#his6938

I have been able to map the properties from the ledger. 

Copy the link in cell C80 into "My Places" in Google Earth.  It should show 6 sites pulled from the deeds in the Florida Land and Colonization Company ledger.

The balloons are supposed to contain pictures I sampled from Central Florida Memory.  I have tried saving the pictures in Google Docs.  I have also tried linking directly to CFM, but the pictures do not show up.  The hyperlinks after the text do link to CFM and show the actual copy of the ledger page pertaining to the property.

Please click on the link above and take a look at my attempt at a Google Fusion Table map.  It takes you to the table.  Click visualize and then click map.

I have not been able to get the Google Earth Spreadsheet Mapper to work. Although, I think it would produce a better and more interesting map.  So, this is very simple.  If someone has advice on how to make it more interesting that would be great.  I liked the Google Earth Spreadsheet Mapper because a picture and link could be attached to the pin.  In this case I would've attached the deed recording from the ledger and maybe a layer with census or farm data.

Anyway, I have mapped three tracts purchased from Henry Sanford between 1871 and 1873 and noted the purchaser and purchase price.  Two are so close together that one disappears.  I'm not sure how to deal with that.  Any suggestions?  Also, any tips from someone who has gotten the other spreadsheets to work would be appreciated.

Reading about the applications of GIS (Geographic Information System) in a historical context got me thinking about the ways in which these type of projects can be used for legitimacy for digital historians in the academic world. These projects require numerous hours of research, data entry, and bug fixing to make sure they operate correctly. What makes a project like this different than a traditional academic monograph? If you are doing the research and dealing with the same problems that other historians deal with such as incomplete, destroyed, or missing data then the processes are parallel. While GIS Projects usually involved large scale collaboration, they can be done by a single person. Perhaps digital historians can look at projects such as The Salem Witch trials project in Past Time, Past Place and show that these spatial projects are creating new avenues of historical inquiry.

However, GIS does have its drawbacks as evident from the reading. Problems of scale and questions on how far to expand the geographic area of interest plague studies such as the Dust Bowl. The capability of GIS projects to reach the individual level is not available at the moment. Then again, the true individual voice is hard to attain in a traditional academic monograph especially when confronted with a dearth of sources. Other problems with GIS can include the lack of user ability to form their own conclusions because the data is being presented that is selected by the analyst and marks their own interpretation.

Placing History gives a great overview of GIS technologies and how they can be applied to many different historical fields. I enjoyed reading the chapters on the "Dust Bowl" and "Gettysburg" and think that there is so much potential for GIS. In conjunction with the RICHES projects, I could definitely see how these technologies could benefit a number of them. One that particularly stands out in my mind is the "Next Exit History". I think that there are endless possibilities of applying GIS to that project. My dilemma is that I am doing the Veteran's History Project. It is composed of oral histories, so I do not really see how GIS could be utilized in this project. I am open to anyone's thoughts or suggestions.

In regards to the book, I thought that the authors made excellent arguments for GIS technologies. One of its most important features is that it forces historians to look at the spatial elements of projects. so much can be done using GIS technologies and I liked that the authors demonstrated that GIS was more than maps.

I do think that there are many drawbacks to GIS, one of them being its tendency to rely heavily on mathematics.  Most historians are not trained in this field and it is part of the reason historians have been slow to accept GIS.  One of the other problems with GIS is its cost, as well as its complexity. The expensive nature of GIS has made it hard for those that are champions of the field to receive funding because it is not a widely accepted practice.  

Patricia Cohen's article on the benefits of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to historians is undeniable. This technology can truly bring to life issues that have already been beaten to death by tradition academic means. Her example of being able to use google earth or other technologies to see what Robert E. Lee was really looking at when he made his fateful commands at Gettysburg demonstrates how this technology is not only a fun new way to show history to regular people, but also a powerful tool to develop new historical thoughts within the academic community.

I am planning to consult on the RICHES Sanford Papers project with Jamie Desena.  While the papers automatically lend themselves to digitization and transcription, Anne Kelly Knowles’ Placing History has given me ideas on how GIS could be applied to a documentary or archive project such as the Sanford Papers.

Since this RICHES project is in a very preliminary stage, Jamie and I are beginning to look at some other readily available papers that relate to Sanford as a sort of test case.  These letters, diaries, and ledgers contain a great deal of information about the land itself.  The information includes where it is located, who purchased it, how much was paid for it, and the size of the plots.  This is a great spatial project in itself.  Some cross-referencing with readily available census and tax records could be layered to show demographic information, land use, crops grown, and many other things about the actual land.

Digitizing the records alone would provide a wealth of knowledge about Florida frontier life for researchers.  Transcribing them through crowd sourcing or by professional historians would add reliability and context to the documents.  Mapping the data from the ledger of land sales and layering it with graphically represented statistical information makes the information useful to new and wider audiences. 

RICHES’ Surfing Florida: A Photographic History (http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/surfingflorida.php) is still very much an unfinished project, and considering its status as a joint photography/multimedia exhibit, it can very much stand to benefit from incorporating GIS. After having read Placing History (ed. Anne Kelly Knowles), it becomes quite clear where the technology provided by GIS can improve the project and increase its interactivity and appeal to the public.

The central part of the project is geography - and the central part of understanding and better appreciating the project is the relationship that the surfers held to their beaches. As Knowles discusses in her book, GIS allows for environmental, demographical, and political changes to be mapped and studied. GIS could help in providing visualizations and maps of the changes over time that have effected Florida beaches, allowing the audience to come to their own conclusions regarding the changes that occurred in surfing culture over time.

The GIS could easily be tied in with the oral histories that the project aims to complete, in allowing connections to be made regarding where the surfers came from and why they chose the specific beaches where they surfed. How their own local cultures influenced the values and ideals of Florida surf culture. All of this can be spatially organized, providing micro views of a greater meta-narrative.

One of the major issues, however, in bringing this to Surfing Florida will be the cost. Knowles discusses funding in Placing History, and while the project has sponsorship, great parts of it are still in planning stages. Considering the cost of many GIS projects, and the relatively small scale of Surfing Florida, the technology, while amazing in providing a more nuanced view of Florida surf culture, may prove too expensive and time-consuming for a project on a limited budget and time schedule.

            The collection of case studies found in Anne Knowles Past Time, Past Place: GIS for History can be viewed as a list of possibilities for historians currently working on Surfing Florida: A Photographic History. Although still on the drawing board table, the project directors aim to make a multi-media component.  In many ways, GIS appears to be a must have. Not only will GIS create a photographic history with vitality and character, but it will incorporate patterns that will help analyze Florida’s history as a surfing hub.

            Finding these patterns will be essential with the use GIS. First, to state the most obvious – geography is such a fundamental aspect of this project – dedicated entirely to one state and, more specifically, to the coast of one state - that it could be easily overlooked. GIS can be used to show the physical changes to Florida’s beaches, perhaps from erosion, public use, or imminent domain, which may have directly affected the surfing community. Yet, this is only a small piece of analysis. Many other questions can be answered using GIS: Were there concentrations of surfers in particularly areas? Were there significant gender differences in particular areas? Was there a significant demographic change over time? Did the population fluctuate as surfers aged? Did surfing spawn businesses along the coast? Where were Florida’s surfers from – native to Florida or out of state?