In this post, Jeremy Goh — a PhD student from the University of Warwick — comments on his recent experience of archival work in China.
As Jeremy suggests, access to archives is highly variable, determined, in part, by available technologies but also — and increasingly — in certain nation-states by the nationality of those who seek archival access.
This post follows a recent article by Jeremy in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society which is part of an occasional TRHS series on ‘archive encounters’ by historians worldwide. Other articles in the current series include studies of Uganda and Russia.
Accessing archives, whether physical or digital, is rarely a simple and straightforward process. Last year, I published an article in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society: ‘Digitised sources, materiality and ‘Interim Archives’: archive encounters in Asia and the United Kingdom’.[1]
Drawing on my archival research in Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong SAR, and the UK, I discussed the time-consuming processes involved in accessing certain digitised sources. The article argues for the advantages of using material sources, as digitisation often results in the loss of important detail such as evidence delicate textual imprints. In digital formats, these sources become partial ones with reduced utility for researchers.
In most cases, historians, and particularly early career researchers like me, do not have the privilege of selecting our preferred option. Access conditions, cost, convenience, and time are key considerations shaping our archival and fieldwork trips.
In a deteriorating geopolitical climate, nationality is another important determinant of archival access. This is not unusual as archival collections have long been concealed deliberately by nation-states to foreigners for national security reasons.
In a deteriorating geopolitical climate, nationality is another important determinant of archival access. This is not unusual as archival collections have long been concealed deliberately by nation-states to foreigners for national security reasons. The British government has done so against citizens of newly decolonised states to protect its legacy of empire.[2] More recently, Russia has reclassified its archives as state secrets. In response, foreign researchers have resorted to ‘indirect’ research by accessing Russian records kept in overseas depositories.[3]
Even though I own the world’s most powerful passport, I am not shielded from the burden of nationality when using archives abroad.[4] Nationality and the nation-state have recently featured strongly in my archival research. Here, I focus specifically on China, which I visited in late 2025, after the publication of my TRHS article.
According to Chinese law, archival documents prior to 1949 — the founding of the People’s Republic of China — are required to be made public.[5]
This is definitely not the reality, particularly for foreign visitors. In my case, I was unable to enter the archives in Xiamen, the capital of Fujian province. This was despite having a letter of introduction prepared in advance and institutional backing from a local institution. The reason given was my nationality: I am not a Chinese citizen, even though I am Chinese by ethnicity.
The growing reclusiveness of these depositories indicate that archival research is becoming increasingly nationalised in China, with access based primarily on nationality.
From my informal conversations with colleagues in- and outside China, this is common practice in Chinese cities other than Xiamen. It is easier to gain access as a Chinese citizen with appropriate institutional support. The growing reclusiveness of these depositories indicate that archival research is becoming increasingly nationalised in China, with access based primarily on nationality.
Interface of Shanghai Municipal Archives on Wechat (accessed 9 February 2026)
Fortunately, there are exceptions as I discovered when visiting Shanghai last December. Prior to my visit, I had sought advice from Chinese and other colleagues, with the understanding that access to archives in Shanghai was less restrictive. This proved the case. Indeed, I managed to enter the Shanghai Municipal Archives (SMA) through the conventional method, that is, registration and signing-up on their Wechat account. During my visit, no letters of recommendation were needed to gain entry to the archives.
What’s striking about SMA was the pervasiveness of technology in mediating access and use of their collections. Wechat is used not only for registration but also administrative tasks, including booking visiting timeslots and applying for photocopies. It is relatively convenient to use Wechat as it’s a mega-application — developed by Tencent — used for a range of essential tasks ranging from messaging to banking. As is well known, use of this application also renders our activities visible to the Chinese state; this makes it, among other technologies, a powerful tool of social control and surveillance of Beijing.[6] A
longside this application, face-recognition technology is deployed at the entrance of the Shanghai reading room to identify and verify individuals entering and leaving.
In Shanghai, technology did not remove human presence, which remains instrumental as the visible hand of the Chinese state.
A gold-embossed 12-lettered motto next to the entrance of SMA’s reading room makes the hierarchy clear: ‘Governing archives for the Party, defending History for the Nation, Serving the People’.
On my first day, I was asked to sign, in the presence of an archivist, a physical declaration form containing selected clauses mentioned in China’s Archives Law. Besides signing, I wrote in Chinese that I understood the contents in this form and I would strictly adhere to them.
Along with other users, I was asked to ensure the ‘completeness’ and ‘safety’ of these archives which are prized assets of the Chinese state and society. A gold-embossed 12-lettered motto next to the entrance of SMA’s reading room makes the hierarchy clear: ‘Governing archives for the Party, defending History for the Nation, Serving the People’. Certainly, foreign visitors and researchers belong to neither of these two latter categories.
Motto at the Shanghai Municipal Archives (photograph taken by author)
In short, nationality is becoming increasingly pertinent in accessing archives abroad. Our knowledge and understanding of the past is shaped by the sources we are able to access. This work faces a growing range of impediments: we lack knowledge and first-hand information from within — in my case, China — even as we rely on alternative sources from without. The gap between both is widening, which prevents fuller historical understanding from within and beyond the nation-state.
This has potential implications for historiographical fields such as global history, which seeks to transcend national boundaries when governance of national archives is turning inward. In accessing certain institutional archives, nationality matters more than ever.
References
[1] Jeremy Goh, “Digitised Sources, Materiality and ‘Interim Archives’: Archive Encounters in Asia and the United Kingdom”, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Volume 3 (2025), 363-375. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0080440125000076
[2] Michael Hurst, ‘Hong Kong Colonial Government Migrated Archives at Hanslope Park’, The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History (2025), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/03086534.2025.2561196
[3] Jamie Bryson, ‘Russian History without Russia: Archive Encounters in an Era of Restricted Access’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society (2025), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0080440125100467
[4] The Henley Passport Index, https://www.henleyglobal.com/passport-index/ranking (accessed 9 February 2026)
[5] ‘World Wide Diplomatic Archives Index: China’, Office of the Historian, Government of the United States of America. https://history.state.gov/countries/archives/china (accessed 9 February 2026)
[6] Stephen McDonell, ‘China social media: WeChat and the Surveillance State’, BBC News, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-china-blog-48552907 (accessed 9 February 2026)
About the Author
Jeremy Goh is a PhD candidate in the Department of History, University of Warwick. He works primarily on the financial development of Southeast Asia from social and cultural perspectives, alongside broad interests in archives, capitalism, transnationalism, and Southeast Asia’s past and present.
His research has been published in Asia Pacific Business Review, Business History, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, and Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. More information about his research can be found on www.jeremygoh.net.
‘Archive encounters’ in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society
Jeremy’s article, ‘Digitised sources, materiality and ‘Interim Archives’: archive encounters in Asia and the United Kingdom’, is one in an occasional series in the TRHS in which historians reflect on their experience of archive use and collections in their work.
Other recent articles in the series include: Jamie Bryson’s ‘Russian History without Russia: Archive Encounters in an Era of Restricted Access’ and Sauda Nabukenya’s ‘Rethinking Law through Vernacular Records: Archive Encounters and the Recovery of Native Court Records in Uganda’. Further commentaries on archive encounters are welcome by the journal’s editors.
