I recommended purchase of Aaron's maps for our National Library of Australia as a useful international comparison to maps of Aboriginal tribes here in Australia. Given that such tribal maps, even by such noted anthropologists as Norman Tindale, have changed a lot in their various editions and versions as to the names and boundaries they depict, to say that a particular map is 'inaccurate' and refuse to keep a copy sidesteps the fact that there is no agreement among tribes themselves as to where their own boundaries are, so no map can be accurate in this regard.

Even the current edition of the Aboriginal tribes map, produced by AIATSIS (a federal agency) and distributed by Geoscience Australia (equivalent of the USGS), has a disclaimer that it is "Not suitable for use in native title and other land claims". So when even the feds can't make an 'accurate' map, should we keep copies of any of them?

In addition, as Debbie Reese notes, boundaries and tribal groupings fluctuated over time, so there is no perfect pre-European state of play that can be mapped, even if the information was known.

All maps are subjective. They reflect the knowledge and attitude of the mapmaker. But the same is true for history books too. Does this mean we should not collect copies of Mein Kampf, or anything that reference it? I myself have referenced Erich von Daniken in an academic paper. Does that invalidate my work? Vespucci's books have also been discredited. But should we not collect books that include them in the bibliography? Should throw out all law reports whose cases have been since overthrown? What about the speeches of Donald Trump? Given what he says is often declared inaccurate or plain wrong by others (e.g. by German minister Michael Roth the news today), should we explicitly not collect Trumps' speeches or the newspapers and magazines that report them? Or anything by a known member of the Republican Party? I understand what Debbie is trying to say about Aaron's "resource list", but she's embarking down a slippery slope by noting ominously that one of the authors listed was a member of the KKK. Perhaps some are Republicans or even once "liked" the Reform Party...

It is important for library patrons to understand the historical evolution of knowledge, and for libraries to collect and present both sides of the debate, rather than imposing their own censorship. It is individual members of the public who should be making up their own minds, not a librarian by way of his collection decisions. Academic and depository libraries in particular need to be wary of value-judgements in collecting decisions.

To say "I don't agree with the data on that map/in that book, or the political views of the referenced authors, therefore I refuse to collect it in my library for the use of the public/academics/future generations" is setting ourselves up as gatekeepers for a gate we have no authority to police. On the contrary, shouldn't we be spruikers, rather than gatekeepers? A librarian's duty is to enable library patrons to find the information they seek, not to choose it for them and deny them access to something we (or anyone else) claims may not be 100% perfect and true.

There is a large literature on the supposed pre-Dutch discovery of Australia, much of it speculative, some completely fictional. Likewise there are proponents of an Egyptian or Greek discovery of New Zealand. One can argue that authors such as Gavin Menzies or Maxwell Hill are discredited. But should we not collect their works despite, and perhaps because of this?

I wonder how many of the libraries that refuse to obtain Aaron's map because of its "inaccuracy" also refuse to stock any maps produced in China that show the infamous "nine dash line" in the South China Sea, which has been now been ruled invalid by an international court? Do they ensure their globes only show boundaries recognised by Congress? Or do they collect maps by both the US and China, Taiwan and China, China and India, China and Japan, Guatemala and Belize, Nicaragua and Costa Rica etc, in order to show both sides of territorial claims, however much those librarians disagree personally with the data shown thereon? Do they collect or retain those "inaccurate" and "now-discredited" Soviet maps that showed cities in the wrong location, or left them off the map entirely?  Or any of the US government maps mentioned in Mark Monmonier's "How to lie with maps"?

It's one thing to tell a patron that a particular map may be inaccurate, and point him to commentary on the inaccuracies, or to other resources he may not be aware of on the other side of the argument, but it is another to refuse to collect an item because of personal taste or political viewpoint. 

The National Library of Australia is required by law to collect anything published in this country, and any material published overseas that relates to Australia, its history and interests. I would argue that Aaron's maps fall into this category, and the fact that the data on them is contested in the US is even more reason to collect them (because there is argument here too over the same issues of nomenclature and boundary location, and whether specific groups have a 'right' to appear on a map at all, and what sources were used to compile the data). Then patrons can make up their own minds, with all the "facts" before them, and not be reliant on the word of current "experts" whose declarations as to what is or is not accurate may themselves be proven incorrect or biased in the future.

Brendan Whyte