Humanities & Heritage

Jean Suszko is an MA Medieval Studies student at the University of Lincoln. In this post, she discusses the role of digital humanities in transforming Medieval Studies, opening new avenues for research whilst also presenting unique challenges.

Ralph Weir, Senior Lecturer, Lincoln School of Humanities and Heritage

When I first began researching Digital Humanities and its impact on Medieval Studies, I was convinced that its influence could only be positive. The idea of increased accessibility, innovative analytical tools, and the preservation of historical texts through digitisation seemed like an undeniable advancement for the field. However, as I delved deeper into the subject, I began to recognise the complexities and challenges that come with integrating Digital Humanities into a discipline so deeply rooted in the study of physical manuscripts and historical context.

The origins of Digital Humanities can be traced back to 1946, when Roberto Busa embarked on a project to systematically encode the writings of Thomas Aquinas using IBM punch cards, aptly titled Index Thomisticus.¹ His work laid the foundation for the intersection of computing and the Humanities, paving the way for the digital tools and methodologies that now define the field of Digital Humanities.

One of the greatest contributions of Digital Humanities to Medieval Studies is the digitisation of medieval manuscripts. Projects such as the British Library’s Digitised Manuscripts, the Parker Library on the Web, and Gallica (the Bibliothèque nationale de France’s digital library) have made rare and fragile texts accessible to scholars and enthusiasts worldwide.² I have personally benefited from the digitisation of manuscripts. For one of my assessments, I focused on the Bayeux Tapestry, using its digitised version to access high-quality images and analyse its intricate details more closely.³ However, not all manuscripts have been digitised, and institutional priorities often determine which texts are preserved digitally. This creates gaps in accessibility, reinforcing biases toward well-known European manuscripts while neglecting those from underrepresented regions and traditions.⁴

Digitisation offers the promise of long-term preservation, but digital materials are not immune to decay. Unlike parchment, which has lasted centuries, digital formats become obsolete as technology evolves. Issues such as file format incompatibility, server failures, and data loss threaten the longevity of digital archives.⁵ The British Library, for instance, fell victim to a cyber-attack in October 2023, leading to the loss of thousands of manuscripts, with only a small fraction re-digitised.⁶  Moreover, many digital projects are dependent on institutional funding, which can be uncertain. Without sustained financial support, some digital collections risk disappearing altogether.

Furthermore, medieval manuscripts are more than just their texts; they are physical objects with historical significance. The feel of parchment, and seeing in-person marginal notes, ink smudges, and binding structures all provide crucial insights into a manuscript’s history and use.⁷ Throughout my BA and MA at Lincoln, I have been fortunate to handle manuscripts firsthand. From my experience, no digital reproduction can truly compare to the authenticity and tactile richness of a real manuscript. This in turn raises concerns about how medievalists engage with texts in a digital-first world.

Another revolutionary breakthrough in the study of medieval texts is the rise of Artificial Intelligence and machine learning. OCR (Optical Character Recognition) and HTR (Handwritten Text Recognition) software, such as Transkribus, can now decipher medieval handwriting, accelerating the transcription process, even enabling linguistic analysis, stylometry, and visualisation of historical networks.⁸ However, these technologies are not infallible. Medieval scripts vary widely in style, abbreviation, and handwriting, often leading to errors in automated transcription. Scholars must therefore balance the efficiency of digital tools with the scrutiny of traditional palaeography.

One of the challenges of Digital Humanities is the lack of standardisation across platforms. Different institutions use varying metadata structures, formats, and annotation tools, making it difficult to integrate and compare data across projects.⁹ For example, XML-based TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) is widely used for encoding medieval texts, but not all scholars are trained in digital markup languages.¹⁰ The digital divide between those with technical expertise and those without can limit participation in Digital Humanities projects, creating barriers to entry for traditional medievalists.

Undeniably, Digital Humanities has expanded the possibilities for Medieval Studies, enabling greater access, collaboration, and analytical depth. The relationship between Medieval Studies and Digital Humanities is still evolving. However, its challenges cannot be ignored. As medievalists navigating this digital shift, we must advocate for inclusive and diverse digitisation efforts that extend beyond Eurocentric collections, preserve the physicality of manuscripts by balancing digital access with hands-on archival research, ensure long-term sustainability by securing funding and standardising digital archiving practices, and bridge the digital skills gap by incorporating Digital Humanities training into Medieval Studies programmes. While digital tools can never fully replace traditional methods, they can complement and enhance scholarly work when used critically and thoughtfully.

1. Chris Alen Sula and Heather V. Hill, ‘The early history of digital humanities: An analysis of Computers and the Humanities (1966–2004) and Literary and Linguistic Computing (1986–2004)’, Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 34.1 (2019), 190-206 (p. 190). ↩︎
2. Cokie Anderson and David Maxwell, Starting a Digitization Center (Oxford: Chandos Publishing, 2004), introduction. ↩︎
3. Bayeux Museum, ‘Explore the Bayeux Tapestry online tapestry’, Bayeux Museum [online] 2017 https://www.bayeuxmuseum.com/en/the-bayeux-tapestry/discover-the-bayeux-tapestry/explore-online/ [accessed 4 March 2025]. ↩︎
4. Simon Tanner and others, ‘Choices in Digitisation for the Digital Humanities’, in Research Methods for Creating and Curating Data in the Digital Humanities, ed. by Matt Hayler and Gabriele Griffin (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2016), pp. 14-43 (p. 18). ↩︎
5.  Lisa Otty and Tara Thomson, ‘Data Visualisation and the Humanities’, in Research Methods for Creating and Curating Data in the Digital Humanities, ed. by Matt Hayler and Gabriele Griffin (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2016), pp. 113-139 (p. 117). ↩︎
6. British Library, ‘Learning Lessons From the Cyber-Attack’, British Library [online] (8 March 2024) https://www.bl.uk/home/british-library-cyber-incident-review-8-march-2024.pdf [accessed 4 March 2025] p. 4. ↩︎
7. Elaine Treharne, ‘Fleshing Out the Text: The Transcendent Manuscript in the Digital Age’, Postmedieval: A Journal of Medieval Cultural Studies, 4 (2013), 465–478 (p. 475). ↩︎
8. Gila Prebor, ‘From Digitization and Images to Text and Content: Transkribus as a Case Study’, Manuscript Studies, 9.1 (2024), 72-89 (pp. 77-78). ↩︎
9. Laurie Lopatin, ‘Library Digitization Projects, Issues and Guidelines: A Survey of the Literature’, Library Hi Tech, 24.2 (2006) 273-289 (p. 281). ↩︎
10.  Irene van Renswoude, ‘After Digitization, What More?: The Touch and Feel of Virtual Manuscripts’, Quærendo, 54 (2024), 210-225 (p. 212). ↩︎