{"id":7898,"date":"2018-03-07T07:08:08","date_gmt":"2018-03-07T06:08:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.uni.lu\/c2dh-en\/articles\/google-maps-as-a-tool-for-researchers-the-example-of-the-debates-on-the-national-museum-in-luxembourg\/"},"modified":"2025-03-26T10:12:07","modified_gmt":"2025-03-26T09:12:07","slug":"google-maps-as-a-tool-for-researchers-the-example-of-the-debates-on-the-national-museum-in-luxembourg","status":"publish","type":"articles","link":"https:\/\/www.uni.lu\/c2dh-en\/articles\/google-maps-as-a-tool-for-researchers-the-example-of-the-debates-on-the-national-museum-in-luxembourg\/","title":{"rendered":"Google Maps as a tool for researchers? The example of the debates on the national museum in Luxembourg"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n\n

Some time ago, I was wondering whether I could use Google Maps as a tool for my research on the history of the National History and Art Museum in Luxembourg, to adopt a distant reading approach, with the aim to gain new insights. I did it and, in the following blog post, I look back at this small experience.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

The Mus\u00e9e national d\u2019histoire et d\u2019art<\/em> (MNHA) in Luxembourg City has a long history. Before 1988, it was part of what was known at the time as Mus\u00e9es de l\u2019Etat<\/em>, which included, besides the MNHA, the Mus\u00e9e d\u2019histoire naturelle<\/em>. The adjective \u2018national\u2019 was only added in 1988, in a law that separated both museums de jure<\/em> (the physical separation would eventually happen in the 1990s).<\/p>\n\n

The first ideas of a \u2018national museum\u2019 for Luxembourg date back to the 19th<\/sup> century, initially promoted by erudite societies, such as the Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 pour la recherche et la conservation des monuments historiques dans le Grand-Duch\u00e9 de Luxembourg<\/em>, founded in 1845. From the 1870s onwards, in the era of nation-building, the state was increasingly interested in creating a national museum. Yet, it was a lengthy process. Between 1878 and 1893, three commissions were created, tasked with examining the possible creation of a museum. The third commission, the \u201ccommission charg\u00e9e d\u2019examiner la question de la construction d\u2019un Mus\u00e9e national<\/em>\u201d (ministerial decree of January 1893), was composed of six members, all of them either engineers or architects. It was the only commission to produce more tangible results. Today, its reports provide an insight into the discussions on the potential sites for the future museum, besides letters documenting some exchanges between the government and the city council.<\/p>\n\n

When reading through the sources, I became aware that I might need a mapping tool allowing a distant reading of all the locations that came up. Something similar was already done by the researcher Isabelle Yegles-Becker, who did use an old, undated map of Luxembourg as a background on which she indicated the locations.[1]<\/sup><\/a> I preferred to not simply reuse this map, but to create my own and look at the sources myself, especially as I did not know on what sources Yegles-Becker relied for creating her map (I suppose at least partly the same, though). As the national museum should be constructed in the capital, it was quite evident that these locations were all within the city. I decided to use Google Maps, wanting to know whether I could use it for more than merely looking up addresses and getting directions. I also hoped to learn something new.[2]<\/sup><\/a> It was the first time that I discovered new options in Google Maps. I created a new map with a shareable link; it can be accessed here<\/a>.[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n

For each marker, I could add comments, pictures and videos – even if adding pictures, in the case of multipage documents, is fastidious, as only one picture at a time can be uploaded. Different layers can be created and activated or deactivated. In my case, I chose to distinguish between \u201cmentioned or envisaged locations\u201d (including rejected suggestions), and \u201clocations with more detailed plans\u201d (which only applies to two sites). Google Maps does not allow to visualize changes over time, as opposed to other tools such as Palladio or Nodegoat. In my case, it would not be too problematic, as most of the sources used dated from the second half of the 1890s. Only in one case, the St Esprit plateau, the first mention appeared in 1877, even if the site was discussed by the commission in 1898.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n\n
\n <\/span>\n\n

\n <\/h1>\n<\/div>\n\n<\/header>
\n \n\"\"\n <\/figure>\n
\n
\n\n

The two layers I created for my map – with the potential sites mentioned in the sources.<\/p>\n\n