Since I don’t have any idea about GIS I will take for granted the info presented in Placing History edited by Anne Kelly Knowles. What I like about this volume is the fact that it provides not only a series of maps and examples. It also provides a background to the spatial analysis in history. So if inevitably the technology of GIS will change in the coming years, the theoretical framework will be there for a longer period. In this sense I would like to mention especially the articles “GIS and History” by Knowles and “History and GIS: Implications for the Discipline” by Bodenhamer.
Both authors are not fanatics of GIS. Both understand the limitations of this software when it comes to its implementation in the humanities. Generally, their concerns refer on the one hand to the skepticism of the historians to embrace new technologies and on the other hand to the unclear returns on the huge investments necessary to create the data sets and to buy the equipment. If the first concern is overcome by the very nature of the social and technological changes, with historians bound to embrace the new technologies if only in order to understand the very nature of change, then the second concern is more difficult to overcome.
Is GIS only a beautiful and fashionable gadget? Is is it a medium, which could revolutionize the nature of major historical questions? So far, I could not get a clear answer to these questions. Both Knowles and Bodenhamer are wise to not predict the future, but at the same time I think that when you try to persuade someone to adopt a new and supposedly useful tool you should be able to sell it more convincingly.
I agree that the future of GIS in a historical context is yet to be determined, but I felt that by including the essays on the Dust Bowl, Concord and Gettysburg, Knowles believes that GIS should have a partnership with history in the future. Through GIS, historians gained a new understanding of these events. I think it holds a lot of potential for increasing perspective on historical questions in the future. But will it happen? Who knows.
It is no doubt that historical GIS can shade a new light on the historiography. My question is if it is worth the investment?
I think that some of your concerns about the investment of time and effort into using GIS are currently valid. However, the utility of GIS or something similar to the discipline (and to other disciplines) is significant enough that I suspect it is going to stick around in spite of the current difficulties. Additionally, GIS is technologically driven, so increasing capacities for data processing, display and interface possibilities seem likely to go a long way towards ablating some of the costs. Keeping historical hand in GIS as a discipline is going to help guide the evolution of the tool towards something that will be more widely used and useful, so I think it is important that at least some historians work to overcome the current challenges to using it.
[…] Comment on Alex’s Blog […]
Nice blog !! i also know a very good site for gis software apps.cybertech(.)com !!!