I'm mid 30s and I've been working in business/tech always, but lately I've realised my interest and maybe also talent, is in history and antropology, which isn't surprising since I have more than one historian in my family.
I feel like trying to become a career historian now is too late.
On the other hand, I think I could get through the schooling fast because I am mature now, maybe even skip a year or so.
I could probably support myself while doing so.
Anyone studied to become a historian at an older age?
Perhaps someone else with more direct experience can chime in on returning to academia, but there have been a few threads on academia here that touch on the difficulties of the career field more generally-- I might also point you to /r/AskAcademia for questions on the day-to-life of an academic historian.
It depends on how you define "career historian." If you mean a traditional, American tenure-track professorial career--it's not too late because that was never really attainable in the first place. Rather, there are hundreds of applicants vying for every such position, oftentimes dozens of whom are stellar candidates. Although it is very unlikely, it is possible to obtain one of these positions, and although you would be older than many candidates it is not impossible (but for every success story there are hundreds who do not achieve this sort of position; other forums, like /r/Professors, can offer more insight on what to expect should be successfuly land one). Other academic posts include lecturer or adjunct, which is much less competitive but difficult to survive on, as employment is contingent and compensation much lower than you might think. The story changes a bit depending on what country you're in, but the academic market is quite global.
The PhD degree is a research degree where classes compose a relatively small slice of the program, so you would not be able to skip a year--normally you could expect one to two years of coursework, and anywhere from three to ten or more years of research. Anthropology in particular has a long time-to-degree, but in the US the average timeline of a history PhD program is seven to eight years.
Berkeley's website clarifies further that:
Prospective students should be advised it is not uncommon for students to take longer to file than the prescribed normative time [of six or seven years] (and it is very rare to file early).
Admission to PhD programs is competitive, depending on your background, discipline, and program of interest (are you interested in a sociohistorical approach to Western business or tech culture? or Byzantine art?), and full-time PhD students are typically paid between $20,000-35,000 in the United States. For most programs it is not possible to pursue them part-time, though this varies based on country.
In general, it is possible, and I do know of a few folks who have succeeded in returning in their mid-thirties and securing a tenure track position: but it is very, very difficult, and being a historian is probably quite different than what you imagine. Many history PhD graduates end up in business and tech after their seven or eight year long program.
However, I think that this is too narrow a definition of 'historian.' Those graduates in business bring a historical perspective, can volunteer/work at museums, lecture at local high schools, or even post on AskHistorians. I think these people are doing historical work and using the methods of a historian: if it walks like a duck!
I have seen people of many ages going for undergraduate and graduate degrees in history. The academic job market is very bad right now, but if you are willing to cast a wider net for job opportunities (such as public history, teaching at different levels, etc) then there should be no reason not to go for the degree.