From Bodenhamer’s view, GIS has more disadvantages than its positive side. I strongly agree with that as a user of GIS. It is a fact that it is a useful tool that could overlap layers of information together such as population, income and family structure as long as you get the official database. It could show them on a flat world map that visualizes the spatial analysis. However, the limitations also appear. It is good at spatial issue but for humanists, time is an important element, it has difficulty in managing time and prefers spatial questions. Archaeologists have used GIS and computer animations to reconstruct the Roman Forum by creating a 3D world that allows users to walk through buildings. It could provide a space experience but we still could not know how to make space, place and memory dynamic and vital with them. Memory as an identity for humanists, which seeks for continuity and relationship could not be realized by GIS. Moreover, for the users, it is more like a fact teller rather than a knowledge producer. Historians create framework for their study rather than addressing research problems. For urban designers, it is more like the first step to study a phenomenon and help to lead to a research question thanks to the large database. However, the map does not have depth and always simplify results.

But we could see the potential of cooperation with other techniques like multimedia and gaming tools to construct deep maps that could give a rich visual environment throughout time. Bodenhamer has imagined a kind of humanities GIS-facilitated understanding of society and culture. It promises a view that has a dynamic representation of memory and place, that is visual and experiential, and qualitative and quantitative. This kind of way of thinking is what truly matters to humanists and also a demand for tools.

Enter text in Markdown. Use the toolbar above, or click the ? button for formatting help.