Digital history as a field seems to have evolved from the creation of quantitative data and the utilization of new and growing technologies in the latter half of the 20th century. The understanding of the past from a quantitative direction seems to have come from changes within historical thought regarding the methods in which history is conducted and a more scientific approach to conducting research.

According to William G. Thomas, in the 1960s and 70s, the majority of criticisms regarding the use of computational and quantitative data in the field of history was driven by the idea that history discusses larger abstract concepts than those that can be properly categorized and analyzed. Throughout the field this can be seen in the presence of projects like Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman’s highly criticized project quantifying American chattel slavery in the South. This criticism makes complete and total sense for while attempting to embrace emerging technologies is always tempting, it is important to remember that there are limitations to what only numbers can tell you and sometimes these numbers can misconstrue the spirit of the sources that are being used for a digital project.

By the 1980s and 90s, the creation of the internet was changing the landscape of digital history into one more like the almost completely globalized world we live in today; giving it a place where a diverse array of methods that it could utilize to thrive. From the digitization and publication of journal articles, thus creating a more globalized community of historians to databases where historians could interact directly with primary sources they would have been completely unaware of in decades prior.

Throughout the readings three consistent themes seemed to be repeated about the importance of digital history. First is the idea of history as an active and continuous project that many people can contribute to or utilize to pull sources from. Second is the place of digital history in amplifying the narratives of histories for underrepresented or minority groups. Finally, is the accessibility that digital history grants to people beyond the professional level in such a way that the public can actively engage in the discussions going on in the historical world.

As a historian in the growing digital landscape, the creation of online resources and databases has allowed for historians to look through and analyze primary sources on a larger scale. Edward L. Ayers discusses how these online databases and the access to a larger catalogue of them have helped create a more nuanced and farther-reaching interpretation of a historian’s given research question. Ayers states even further that the development of coding languages like HTML have allowed for historians to have a veritable ‘blank canvas’ to write upon when it comes to the development of projects for the internet. Of course, Ayers states that this newfound ability to create is not without criticism and its prospective failures. When one is utilizing digital tools it is important not to lose sight of what history is actually being done. Making sure that one’s interpretations of the past stay true to the intent of the sources one is using to create a digital narrative.

            The duties of the historian to uplift and analyze the histories of underrepresented groups is a growing trend for cultural historians and others in different disciplines of the field. Historians, because they now can do so, research, write, and publish about a diverse range of topics of importance to not only professional historians but the public. This carries forward into the final theme about digital history, which goes hand in hand with the former: the ability to create and publish digital history means that it can be accessed by anyone. Not only can a project targeting the histories of say the LGBTQ community be published on the Internet, but the public can then access those links to find out more. Then, utilizing the sources cited by historians who created the project, these primary sources and the histories of this community can be brought into the public’s understanding of a more complete history. Once again Ayers in 1999 and historians Daniel L Cohen and Roy Rosenzweig as far back as 2006, cautioned about the future of these sites and the sheer volume of data and sources that are currently being created by everyone because they can. This does not dilute the importance that having these projects and tools in a growing globalized world rather it elevates the importance in learning to curate and catalogue content in such a way that historians of the future are taught methods to break down, search, and analyze the material that exists in a way that makes sense to them.

Ayers, Edward L. “The Pasts and Futures of Digital History.” University of Virginia, 1999. http://www.vcdh.virginia.edu/PastsFutures.html.

Brennan, Sheila A. “Digital History.” The Inclusive Historian’s Handbook. American Association for State and Local History and National Council on Public History, June 4, 2019. https://inclusivehistorian.com/digital-history/.

Cohen, Daniel L., Rosenzweig, Roy. “Promises and Perils of Digital History.” Digital History: A Guide to Gathering, Preserving, and Presenting the Past on the Web. Center for History and New Media and Echo, 2006. https://chnm.gmu.edu/digitalhistory/introduction/index.html.

Thomas, William G. “Computing and the Historical Imagination.” A companion to Digital Humanities, ed. Susan Schreibman, Ray Seimens, John Unsworth. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004. http://digitalhumanities.org/companion/view?docId=blackwell/9781405103213/9781405103213.xml&chunk.id=ss1-2-5.