Bulgaria

С. Дюлгеров

Ж. Гълъбов

И. П. Герасимов; А. И. Дворякин; Р. П. Зимина; Н. Ф. Леонтьев; М. И. Львович; О. А. Назаревский; Р. С. Нарских; Л. А. Чубуков

This article reviews the National Atlas of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria, published in 1973, assessing its thematic structure, cartographic methods, scientific significance, and implications for the future development of national atlas cartography. Prepared collaboratively by 145 leading Bulgarian specialists, the atlas comprises 18 sections, 282 maps, plans of cities and Black Sea resorts, explanatory texts, reference data, diagrams, graphs, profiles, and other illustrations. Its coverage extends across history, the natural environment, population, the economy, culture, and social services. Maps of natural conditions and resources account for 51 percent of the total, while 83 percent of the atlas is devoted to the material conditions of social life, population, and the production of material goods, confirming its genuinely national and comprehensive character. The review particularly praises the systematic representation of geology, relief, climate, hydrology, soils, and vegetation. Its geomorphological series is regarded as especially innovative because it combines morphographic, morphogenetic, and morphostructural approaches, while maps of seismic tectonics, mineral waters, karst, and engineering geology possess clear practical value. The economic and social sections provide an extensive picture of industrialization, agriculture, transport, demographic patterns, health care, culture, recreation, and international tourism during Bulgaria’s socialist development. Most maps are original and were supported by specialized scientific investigations. Common geographical bases, careful editing, coordinated visual design, vivid color schemes, and high printing quality give the work substantial internal coherence and artistic distinction. The authors therefore characterize the atlas as a major national achievement that both draws upon and enriches international cartographic experience. It is expected to support research, education, administration, and practical planning while documenting Bulgaria’s economic and cultural transformation. Nevertheless, the review identifies two limitations: the absence of economic-geographical maps showing Bulgaria’s position and connections within the socialist community and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, and minor inconsistencies in map composition across thematic sections. Finally, the article formulates two broader priorities for national atlases. First, they should move beyond traditional coordination of themes toward a deeper synthesis of interactions within the nature–society system, including the mapping and prediction of anthropogenic environmental change. Second, they should become more accessible to non-specialists through fuller, purpose-oriented explanatory texts. This may eventually produce a hybrid scholarly form—an atlas monograph or monographic atlas—in which thematic maps and analytical prose have equal status.