Getting to the point? Rethinking arrows on maps

Maps help to form public opinion and build public morale. When the war is over, they will contribute to shaping the thought and action of those responsible for the reconstruction of a shattered world. Hence it is important in these times that the nature of the information they set forth should be well understood (Wright, Citation1942: 527).

Maps form an essential part of the language used to communicate conflict. They are used to plan military operations and to indicate their consequences to a wider audience by providing the visual basis for articulating the movement of troops, displaced populations and shifting territories between competing powers. Consequently, mapmakers draw from a well-used toolbox of symbols and techniques to describe the dynamic nature of war in familiar ways. For those maps designed for public consumption, which is our focus here, these methods often include broad, swooping arrows for representing movements of troops and displaced people, starburst or explosion symbols for battles and the use of strong colours for changes in territory.
In many respects, mapmakers working in the news media conformed to these established cartographic norms when they first responded to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24th February 2022. However, unlike previous conflicts that have attracted global attention, their maps were subject to wider critique – particularly on social media – which brought into sharp focus the way that maps can communicate the consequences of war and prompted some cartographic innovation.

The critique coalesced around two themes: first, how territory was being represented in terms of Russian gains (and therefore Ukrainian losses) during the first weeks of the conflict (see Fafinski, Citation2022); and second, how the huge exodus of Ukrainians from their country should be captured cartographically (see Cheshire, Citation2022). The latter, especially, prompted questions about the suitability of using arrows to indicate the flow of Ukrainian refugees to surrounding countries when arrows were being used simultaneously to indicate invading Russian troops.

In this short paper, we aim to provide a critical examination of whether the arrow is fit for purpose in communicating the displacement of people as a direct result of conflict. Since arrows have become the go-to cartographic symbol for portraying movement, particularly as a result of war and other geopolitical events, we explore their origins and evolution on maps before discussing how arrows and their alternatives have been used in news media coverage of the war in Ukraine. We contend that critique and innovation is necessary for the development and use of more effective, and ultimately more appropriate, cartographic symbology.