The process of geo-referencing maps was not as tedious as I expected it to be. It was quite easy as the map I was working with was pretty accurate to today’s google maps. The ecological markers were set up almost one for one with the online map- even if the buildings have changed. My perception on spatial humanities, however, stayed nearly the same. Before I attempted the process, I understood that spatial humanities may not be entirely accurate or may distort the map when geo-referencing. When attempting to create a geo-reference for a northfield map, my understanding was solidified. Aligning places on the maps only works with a “birds-eye view” designed map as the geo-referencing wouldn’t distort the map too much. If the map was from any other type of view, the tools would have a harder time aligning the maps together.
Spatial humanities are an interesting field to dissect as it allows you to view certain spaces through multiple perspectives. Two maps, for example, may have been made for different reasons and emphasize different things yet display the same place. This could be useful when researching quantitative data like measuring hotspots in a certain area. The New York Times Mapping Poverty in America is a great example of using a map to help research quantitative data. However, since maps are made by humans, there is bound to be human bias within most maps. One must keep this in mind when studying georectified maps as not everyone has the same viewpoint on certain parts of the world. It’s for this reason that georectifying may not be a great tool for analyzing abstract areas of history which cannot be mapped. For example, oral history which has been passed down through generations or personal history among cultures. This part of history is better taught through other means, not geospatial.
