After some trial and error with finding a map that I could properly georeference (I had to give up on the Russian language maps–my poor geography and the different place names made it quite difficult), I landed on a map of France as it was in 1793, labeled with proposed divisions on the various borders. It can be viewed at this link.
The process of georeferencing this map did not necessarily change my understanding of the spatial DH projects we had examined earlier in class, but I do have a newfound appreciation for the care and detail that goes into even the work of aligning different maps. Because of this map’s age, even though I aligned several cities, some of the borders along the coast are slightly off from the base layer map. I imagine this is due simply to the imprecision of mapping tools in the eighteenth century, though it is for the most part very accurate. I do not know if referencing even more points would have solved this problem, or if it is inherent to the distortion of the historical map, but I now have a better understanding of how difficult it can be to properly align and reference maps, and thus obtain a workable project.
Within the David Rumsey Map Collection, the site on which I completed the georeferencing, completed maps are able to be accessed as a webpage, as an embedded feature (e.g. above), and there are options to export the map to GIS software or as an IIIF image. With these options come more possibilities for how georectified maps can be used. If someone is mapping data using GIS, they can use the georectified map to compare historical boundaries with whatever data they are analyzing, which could provide additional context about decisions and patterns over time. Georectified maps could also be used for political histories, to see how places and borders have shifted over time, and where conflicts between territories have emerged. While it is useful to have the georectified map, in these examples and, I would imagine, in most scholarship, it seems that they are most useful when implanted in another program, such as GIS. While this does present some level of inaccessibility due to skill and cost, I believe there are open source GIS platforms that would allow for this kind of analysis to take place.
The main issue that I encountered with georeferencing was that the map still ended up not being perfectly in line with the actual borders on the base map. Again, I am not sure if this was due to not having enough reference points (I added six, spread out across the map), or if it was just a result of the map being inaccurate to begin with. Depending on the answer, this could prove challenging for scholars using georectified maps, and would need to be carefully considered when analyzing the results of georectification.
I am not sure if there are certain fields which would not allow georeferencing as a tool of study; while there is something to be said for inaccurate or unreliable maps, I also think that those sources could prove interesting provided they were analyzed with the full context. Looking at inaccurate maps of a certain region, for instance, could show patterns of how people conceptualized their territory, even if they were wrong. One thing I think it would be important to account for is that geography and locations shift over time; natural landmarks may not always have the same accuracy for marking the location of a city or town, and settlements may shift in location due to time, war, or a migration. As with all DH scholarship, then, I believe that this tool should be used alongside extensive research and analysis, to ensure that its results are fully reliable.
