I had some experience creating digital mapping projects with ARCGIS in various projects for my Master’s degree. I really enjoyed working with the software as a visual interpretive compliment to historical-based exhibits. The last time I worked with those tools was over three years ago, so I was really looking forward to the prospect of brushing up on these skills again with the tech exercises in class. In class on Monday, we learned how to map on QGIS. This was a little less intuitive than I thought it would be given some of my prior experiences. It felt like every process was a layered nesting doll of steps to get to simple map actions. It took multiple tries to figure out how to get the categorization and color-changing of the shape files done for instance, but it was still really fun to work with. I want to spend time getting to work within this software a little more to figure out its quirks so I can use this for other projects.
Our readings gave some key guidelines to think about when implementing these kinds of spatial projects in our works. For instance, Ian Gregory and Paul Ell in Historical GIS: Technologies, Methodologies and Scholarship describes these projects as “Mapping opens the possibility of exploring the spatial patterns inherent within the data in ways that were never previously possible.”1 The best example of this in action I believe are two other projects we examined for this week, the GIS mapping of the Battle of Gettysburg, which combined a plotting of troop movements, map visuals, and photographs of spaces on the battlefield to make the argument that Lee failed at Gettysburg because the physical barriers of the terrain blinded him to key troop movements.2 All three components, maps, troop icons, and photography are essential to understanding the breadth of this argument, possibilities that are not available if you look at just a map of the Gettysburg for instance. The other is Susan Grunewald’s project on German POWs in Russia during World War II where after plotting locations of these prison camps, she was able to draw conclusions that Russians forces employed German POWs as manpower around their towns and cities, “The maps suggested that German POWs actively worked to rebuild the destruction that their invasion caused.”3 Grunewald herself points out that this revelation came only after she plotted the points on her map, showcasing how digital mapping can open up new avenues of historical research.
Our sources also expressed some guidelines that I think are key to consider when thinking about using GIS tools in an interpretive exhibit. Gregory and Ell provide some key advice for GIS mapping that I believe are important to consider, especially when creating maps for digital exhibits. They write, “the map should be a stand-alone document.”4 What they mean here is a map that should be easy to understand on its own. If you plucked the map out of your exhibit, would a viewer still be able to grasp the information you are trying to convey? The recommendations are to include a legend along with your map, so the data is still able to be understood in a vacuum. Another piece of advice from Gregory and Ell is that “maps, therefore, are effective at illustrating a story, but do not tell it. Telling it requires detailed and thorough scholarship that emphasises both the historical and the geographical patterns within the data.”5 Putting these two points in conversation with each other reveals that a public-facing map should be easily understood but is not the sole component of your work. A historian is still needed, not just to plot locations on a map but to tease out the significance of the larger historical narrative a map conveys.
One of my favorite artists wrote a line that distills this idea much more poetically, “If you want to see the world, you have to say goodbye/ ‘Cause a map does no good hangin’ on a wall” 6Just as you can’t use a map that’s framed on a wall, you cannot have a good GIS project on its own without well-rounded historical scholarship and an interpretive framework.
1 Ian Gregory and Paul Ell, “Using GIS to Visualise Historical Data,” in Historical GIS: Technologies, Methodologies and Scholarship (Cambridge University Press, 2007), 90.
2 Anne Kelly Knowles, “A Cutting Edge Second Look at the Battle of Gettysburg,” Smithsonian Magazine, date published June 27, 2013, date accessed September 29, 2026.
3 Susan Grunewald, “Beyond the Archives: What GIS Mapping Reveals about German POWs in Soviet Russia,” Perspectives on History, February 26, 2019, accessed September 29, 2026.
4 Gregory and Ell, “Using GIS,” 95.
5 Gregory and Ell, “Using GIS,” 118.
6 Lucy Dacus, vocalist, “Map on a Wall” track 7 on No Burden released February 26, 2016, streaming audio.
Hi Lena,
How does QGIS compare to ARCGIS? I had a lot of trouble with QGIS, but I also have a knack for randomly breaking technology. I’m curious as to how QGIS functions and output possibilities compare to the ARCGIS interface and exportables. Would you prefer one GIS software over the other in general, or maybe pick one depending on the needs of the project?
Also, if you like the visual HGIS articles, you should explore some anthropological HGIS reconstructions; there are some very interesting visuals there.
Hi Lena–
First, I love the Dacus quote. Direct Address from the same album is one of my favorite songs of hers.
Second, I appreciate the two major points you bring together from the readings here. Though Gregory and Ell say that a digital map should stand alone, you are right in saying they mean a map document should convey all the information necessary for someone to understand its spatial dimensions and what its plotted points represent without further information. Like any graph or table representation, digital maps should be labeled thoroughly so their data can be referenced across academic projects. As you point out with the Battle of Gettysburg project, any further conclusions the author makes MUST be contextualized with outside sources; no matter how descriptive a map’s legend or key is, its data cannot be fully interpreted in a vacuum.
Lena,
I am interested in hearing more about how the differences between ARC and QGIS presented themselves in your work. With minimal experience in both, it would be fascinating to hear how they are different. I fully agree on your stance for using tools such as GIS to address historical inquiries. The use of programs and digital tools such as this can allow historians to add a variety of depth/context to their research that would often otherwise be eliminated.