Digital history bears both scientific and humanistic characteristics. Photo: TUCHONG

---

Since Chinese scholar Liang Qichao first advocated for a “new history” in the early 20th century, Chinese historical research has undergone more than 120 years of development. Today, it is entering a new phase of transformation. In the era of the internet and big data, the rise of digital humanities and digital history is helping realize a long-held aspiration among historians: To make the study of history more rationally-conceived and accurate. Research paradigms and methodologies are being reshaped in fundamental ways, pointing to a promising future for the discipline. At the same time, however, digital history remains in its infancy. Its scope and conceptual foundations require further clarification. Both in terms of theoretical development and practical application, numerous unresolved issues remain, and a substantial amount of groundwork still needs to be laid. 

From digital humanities to digital history 

Holding actualities according to its name is a principle. The establishment of any academic discipline begins with the clarification of its terms and concepts. At present, terms surrounding the intersection of computer information technology and historical studies are vast and often bewildering. Commonly encountered terms include “cliometrics,” “quantitative history,” “big data history,” and “digital history,” among others. 

Digital history emerged alongside the application of digital humanities to historical research and is now recognized as a new branch of the discipline. Yet definitions and conceptual descriptions of digital history remain inconsistent. William G. Thomas, a professor of history at the University of Nebraska in the United States, defines digital history as a way to study and present the past using computer information technology, network technology, and software systems. In his view, digital history creates new structures or ontologies through technology, enabling people to engage with, interpret, and comment on historical issues in novel ways. This definition, in my view, captures the essence of digital history in a relatively broad sense. Similarly, Hannu Salmi, a professor of cultural history at the University of Turku in Finland, offers a compelling definition, suggesting that nowadays, the definition of digital history can be restated as: Digital history is a method of examining and presenting the past, which utilizes new communication technologies, media applications, and attempts to use computer-based research methods to analyze, produce and disseminate historical knowledge. 

It is precisely this close connection with digital humanities that gives digital history both a solid disciplinary foundation and vast potential for future development. 

Big data bases & digital history 

While we do not endorse substituting “digital history” with “big data history,” it is undeniable that the former is grounded in the foundations laid by the later. Indeed, the vast quantities of data generated in the information age form the bedrock of this emerging discipline. Especially in the early stages of digital history’s development, a variety of historical databases each serve distinct and indispensable functions. No single type holds inherent superiority over others; rather, the key lies in leveraging their respective strengths, meeting diverse scholarly needs, and ensuring each can fulfill its potential. Broadly speaking, historical databases fall into two major categories: 

Basic historical literature databases: These are characterized by their integration of diverse historical materials. Notable examples include the National Qing History Compilation Project Digital Resources Repository, as well as several databases developed by Beijing Erudition Digital Technology Co., Ltd., such as the China Basic Ancient Books Database. Whether oriented toward textual retrieval or encompassing images, audiovisual materials, and other formats, the construction of historical literature databases is steadily advancing. Their primary value lies in the digitization and searchability of historical sources, significantly enhancing research efficiency. More importantly, they help overcome the limitations of individual researchers working within traditional models, making possible the large-scale collection of source materials long envisioned by historians. To a certain extent, they also help address the current problem of “fragmentation” in historical research, creating favorable conditions for long-duration, holistic, and macro-micro combined historical analyses. 

Research-oriented historical quantitative databases: Also referred to as structured historical databases, these are built on large datasets drawn from extended timeframes. They emphasize the statistical description of human and social behavior over time and the quantitative analysis of interrelationships within the data. Their defining feature is the electronic structuring of vast historical materials in formats compatible with statistical analysis software, enabling rigorous quantitative research. As such, they require a higher level of technical sophistication and play a more direct role in advancing the quantification, precision, and scientific rigor of historical inquiry. At present, basic literature databases enjoy broader application, wider accessibility, and greater popularity. Research-oriented databases, while having already yielded some impressive results, still require more active engagement from historians. Continued development and expansion are essential for generating large-scale academic outputs and, crucially, for producing landmark scholarly achievements. 

For these reasons, both categories—basic and research-oriented—deserve sustained attention and substantial investment of human, financial, and material resources. Only through long-term commitment to their development can a robust and reliable foundation be established for the continued growth of digital history. 

Digital history as methodology 

Digital history has begun to take shape as a methodology, offering broad prospects for application and playing a vital role in advancing innovation in historical research. 

To begin with, it has powerfully driven a modern-day “revolution in historical sources.” The widespread adoption of the internet and large-scale databases, along with the integration of information technologies into historical research, has not only overcome longstanding difficulties in source collection but also fundamentally transformed the methods of gathering and reading historical materials. Historians can now navigate cyberspace and access a wide range of databases using search engines. 

Digital history has also catalyzed a “methodological revolution” within history itself, injecting fresh vitality into the once-stagnant fields of quantitative and statistical history. It has opened the door to long-term, data-driven analysis of historical trends. A notable example is French economist Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century, which draws on a range of 20th-century historical data—national accounts, income, property, and tax records from multiple countries—to explore the evolution of inequality in capitalist societies. Technologies such as large language models further enable advances in comparative history and the adoption of new research techniques, including social network analysis and contextual keyword analysis. 

Digital history also promotes interdisciplinary collaboration, bringing new perspectives and expanding research into previously underexplored domains. These include quantitative approaches in demographic history, disaster history, environmental history, customs history, medical history, and the history of science and technology. 

From a methodological standpoint, digital history is best understood as a complex, multi-layered structure. It encompasses both the fundamental work of “e-archival research” on historical sources and the application of new analytical methods, which have opened up fresh fields of inquiry and raised new questions. This has reinvigorated problem-oriented quantitative and analytical history at a time when these approaches were facing growing challenges. 

Digital history holds limitless potential

As a discipline straddling the humanities and social sciences, history bears both scientific and humanistic characteristics. 

The advent of digital history has first and foremost strengthened the scientific dimension of the discipline, breathing new life into once-declining traditions of scientific and quantitative history. In today’s true era of information explosion, historical materials are increasing at a geometric rate. As some scholars have observed, the accumulation of information has reached a point where it is beginning to spark transformation. The abundance of data offers unprecedented opportunities to move beyond traditional methods of “selecting the best” and “collecting the essence,” enabling more rigorous and comprehensive historical analysis. 

At present, digital history’s greatest strength lies in its methodology. It is not simply a matter of “digital + history” but rather the construction of a digitally rendered, holistic, and panoramic history that retains a distinctly humanistic dimension. 

As a new phenomenon emerging in the era of information technology and artificial intelligence (AI), digital history holds limitless potential. It is evolving from a mere tool or method into a distinct and emerging branch of historical studies. Its integration with big data has revolutionized historical source studies and enhanced quantitative analysis. Its extensive use of multimedia—audio, video, and visual technologies—is increasingly shaping public history and historical education, influencing how the broader public engages with the past. Through the complementary interplay between digital and humanistic elements, a more comprehensive new historical paradigm is taking shape. 

With the rise of generative AI tools such as ChatGPT and DeepSeek, digital history may be poised for yet another transformation. The large-scale collection and analysis of historical data has become nearly effortless. The next priority for historians may lie in leveraging human-machine interaction to spur further innovation—enabling digital history to “think” and “speak.” 

In short, the curtain is slowly rising. In the years ahead, the transformational wave of historical scholarship ushered in by digital history is likely to exert a lasting and far-reaching impact. We must be fully prepared to engage with this unfolding revolution. 

Ma Min is a professor from the Institute of Modern Chinese History at Central China Normal University. 

Edited by ZHAO YUAN