019.

Elden, Stuart, The Birth of Territory, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 2013.

Éthier, Benoît, Gagnon, Justine, and Christian, Coocoo, “Cartographies autochtones”, Revue d’études autochtones, vol. 53, n° 2, Montréal, Recherches autochtones au Québec, 2025.

Escobar, Arturo, Territories of Difference: Place, Movements, Life, Redes, Durham, Duke University Press, 2008.

Fanon, Frantz, Les Damnés de la terre, Paris, Éditions Maspero, 1961.

Haesbaert, Rogério, O mito da desterritorialização: do “fim dos territórios” à multiterritorialidade, Rio de Janeiro, Bertrand Brasil, 2004.

Harley, J. B., The New Nature of Maps – Essays in the History of Cartography, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.

Harley, J. B., “Deconstructing the Map”, Cartographica, vol. 26, n° 2, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1989, p. 1-20.

Harvey, David, Le capitalisme contre le droit à la ville: Néolibéralisme, urbanisation, résistances, Paris, Éditions Amsterdam, 2011.

Hirt, Irène, “Cartographies autochtones. Éléments pour une analyse critique”, L’Espace géographique, vol. 38, n° 2, 2009, p. 171-186, https://shs.cairn.info/revue-espace-geographique-2009-2-page-171?lang=fr.

Hirt, Irène, “Indigenous mapping: reclaiming territories, decolonizing knowledge”, in Bernard Debarbieux and Irène Hirt (eds.), The Politics of Mapping, Wiley, 2022, p. 155-185.

Jacob, Christian, L’Empire des cartes : Approche théorique de la cartographie à travers l’histoire, Paris, Albin Michel, 1992.

Monmonnier, Mark, How To Lie With Maps, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 2018 [1999].

NLIS–Native Land Information System, official website, https://nativeland.info.

Noucher, Matthieu, Blancs des cartes et boîtes noires algorithmiques, Paris, CNRS Éditions, 2023.

Pearce, Margaret, and Renee Pualani, Louis, “Mapping Indigenous Depth of Place”, American Indian Culture and Research Journal, vol. 32, n° 3, 2008, p. 107-26.

Peluso, Nancy Lee, “Whose Woods are these? Counter-Mapping Forest Territories in Kalimantan, Indonesia”, Antipode, vol. 27, n° 4, New York, Wiley, 1995, p. 383-406.

Porto-Gonçalves, Carlos Walter, A globalização da natureza e a natureza da globalização, Rio de Janeiro, Civilização Brasileira, 2006.

Renault, Matthieu, “Frantz Fanon et la décolonisation des savoirs”, Esquisses | Les Afriques dans le monde, 2018, https://elam.hypotheses.org/393.

Rose-Redwood, Reuben, Blu Barnd, Natchee, Lucchesi, Annita Hetoevėhotohke’e, Dias, Sharon, and Wil, Patrick, “Decolonizing the Map: Recentering Indigenous Mappings”, Cartographica, vol. 55, n° 3, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2020, p. 151-162.

Seed, Patricia, Ceremonies of Possession in Europe’s Conquest of the New World, 1492-1640, New York, Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Wood, Denis, The Power of Maps, New York, Guilford Publications, 1992.

Woodward, David, and G. Malcolm Lewis, The History of Cartography, Volume Two, Book Three – Cartography in the Traditional African, American, Arctic, Australian, and Pacific Societies, Chicago and London, The University of Chicago Press, 1998.

Zwer, Nephtys (ed.), Ceci n’est pas un atlas. La cartographie comme outil de luttes, 21 exemples à travers le monde, orangotango+, 2023.

Haut de page

Notes

1 “d’une part l’appropriation des conventions cartographiques occidentales à des fins d’émancipation politique et de reconnaissance de droits, et d’autre part les techniques, savoirs, et formes de représentations cartographiques développés par les peuples autochtones eux-mêmes”.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Agnès Trouillet et Baptiste Lavat, « Counter-Cartographies, Indigenous (Counter-)Cartographies »IdeAs [En ligne], 26 | 2025, mis en ligne le 01 octobre 2025, consulté le 13 mars 2026. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/ideas/22965 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/14v74

Haut de page

Auteurs

Agnès Trouillet

Associate Professor of United States Civilization at the University of Paris Nanterre and member of the Centre de Recherches Anglophones (CREA). Her research in political history and the history of cartography examines spatial epistemologies and Euro-American and Indigenous land regimes in the middle colonies. She is also interested in questions of tribal sovereignty among the Lenape and the Delaware in the contemporary period.
agnes.t[at]parisnanterre.fr

Articles du même auteur

Baptiste Lavat

Associate Professor of Latin American Civilization at the University of Montpellier Paul-Valéry and member of the Institut de Recherches Intersite en Études Culturelles (IRIEC). His research focuses on South American festivals inscribed on UNESCO’s Intangible Cultural Heritage list (Carnivals of Bolivia and Colombia) and on cultural heritage more broadly, as well as on forms of resistance and protest in the Americas (arts, collective mobilizations, discourses, etc.).
baptiste.lavat[at]univ-montp3.fr

Articles du même auteur

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search