Digitising archives brings huge benefits—even more so when they are public rather than pri
vate. Files can be duplicated and distributed, reducing the risk that they will be lost en
tirelythrough physical damage such as fire or flooding. Studying digital versions reduces
wear andtear on the originals. Scholars from around the world can easily access records an
dcollaborate with others elsewhere. The International Duhuang Project, for example, hascat
alogued and digitised items such as manuscripts and textiles from the Mogao caves inChina.
But the news that the Ministry of Justice is proposing to scan the 110 million wills ithol
ds and destroy all but a handful of the originals after 25 years has appalled historians.
Theconsultation presents this as a way of providing easier access for genealogists and oth
erresearchers. But that explains the digitisation, not the destruction of the paper copies
. Theministry notes that the change would save around 4.5 a year while, it argues, retaini
ng allthe essential information.Scholars disagree. Physical records can themselves carry i
mportant information - thekind of ink or paper used may be part of the story that historia
ns are uncovering. Errors areoften made in scanning. And digital copies are arguably more
vulnerable to damage thanmaterial items, just in different ways. The cyber-attack on the B
ritish Library in October hasprevented scholars from accessing digitised materials it hold
s: imagine if researchers couldnot return to the originals. Even without bad actors, digit
ised information can easily be lostwithin a few decades. Much will depend on what formats
the Ministry of Justice chooses andwhat safeguards are put in place.The government says th
at it will save the original wills of "famous people for historicrecord", such as those of
Charles Darwin or Diana, Princess of Wales. It is extraordinarilyarrogant to assume that
we know who will matter to our descendants. Mary Seacole, thepioneering nurse who now appe
ars on the national curriculum, was largely forgotten in theUK for almost a century.Some o
f the most compelling historical research of recent years has focused onindividuals who in
their own time were footnotes at best, or overlooked entirely, and hasrequired a painstak
ing search for even scraps of information. As one historian, MelanieBacke-Hansen, notes, t
he wills of ordinary people are arguably more valuable than those ofthe famous because the
re are so few other sources regarding them: "Wills can provideenormous amounts of informat
ion not only for family history, but for public and socialhistory," she adds.The digitisat
ion of old documents is a valuable, even essential measure. But to destroythe paper copies
, once they have been scanned, is - as the historian Sir Richard Evans haswarned - not a m
atter of efficiency, but of vandalism.