Peak Document and the Future of History

Abstract

Among the ongoing revolutions in historical research is the flood of new information about the past that comes not from written documents but from the natural sciences and archaeology. What might this mean for the profession of history, and for our training and institutional practices? How might it affect our research and interpretations of the past? Which fields of history will be most and least affected? I argue for a cautious embrace of the new data about the past coming from the paleosciences, offering a few examples of the promise and perils presented by the work of our natural science and archaeology colleagues. With each passing year, the proportion of our knowledge of the past that derives from the kinds of documents we have learned to read and interpret will shrink, and the proportion that derives from what to most of us are unfamiliar sciences will mount. This has implications. First, the deeper past might make a comeback. The last century or two are the best documented and will likely be least affected by the flood. The intellectual excitement may tip toward the study of earlier centuries where relative significance of information in other formats is greater. Second, the ways in which we train historians may need to change. A possible partial guide to our future as historians is the experience of precolonial Africanists, who are accustomed to research without written documents.