Spatial history applies methods of spatial analysis to study the human past – spatial history “makes space an explicit part of analysis” and encourages quantification and systematic empirical analysis to historical questions. At the root, spatial history is a form of doing research; it can generate research questions that would often go unasked in lieu of traditional history.[1]
The “Spatial Turn” in history refers to the use of spatial
history tools to establish new research questions about human experience, while
also referring to the need to study space as an integral part of history
altogether.[2] As
it stands, traditional history methodologies have cultivated a lackluster
understanding of space and its inherent relatedness to the human experience – understanding
historically accurate boundaries and physical geography will reveal dimensions
of historical reality not yet revealed through our current modes of analysis.
Examples of these unasked questions are provided in the
three case studies we read about: “Teaching the Salem Witch Trials,” “Scaling
the Dust Bowl,” and “Geographies of the Holocaust.” “Teaching the Salem Witch
Trials,” considers the geographic explosion of witchcraft accusations, allowing
room for questions of economic discourse and interpersonal workings that often get
overlooked for the traditional, broad analysis of the trials at large.[3]
Using computational tools and GIS technology, interpretation from various
different data forms permits large-scale cross analyses that establishes a
larger narrative picture – in this case, familial records, gender statistics, and
economic backgrounds posed better nuanced questions about the Salem Witch
Trials.
In “Scaling the Dust Bowl,” this same amalgamation of
different data sets and geographical information challenge the traditional
explanations of the Dust Bowl (overplowing by farmers) by visualizing the space
where massive dust storms took place, leading to conclusions that illustrate
many counties faced extensive dust storm damage, even if the area was not prone
to overplowing.[4]
Finally, in “Geographies of the Holocaust,” widescale
analysis of various different data sets – most notably to me, Nazi blueprints
of concentration camps – again provided nuanced details of the Holocaust and
the space in which it took place.[5]
Questions of reality versus ideality pop up in response to the visualization of
camps versus what they should have looked like, and patterns of planning and implementation
can be analyzed by historians to establish a better narrative picture.
In studying place and space, and in utilizing GIS and other
computational tools to visualize the subject at hand, these projects show how the
turn towards spatial history has facilitated a more detailed look into
well-studied historical questions – and created more in the process.[6]
Traditional methodologies lacking a focus or inclusion of space may not understand
questions of geographic effect, and therefore would not provide the most detailed
narrative possible. GIS allows for the analysis of different, larger data sets
(which traditional methodology makes difficult to do) and permits these new questions
and perspectives to arise.
Furthermore, the visualizations created by GIS technology are
a massive win for teaching history. Monographs and books may not always house
the best representation of data and narrative argument – maps, graphs, charts,
and other visualization tools can place people directly within the environment they
are being told about – some GIS creations are animated and can display patterns
of human history in real time, some are manipulative and movable by the user,
and some included hyperlinks to related information so that the user can learn
more about what is in front of them.[7]
For education, especially at the K-12 level, visualizations and digital tools
like this are integral towards encouraging historical understanding, as well as
promoting the need for more digital interaction in analog subjects like
history.
As with any new methodology or technology, there are always
downfalls to consider – in GIS, one being the cost to house computational
software capable of analyzing large data sets, the innate error of results
being reflected as more accurate than they are, and data will only be as
accurate as the set it comes from.[8]
Where traditional methodology relies on interpretation and analysis for
conclusions, GIS relies on sheer data and then its subsequent analysis, the
conclusion of which is not reliant on each other. However, this error of
reliability is not endemic to spatial history of GIS technology and affects traditional
history as it stands today. Overall,
spatial history requires a focus on space in order to analyze historical narratives,
calls for empirical standardization and quantitative analysis: marking a great,
thorough addition to the profession that will only move history and historians further
into the digital age.
[1] Anne Kelly Knowles, “Introduction,” Social
Science History 24, no. 3 (2000) pg. 452.
[2] Anne Kelly Knowles, “Introduction,” Social
Science History 24, no. 3 (2000) pg. 452, 453.
[3] Benjamin Ray “Teaching the Salem Witch
Trials,” In Past Time, Past Place: GIS for
History, edited by Anne Kelly Knowles, 19–32, (ESRI
Press, 2002).
[4] Geoff Cunfer, “Scaling the Dust Bowl,” In Placing
History: How Maps, Spatial Data, and GIS Are Changing Historical Scholarship, edited by Anne Kelly Knowles and Amy Hillier,
96–121, (ESRI, Inc., 2008).
[5] Anne Kelly Knowles, Tim Cole, and Alberto
Giordano, “Introduction,” In Geographies of the Holocaust, 1–13, (Indiana University Press, 2014).
[6] Richard White, "What is Spatial History?" Spatial History Lab 1 (2010).
[7] David Rumsey and Meredith Williams,
“Historical Maps in GIS,” In Past Time, Past Place: GIS for
History, edited by Anne Kelly Knowles, 1–16 (ESRI Press,
2002).
[8] William Thomas III, “Is the Future of
Digital History Spatial History,” (2004).
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment