Review Article of: C. Breathnach (2026). Absence in the Archives. Elements in Historical Theory and Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 84 pp. For the open access edition: https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/absence-in-the-archives/587846C3687A675DE72B137014C4ACC2#element.
Voor een Nederlandse bewerking zie hier.
Dr G.J. van Bussel
Summary
In Absence in the Archives, Ciara Breathnach distinguishes between archival ‘absence’ and ‘silence’ and connects documentary loss to historical evidence, rights, and redress. This review argues that the distinction is valuable as a practical vocabulary but less convincing as a comprehensive theory. Breathnach’s historical case studies are stronger than the framework that organizes them: different forms of archival loss require different categories and remedies, while non-creation, community archives, organizational power, and digital custodianship remain insufficiently developed.
About the author
Ciara Breathnach is Professor of Irish Gender History at University College Cork, where her work spans Irish socio-economic, gender, cultural and health history. She is Vice Chair of the European COST Action project CA22116, ‘The Great Leap’. She has held fellowships at Harvard (2014), New York University (2022), and at both Cambridge and Oxford (2023/24). She has advised Ireland’s leading cultural institutions, including the Heritage Council, the National Library Board, the National Archives Advisory Council, the Irish Manuscripts Commission and the Dictionary of Irish Biography. She has also collaborated with documentary filmmakers and national archives. 1
The Thesis and Verdict
Breathnach distinguishes between absence and silence as two distinct issues within archival theory. According to Michel-Rolph Trouillot, ‘silence’ refers to the bias inherent in the creation, curation, retrieval, and narration of facts: a source may survive, but in a distorted or partial form. 2 In Breathnach’s usage, ‘absence’ is defined more strictly as a record that existed, was catalogued or recognized, and was subsequently lost, destroyed, or withheld. This distinction matters because, while ‘silence’ can be ‘read against the grain’ to reveal what it conceals, ‘absence’ precludes this possibility entirely: there is no longer a source to interpret. 3 Postcolonial, subaltern, and feminist scholarship often conflate the two. Breathnach argues that they should be distinguished, and that this distinction extends beyond historiography since the loss of records can also impact civil rights claims, citizenship, social welfare entitlements, and transitional justice.
Lees verder















