GIS (geographic information systems) mapping is a resource that many historians do not turn to in order to get their points across. Though historians are often more comfortable communicating their points using solely text, maps can provide visual cues, and even make arguments that are difficult to convey using text alone. Scholar Fred Gibbs prizes digital maps for their “ability to juxtapose different kinds of data– whether demographic, economic, geographic, or cultural– within space and to visualize how these changed over time” believing that the practice “continues to hold great potential to broaden historical inquiry and analysis.” Enrica Salvatori and Paolo Mogorovich point out that historical maps can serve “to illustrate effectively and to various audiences (students, communities, institutions) not immediately evident but historically significant relations between phenomena.” Maps also provide an additional mode of imparting information. Visual learners’ understanding can be greatly bolstered by the inclusion of historical maps.
Deep maps “augment the infrastructural, physical, and environmental themes of conventional mapping to include the cultural, emotional, and perceptual experiences of human behavior,” according to Gibbs. With these capabilities, they provide new opportunities for historians, including those who inform the public. However, there are some potential drawbacks to incorporating deep maps within public-oriented history work. While maps can convey information about time, place, culture, and more, Gibbs warns that “deep maps can become even less engaging than their ‘shallow’ counterparts because the complexity detracts from the fundamental purpose of a map: to improve legibility.” If these tools are not intuitive for the public to use, or are not accompanied by clear instructions for use, people genuinely interested in gleaning information from historical maps may become overwhelmed or lack the information necessary to interpret the visuals they see.
One of the things that was emphasized in the readings for this unit, as well as discussed in class, is the fact that, though they are often considered to be so, maps are not neutral. Where borders are drawn, what places are named, and many other factors feature implicit arguments about the space and the people that dwell within those imagined borders. The readings encouraged historians to engage in “critical cartography” in order to discern the best ways to make their arguments via map.
While I was not able to participate in the in-class mapping activity for long, in my preparation for the assignment, I was immediately struck by the amount of pre-planning necessary to make any sort of argument or share any information via map. I am not good at visualization and find orienting myself via map difficult. Therefore, Gibbs’ warning about maps’ potential illegibility should too much detail be added rings true to me. Though some public audiences may be further confused by the inclusion of maps, others may be grateful for all the information they can provide when created with intention by a knowledgeable historian.
Sources
Gibbs, Fred. “Mapping and Maps in Digital and Public History” In Handbook of Digital Public History edited by Serge Noiret, Mark Tebeau and Gerben Zaagsma, 301-308. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Oldenbourg, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110430295-025
Mogorovich, Paolo and Salvatori, Enrica. “Historical GIS” In Handbook of Digital Public History edited by Serge Noiret, Mark Tebeau and Gerben Zaagsma, 419-430. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Oldenbourg, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110430295-037
Leave a Reply