Paper short abstract:

What do anthropologists and historians do to connect the dots between fragmented sources of information? I argue for speculation as a critical approach in both disciplines, used to fill in the gaps left by elusive documents as much as to engage with our interlocutors’ future-oriented anxieties.

Paper long abstract:

Global history has drawn compelling models for understanding British imperialism and the international sugar trade. However, when analysing ‘the human dramas that make history come alive’ (Andrade 2010: 574), historians frequently lose track of their actors: the paper trails left by an Italian language teacher in 1578 London (Gallagher 2019), a Chinese farmer in 1661 Taiwan (Andrade 2010) or an Esperanto-speaking globetrotter in 1959 Warsaw (Fians 2024) are not as comprehensive as historical records on Adolf Hitler or Abraham Lincoln. How can we address the gaps created by archives that may no longer exist?

In many ways, this challenge is equally pertinent to anthropologists. After all, oftentimes our interlocutors show concern about what will be left of their traditions once their language dies (Kulick 2019), or about what to do regarding their uncertainties in the face of the economic shrinking of their hometown (Ringel 2012). How might we engage with the ways our interlocutors envisage their futures?

Drawing on my own experiences conducting archival research and ethnography, I argue for embracing speculation as a methodological approach that bridges anthropology and history. Through speculating about what is not there anymore/yet, researchers in both fields deal with what is missing. Just as those studying the past speculate to navigate the absences in archival records and paper trails, those studying the present may also speculate to partake of their interlocutors’ anxieties and aspirations.