By digitizing historical artefacts and records, are historians in fact changing the way they are interpreted? Some post-modernists argue that any alteration of the original form of a document results in an alteration of its meaning. Mostly, this refers to the translation of documents from one language to another – the idea is that no translation can be perfect, and thus the true meaning of the document is lost. In essence, the argument presented is that in order to conduct responsible historical research, one must read all documents in their original form. Does this also hold true for changing the format of the documents? Furthermore, could this also be argued for the digitization of three dimensional artefacts?
Are digital representations of materials the same as their original copies, or have they been altered to a degree that changes their meaning? In an age where more and more research is being done online this seems a likely question to ask.
Documents and Records
The digitizing of records provides an ideal reproduction of the words/images/etc written on the page. However, certain profound alterations do occur. The digitization does not present the total ‘wear and tear’ of the document, nor does it indicate how firmly (in the case of hand written documents) the author pressed his/her pen to the page. As discussed in class, digitization does not include the smell of page, which can give indications of the situation the author was living in. The colour of the document would also be altered slightly if scanned. Finally, the only way a reader of a digitized record would know about the paper quality would be if the individual who digitized it offered an explanation of its state. Thus, digitizing removes the sensory context of the document.
To the question of altering the meaning, can it truly be said that digitizing record alters it greatly? In this case it does not. If read in its original language the document still has the same literal meaning as it originally did. I use the term ‘literal meaning’ because the contextual characteristics of the document are removed when reproduced. As previously stated, the reader gains no insight into the time period the document was written in without viewing the record in its original state; many interpretations can be derived from a record based on its physical characteristics. While the research value of the document is decreased, the literal meaning of the record remains unchanged.
Three Dimensional Artefacts
Obviously, these artefacts suffer the greatest alteration when digitized. Digital pictures or video cannot always offer the same depth of field that direct contact can, nor can it offer the same sensory replication needed to properly analyze a three dimensional artefact. The composition of the artefact cannot be identified simply by looking at it nor can one determine how heavy or light the artefact is. Furthermore, when viewing artefacts online, the artefact is usually presented in isolation from the rest of the collection. As mentioned above, the removal of the artefact from its collection can sometimes present the viewer with a narrow view of what the artefact represents. Unless the creator of the digitized copy offers explanations of the artefact, the viewer will be unable to conduct truly insightful research.
Once again the meaning is not altered drastically, or to the point where the overall meaning has been changed. As long as there is adequate background information presented with the digital representation of the artefact, historians would be hard pressed to find an alternate meaning. Nevertheless, there is a minor alteration in what the viewer gains from the digital representation of the artefact.
Conclusion
Ultimately, it is important to view records and artefacts being researched first-hand. While it may be simple to view the item online for quick research, it does not provide the wealth of information that personal contact provides.
