The division of the Arab territories of the Ottoman Empire following the First World War was a formative and highly contentious process in which maps played an integral role. British and French delegates who parceled out the Ottoman Empire created and altered maps in a succession of treaties and conferences that would lead to the reordering of these territories into new imperial mandated states. In this paper, I examine the reordering of the Arab lands of the Ottoman Empire by focusing specifically on seven different maps that British delegates used and created during the years of wartime and peace negotiations. Drawing upon literature that focuses on how maps are integral in coding, ordering and controlling territories, I argue that the division of the Ottoman Empire may have been in pursuit of order, but the project was actually messy and haphazard. More specifically, expanding on recent scholarship on how maps should be framed as processes, as opposed to static documents or representations, I examine the linkages between British maps that were made and used during the period of 1914 - 1923 when British delegates debated the division of the Ottoman Empire. These maps were archived in several different depositories in the UK and the US, and though some of these maps are well known, like the Sykes-Picot map, many of these maps have not been documented or discussed. The maps I examine in this paper were not part of major surveys or military mapping projects, nor were they widely distributed or consumed by the public. Instead, I examine the different and seemingly disparate maps that British (French and American to a lesser degree too) delegates and politicians created and used to summarize agreements, to stake claims to territory, and to conceptualize places that most of them had never visited. By linking and contrasting these different maps as part of the larger imperial process, both the imperial and geopolitical discourses that framed the negotiations, as well as the disordered and contentious character of these territorial negotiations, becomes evident. By underscoring the disordered mapping processes, some of the supposed truths about our geopolitical world are destabilized.