The paper makes the argument that what is forgotten in the celebration of big data is history. Big data is presented as if it were disconnected from the past, removed from issues or problems that went before. I argue in this short commentary that the past remains potent for big data and that proponents ignore it at their peril. Rather than being a brand new approach, big data brings a series of problematic assumptions and practices first criticised 40 years ago by opponents of geography’s quantitative revolution. Those assumptions, practices and criticisms are reviewed in the paper.
ChrismanN (2006) Charting the Unknown: How Computer Mapping at Harvard became GIS. Redlands, CA: ESRI Press.
7.
EksteinsM (2008) Drowned in Eeu de Vie. 21st February. London Review of Books30(4): 23–24.
8.
FaulknerW (1994) Requiem for a Nun(first published 1951). New York: Vintage.
9.
HackingI (1990) The Taming of Chance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.
HarveyD (1972) Revolutionary and counter-revolutionary theory in geography and the problem of ghetto formation. Antipode4(2):1–13.
11.
HarveyD (1973) Social Justice and the City. London, UK: Edward Arnold.
12.
HudsonD (1955) University of Washington. The Professional Geographer7(4): 28–29.
13.
JanelleD (2000) William Warntz, 1922–1988. In: ArmstrongPHMartinGJ (eds) Geographers: Biobibliographical StudiesVol. 19. London and New York: Mansell, pp. 102–118.
