I enjoyed exploring the David Rumsey Georeferencer and georeferencing historical maps including one of Northfield. I appreciate how the site allowed me to see the information people had access to throughout history in specific spaces and compare maps by overlaying them.
By georeferencing a historical map of Northfield (created in about 1855) I directly compared the current landscape with the infrastructure and topography that existed in the 19th century. The map centered on the Cannon River and it was interesting to notice how, although the general features (twists, shape, ridges) stayed the same, the width was considerably different. According to the map, in the mid 1800s when it was created the river was wider and more condensed. Today, the Cannon River is more spaced out and a bit narrower. This difference made me curious as to what other mapped out societies coexisting with rivers and water bodies have been shaped and changed by nature. More so, what maps support this?
Through this process, I developed a greater appreciation of spatial DH projects. While reading about them was interesting, as a student, experiencing content directly helps me learn the most effectively. It was easier to understand the value of spatial DH projects when I was able to make my own observations, ask questions, and explore using spatial DH technology in a way that would not have been possible with non-digital humanistic inquiry. After georeferencing the historical map of Northfield, I can access the map in GIS apps, export it to GeoTIFF, and export it as IIIF.
Georectified maps provide extensive possibilities for humanistic inquiry by comparing primary sources from different spaces and times in an accessible way. However, understanding that maps are not neutral, one must consider that different groups of people had access to map making and storytelling throughout history and how this influences the stories we see today. The choices made in map creation reflect human bias. For one, a map projection commonly used today, the Mercator projection, (uses parallel lines of latitude and longitude to represent the Earth) when compared with the Gall-Peters projection (conserves areas but distorts shapes) tells a very different story. With this in mind, we can both appreciate the value of learning stories through maps but also understand their limitations and rectify this by looking at other documentations for a bigger, more complete historical picture.
Link to map: https://www.oldmapsonline.org/maps/ca7ae1c5-0109-4711-9473-4460da4edbe7/
1 thought on “Blog 6 – Spatial Humanities: Mapping 101”
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Nice work! What you found about the river is very interesting, I wonder how the general shape has stayed the same after all these years. I’m more of a hands-on learner too, so being able to see all the work that goes into a spatial DH project like this was much more impactful than only seeing the results of one of these projects. I really like what you said about maps not being neutral, practically all of our history is similar in that we only know about the stories that get told. Human bias is in everything we do, and is often perpetuated in these fields. You made some really good points here!!