A Museum, World War II, and Entangled Politics. A view from Gdańsk

Should state-funded museums focus on the past of one nation, or should they open up their exhibitions to incorporate history of an entire region or even the whole world? Should borders of nation states converge with the borders of a museum’s exhibition? Who is the target audience of a state-funded museum: that state’s citizens or foreign tourists? Or maybe both groups?

These questions probably give headaches to all museum curators – especially in the century of Skype, Ryanair, the EU and electronic visas, when both historical research and museum audiences are increasingly less constrained by borders. These issues became of particular importance to the scholars and staff at the recently opened Museum of the Second World War in Gdańsk, Poland (incidentally, as a middle school student I interned in the very same museum). The staff not only had to tackle issues related to the exhibition, which opened to the public in March 2017, but also found themselves in the middle of a political struggle.

Museum of the Second World War, Gdańsk

On the surface, the conflict was between the liberals, who set up the museum in 2008, and the conservatives, who after an electoral victory in 2015 attempted to change the museum’s leadership and vision. However, the key questions, even if no-one framed them in such terms, were: Can a transnational and global approach to history deepen one’s understanding of the past and the present? And how do historians communicate such a new approach to a non-academic audience?

Up until the 1990s, history was studied almost exclusively from a “national” perspective. Borders of states defined the parameters of scholarship. Even those areas of history that by their nature called for a transnational approach – such as migration, colonialism or national minorities – were approached primarily through the prism of nation-states. Similarly, comparative history focused on phenomena happening in various nation-states, and boundaries were still treated as given.[1] This started to change in the 1990s,[2] when some historians (mainly) in America and Western Europe turned to investigating cross-border relations involving both state actors and non-state individuals (e.g. scientists), groups (e.g. migrants), and organisations (e.g. NGOs). Such an approach has been termed “transnational history” (although the concept still awaits a precise definition).[3]

Unsurprisingly, this new approach is primarily used to study phenomena which in an obvious way cross borders; these include trade, migration, or transfers of ideas and scholarship.[4] It is worthy of note that transnational history, a novel approach in itself, can be more easily applied to (relatively) new areas of historical research – such as those listed above – than to well-established fields – such as political history – which still tend to be analysed from a national perspective.[5]

In Poland, a transnational approach to history is an even greater novelty than in the West. As part of the undergraduate research assistantship programme I looked into the current status of transnational history in Polish academia and discovered that this approach appeared in Polish journals and research projects only recently: it was “imported” from the West. My survey of articles published in the past five years in major Polish historical journals [6] shows that works which mention transnational history or utilising a transnational approach are, with a few notable exceptions, authored by either foreign scholars publishing in Poland or Polish scholars educated and / or working abroad.

The latter are mostly younger scholars, such as Kornelia Kończal and Lidia Jurek (both educated as PhD candidates at EUI in Florence, an institute which has strong ties to the ITSH at St Andrews). Just like in “Western” academia, a transnational approach (even though not always labelled as such) tends to be more acceptable when applied to newer areas of historical research, such as environmental history,[7] than when used by political or military historians. Interestingly, the first written mention of transnational history that I managed to find is not in an academic journal, but on the popular Polish news and blogging website onet.pl. In the 2009 article ‘National history in a supranational perspective’ Marcin Kula, a historian based in Warsaw, shows how one’s understanding of Polish history can be expanded through studying it in a comparative and transnational perspective. Interestingly, Kula mentions that this is precisely what the general public will be able to learn in the (then-under-construction) Museum of the Second World War.[8]

This brings me back to the much debated Museum. When Kula published his article, a liberal government was sponsoring a museum that strove to present a comparative and transnational interpretation of the war to the broader public, from both Poland and abroad. After a change of government in 2015, a shift in the museum’s strategy was supposed to follow. This is because history, patriotism and identity in Poland are very strongly tied to one another. As a result, history is of considerable importance to people, both in their political choices and private lives. National history’s natural allies are the conservatives, who subscribe to a “national” (Polish) identity.

Transnational history, in contrast, tends to find supporters among liberals who generally identify not only with the Polish nation, but also with the broader European or world community, forging a “transnational” identity which crosses borders of nation states. This is not to simplify the Polish political stage to “conservatives” and “liberals” – every politician and every voter has his or her own perspective on politics, history and identity. I also do not believe the struggle between Poland’s two main political parties can be brought down to their support of or opposition towards “transnational” history (even though historians are, admittedly, overrepresented in Polish parliament). However, it is one of the factors worth remembering when analysing the “politics of history” in Central and Eastern Europe.

Should the Museum of Second World War in Gdańsk be “national” or “transnational”? Opinions on this matter vastly differ. It is worthy of note, however, that for legal reasons the new conservative government did not manage to introduce changes to the exhibition. Since the Museum – perhaps the first “transnational” museum in Poland – opened its doors in March 2017, the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. Surprisingly this includes the enthusiasm of some conservatives, such as senator Anna Maria Anders, which may be interpreted as a hint that the exhibition will not change much in the foreseeable future.[9] Does the museum’s “transnational” approach work? Well, see for yourselves: Gdańsk is easily accessible by plane, and the entrance fee is approx. 5 pounds. I’m going there this Saturday.

by Tadek Wojtych, University of St Andrews

tadek.wojtych@gmail.com

 

[1] Ian Tyrrell, What is transnational history?, January 2007, <https://iantyrrell.wordpress.com/what-is-transnational-history/> [2 March 2017].

[2] Klaus Kiran Patel, Transnational History, 3 March 2010, <http://ieg-ego.eu/en/threads/theories-and-methods/transnational-history> [13 May 2017], par. 2.

[3] Ibid., par. 4.

[4] Davide Rodogno, Struck, Bernhard and Vogel, Jakob, ‘Introduction’ in Davide Rodogno, Bernhard Struck and Jakob Vogel (eds), Shaping the Transnational Sphere: Experts, Networks and Issues from the 1840s to the 1930s (New York and Oxford, 2015), p. 5.

[5] Patel, Transnational History, par. 2.

[6] I surveyed Acta Poloniae Historica (2012-2016), Kwartalnik Historyczny (2010-2014), Klio Polska (2012-2016) and Przegląd Nauk Historycznych (2011-2016). I also looked at Biuletyn Historii Pogranicza (2008-2013) because of its focus on borderlands.

[7] Edmund Kizik, ‘Review of Kommunikation der Pest. Seestädte des Ostseeraums und die Bedrohung durch die Seuche 1708–1713 by Carl Christian Wahrmann‘, Acta Poloniae Historica 107 (2013), pp. 225-31.

[8] Marcin Kula, Historia narodowa w ponadnarodowej perspektywie, 5 October 2009, <http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/kiosk/historia-narodowa-w-ponadnarodowej-perspektywie/9l5hl> [2 March 2017].

[9] ‘Córka gen. Andersa o Muzeum II Wojny Światowej: „Fascynujące, świetnie zrobione”’, wyborcza.pl, 23 April 2017 <https://goo.gl/QdyUGz> [17 May 2017].

Reflections: Beyond Thriller in Spatial History

The ‘spatial turn’ has come to history in waves, and since the term carries multiple meanings, it has sent historians off in a number of directions with a new, or renewed appreciation for space. With some exceptions, the theoretical engagement has still been relatively limited – or at least relatively recent, when compared to fields such as anthropology, art history, sociology, literary studies, urban studies, and most of all geography. A student in the UK or the United States may well complete their undergraduate degree in history with only the opportunity to explicitly think about space in the abstract through the reading of Edward Said’s Orientalism, and since the work doesn’t not frame itself in such blunt or limited terms, this reading may not come to mind as one way to approach spatial history. Beyond this, for theoretical inspiration, we turn to Henri Lefebvre with ready enthusiasm (or else direct that enthusiasm to the few secondary works that can help explain him to us), dive into our notes on Foucault, and revisit our favourite forty pages of Michel de Certeau’s The Practice of Everyday Life.

I have not found it particularly unusual to encounter spatially interested historical scholarship exclusively embracing the terms, assumptions, and frameworks of theoretical scholarship published before the début of Michael Jackson’s album “Thriller” nearly thirty five years ago. I am reminded of a historian who excitedly introduced, at great length, the apparently innovative idea of a “public sphere” explored by one Jürgen Habermas, and applied it mechanically to the development of late Meiji period discursive space in Japan. One complaint I heard afterwards showed exasperation for any such use of “theory” in a “history” talk, but a horrified sociologist sitting next to me looked like she had dropped in on a telecommunications conference to find a key speaker demonstrating the use of the telegraphic Baudot code in the encoding of email messages. For the speaker, the term “public sphere” and one proposed way to theorize it some fifty years ago was embraced as a hammer of solid unrusted metal, with the source material a nail. Wack! And the work is done.

The tragedy here is not the embarrassment at discovering that we are wearing clothes that are out of fashion. In one way, it is closer to the opposite, it is the desperate grasp for an approach ready-at-hand itself that is a little sad to witness – the reach for something shiny protruding from the toolbox and immediately, uncritically, putting it to work. It is completely understandable, of course. As historians, many of us are often deep in our own source material or a gripping project of the moment, and can barely follow developments in our increasingly specialized fields, let alone find the time to take a crack at a rich and varied literature on the theoretical issues that hang like shadows over the fundamental assumptions, categories, and arguments in our work. The temptation then is to find a big name, a well-cited text, a tuple of concepts, a juicy frame – and then never look back. What is lost are the gains from making even some limited effort to explore classic theoretical questions in the context of a broader conversation, in a comparison with several voices from a time, or the development or rejection of particular approaches by other thinkers in the years thereafter – not only in the field they originated in, whether geography, philosophy, anthropology etc., but as they crossed disciplinary boundaries. In other words, to take theory seriously.

Unless you embrace a positivist history that peers transparently at the past, undisturbed by any distracting epistemological doubt, failure to take theory seriously comes at the cost of unexamined assumptions and lost opportunities to put our own scholarship into conversation across disciplinary boundaries. Limiting ourselves to spatial history, for example, if asked questions with such interdisciplinary interest as, “What is space?” “In what ways is it abstract or concrete?” “To what extent is it something experienced and/or the product of representation?” “What forms does it take?” “How does it come to be?” “What is its relationship to time?” “What is its relationship to culture? To gender? To economic structures? To the domestic and intimate? To politics and power?” “Why does it matter?” “What is place? What is its relationship to space?” we may have thought at some greater length about one or several of these questions as they pertain to our own problems of interest. We may know what a single favourite classic text had to say about this. We are likely to have come across historical work that engages with it in a deeply empirical way. But I believe that we often undervalue the time spent on the hard work of wrestling with not one or two towering classics in order to deploy them, but tracing the echoes of these often theoretically heavy works forward to consider the critiques and development of these ideas in the years beyond – especially the long afterlives of pre-Thriller classics. In other words, rather than just reaching for a knife and returning to our work, step into the kitchen and spend a little more time with the cooks of multiple shifts. Appreciate and refuse to be overwhelmed at the multiplicity of approaches, and feel no need to return to your work married to any one final answer.

In a few upcoming posts here in the coming months, I want to occasionally practice what I preach and share one historian’s reading of some of the broader literature on space. With a few initial exceptions, I want include works beyond the 1970s, “beyond Thriller” and the 1980s, and reflect on some the critiques of earlier work that we can find there. I’ll begin this summer, with a few postings on the pre-Thriller works of the “humanistic geographer” Yi-Fu Tuan, and the Japanese ethnographer Kon Wajirō.

Student Reflections: Skills in Transnational History Module

This guest posting is by Katherine Bellamy, who completed the MLitt in Transnational, Global and Spatial History in 2016 with the dissertation “Ninnimissinouk Networks: The Endurance of Identity in a Transnational Context.” Katherine showed particular aptitude and a well-rewarded curiosity in the skills component of the programme, and made use of geographic analysis, network visualisations, and also impressively mastered some particularly challenging ‘regular expression’ high wizardry to extract and clean data from historical databases. We have invited her to share her experiences.

Katherine

The Skills in Transnational History module proved to be a valuable opportunity for me to explore my interests in the digital humanities, in a way which complemented the broader themes of transnational history. We explored numerous avenues open to historians wishing to pursue digital methods, including the use of GIS (Geographic Information Systems) software as a tool for analysing historic and geographic data. Having previously used GIS myself, though in a purely geographical context, the opportunity to use this tool in a historical context was of particular interest to me. My first project for this module aimed to present John Murra’s theory of the ‘vertical archipelago’ in the Andes with a GIS map. I had initially planned to utilise both climatic and agricultural data from Alexander Humboldt and Aimé Bonpland’s 1805 map, Géographie des Plantes Equinoxales, but ultimately chose to omit the agricultural data as there was no clear way to show the significant variations across different altitudinal ranges. This meant I was unable to clearly demonstrate Murra’s link between the varying agricultural production zones, ecological zones, and settlements as I had first hoped. The first of my final maps depicted the average temperature and population figures within key intendancies, aiming to demonstrate any correlation between population size and environmental circumstance (though the result suggested large population sizes could be sustained at both ends of the spectrum); the second map depicted the altitude of the cities associated with the intendancies of the previous map, alongside the varied vegetation zones within the Andes.

 

These maps drew on various sources, including the aforementioned 1805 Géographie (providing temperature data); an 1875 map of South America authored by Louis Stanislas D’Arcy Delarochette (from which I identified the intendancies/cities depicted on the maps); and an 1822 map of Peru which I georeferenced in order to establish accurate contemporary boundaries.

Whilst the georeference was not entirely precise, it allowed me to create an additional polygon within the GIS software to represent the area of the Arequipa region which previously extended beyond current boundaries. Neither map is by any means perfect, both as a result of inherent issues with map creation (all maps lie!), as well as the broader problems associated with utilising largely qualitative historic data in a quantitative setting. The lack of detailed, accurate quantitative data created difficulties throughout the process of creating these maps.

Good data is of the utmost importance when pursuing these research methods. For the second assignment, which focused on the application of other key skills learnt in the module – namely the creation of relational databases and/or social network analysis – I was able to utilise data which was more appropriate. The source of my basic dataset was a list of 2,855 employees of the Hudson Bay Company (roughly ranging from the mid-eighteenth to mid-twentieth centuries), which included employee names, dates of birth, dates of death, and dates active with the HBC. This relatively rich dataset offered the potential for a substantial database, and even some network analysis. However, the amount of information available for each employee varied significantly, nor was the ordering consistent. As such, I utilised regular expressions in order to limit my selection to only those employees who had complete date ranges, and then further narrowed my selection to include only those active between 1821 (when the North West Company and HBC merged) and 1860. I was left with a list of 211 employees, and pdfs corresponding to each employee with further biographical details and their various postings with the HBC. Inputting all this data into a LibreOffice database, I created a form linking the basic biographical information (obtained from using regular expressions) to the more detailed position information (from the pdfs). On a larger scale, a digital humanities approach could yield valuable results, through the creation of a searchable database, displaying biographical information alongside each individual’s career history with the HBC. I had personally hoped to create some form of social network graph utilising this data, but was unable to do so due to time constraints and the nature of the data. Instead, I used the data to create a series of QGIS maps which depicted key HBC post locations, and how frequently these posts were mentioned over the course of the nineteenth century.

Whilst I was faced with obstacles which often prevented me from achieving what I had initially planned to show, the process of dealing with these challenges in this course proved immensely useful for me. Not only did it demonstrate the challenges faced more broadly by historians wishing to adopt digital humanities methods, it also improved my knowledge and understanding of these tools, and, critically, the best way to utilise them. The digital humanities have been viewed with a certain degree of scepticism, yet it is important to recognise that, when applied correctly, the results of adopting these tools can be extremely rewarding. Ongoing projects such as Stanford University’s Spatial History Project, and the University of St Andrews’ own Digital Humanities Network, continue to demonstrate the value of adopting this interdisciplinary approach, utilising innovative methods to yield results which enrich historical enquiry.

Map Sources

– Alexander Humboldt and Aimé Bonpland, ‘Géographie des Plantes Equinoxiales(1805, Langlois)
– Louis Stanislas D’Arcy Delarochette, ‘Map of South America’, (1875, James Wyld)
– C. Carey and I. Lea, ‘Map of Peru’ (1822, H. C. Carey and I. Lea)

Student Reflections: Antonino Scalia

Antonino Scalia, who joined us from Sicily, completed the MLitt in Transnational, Global and Spatial History in 2016. His coursework included a study of the impact and reception of the Greek Colonels coup in Italian culture and research on the manifestation of Palestinian causes in Italian theatre. In the skills module, he developed maps that visualised the distribution of political violence in Italy, 1969-1982, and developed a historical database of 588 Italian left-wing prisoners in order explore connections between across a range of attributes. He completed the degree with a masters dissertation entitled, “Encounters across borders. Left-wing Italian and Greek activists (1967-1974)”

My experience as a former student in the MLitt in Transnational, Global and Spatial History has been highly positive because of the welcoming environment, the stimulating style of teaching (and learning) and the fitting training it provided to meet the challenges of 21st History writing.

To start with human relations, in my view the friendly course’s staff attitude towards students was both able to mitigate stress from academic work and boost the quality of scientific output. In fact, being treated on an informal and equal basis worked for me as a strong incentive and help to overcome initial anxieties, insecurities and obstacles that derived from being accustomed to a totally different educational system. Moreover, the Master’s experience proven to me just how much the quality of research also depends on the quality of dialogue with other scholars. Therefore, a welcoming environment such as the one that is found at the School of History in St Katharine’s Lodge was also conducive to raising the level of one’s scholarly performance.

A second major strength of the Mlitt, which is solidly grounded on its friendly atmosphere, is its style of teaching, which is based on discussion and collaboration as an approach for progressing in historical research. Classes, seminars, writing workshops and “surgery hours” have been fruitful moments of debate with lecturers and other students. It resulted very often in the development of new ideas or the refinement of old ones. The countless chances for dialogue offered by the programme – even in form of one-to-one conversations – profoundly contributed to my intellectual progress.

Antonino (Antonio)

Finally, the formula could not have been completed if the relaxed, fertile atmosphere and the attention to dialogue had not been combined with a serious training. This included, amongst others, an emphasis on theoretical approaches to history, the teaching of cutting-edge methodologies and the study of a very large set of subjects. Particularly, the considerable importance given to theoretical issues made me fully aware that historical writing must first and foremost include a strong reflexive component. Also, research about the past is a practical undertaking and the introduction to innovative methods such as the ones connected with digital humanities (maps and databases) kept me and my colleagues in pace with the on-going, rapid transformations that the discipline is experiencing.  Finally the multiple geographical and thematic areas covered by the Mlitt’s lecturers are important tools for becoming global and/or transnational historians in the full sense of these words. Indeed, I think that  these approaches require intellectual curiosity and the will to find inspirations in realms which are (even if only apparently) far away from one’s own interests.

After this year in the MLitt, I am persuaded that the combination of each of the abovementioned elements has positively influenced my evolution as a scholar. As a result, I would highly recommend the master program to anyone who, like me, intends to pursue a career in historical research.

Botany and Empires across the Oceans

As part of our Research Seminar series Dr Sarah Easterby-Smith (St Andrews) will be speaking on: “Gathering green gold. Botany and the French Empire in the eighteenth-century Indian Ocean”

Time and Venue: Monday 3 April 2017, 4.30pm, room 1.10, St Katharine’s Lodge, School of History

Abstract: Botany is a brilliant subject for global history. Enlightenment botanists were

Hand coloured plate from Johann S Kerner’s eighteenth-century book ‘Beschreibung und Abbildung der Bäume und Gestrauche’.

fixated on transferring information and objects across large distances and they forged connections with a wide array of practitioners in order to do so. Plants, too, were considered central to economic development, and botanical collectors were often commissioned to work on schemes intended to further imperial aspirations. This paper discusses two aspects of eighteenth-century botanical collecting. Firstly, it assesses the activities of French botanical collectors in the Indian Ocean, examining their work in relation to that of other imperial powers. Secondly, the paper considers the examples discussed above from a historiographical perspective, to question what (if anything) microhistorical studies can offer more broadly to global history.

 

Symphonic war entanglements

The ITSH warmly welcomes a new PhD researcher: Percy Leung. Percy started his PhD project on “Symphonic Beneficence. The Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra and the London Symphony Orchestra during the First World War” in January 2017, under the supervision of Professor Frank Müller. Percy is originally from Hong Kong, he has received a BA in Combined Honours in Arts (History, Music, Politics & International Relations) from Durham University and a M.Phil. in Music Studies from the University of Cambridge.

Percy Leung

Here is what Percy says about his project:

“I am deeply passionate about the relationship between music and politics. My undergraduate dissertation explores the contradictions and paradoxes of the Nazis’ cultural policies, whereas my masters’ dissertation is essentially a comparative analysis on the Soviet Union’s and the United States’ cultural policies on music in post-war occupied Germany between 1945 and 1947. It focuses on these two Cold War superpowers’ efforts in reconstructing the German musical life after the collapse of the Third Reich, as well as on their Denazification policies on German musicians.” Read more on his project here.

Japan and World History

The School of History and the ITSH are proud to host Professor Carol Gluck (Columbia University) as part of our Modern History Research Seminar Series. Professor Gluck will be speaking on “Modernity in Common. Japan and World History”. 

This lecture is based on the dual assumption that just as one cannot tell the modern history of any society in isolation from the world, the history of the modern world can in fact be grasped from the vantage point of any place on the globe. In this instance, the place is Japan. One of a “globeful of modernities” Japan shares commonalities and connections with other modern societies. At the same time it offers the opportunity to develop ideas about the “modern” based on empirical evidence different from the European experiences that underlay earlier theories of modernity. Here I examine four questions frequently asked about modern Japanese history, from the nineteenth century until the present, in order to see how they appear when viewed in a global context — in the context of “modernity in common.”

Monday, 20 February 2017, 5pm, Venue: School II (St Salvator Quad)

The event is co-organised with the Japan Society, St Andrews. Following Professor Gluck’s talk, there will be a reception in room 54 (St Salvator, Quad).

5th GRAINES summer school: Sharpen your digital edge & tools

GRAINES Summer School: History and its sources – after the Digital Turn

Call for Applications

The Graduate Interdisciplinary Network for European Studies (GRAINES) is now inviting applications for its upcoming 5th GRAINES Summer School “History and its sources – after the digital turn”. The event will be of particular interest to PhD students who are looking to explore the implications of digital history – qualitative and quantitative – for their own projects.

GRAINES summer school, St Andrews 2015

GRAINES summer school, St Andrews 2015

The programme will provide opportunities to present and discuss research projects which involve source criticism after the digital turn, i.e. digital approaches to collecting sources and the application of digital technology to analyse these. Further topics of discussion will include qualitative or critical approaches examining the relationship between quantification and the digital turn, such as the history of statistics.

There will be four main thematic sessions addressing various fields of digital history, including databases as a tool for collecting and analysing sources; computational text analysis; geographical information systems (GIS); and approaches to quantitative and statistical history. Participants will have the opportunity to discuss the relevance of digital approaches for their own research, and propose topics for discussion groups.

The GRAINES Summer School particularly invites projects in the fields of European History and Global History from the Middle Ages to the present.

When & Where

Tuesday 5 September (6pm) – Friday 8 September (2pm)

Department of History, University of Basel

Applications

The participation fee of € 200 also covers board and accommodation. Please note applications should be submitted by 31 March 2017 via bgsh.geschichte.unibas.ch/registration. In justified cases, applicants can apply to be exempted from the participation fee. The number of participants is limited.

Information

Organised by the Basel Graduate School of History and the GRAINES network. For questions, please contact Dr Roberto Sala, co-ordinator of the Basel Graduate School of History: roberto.sala@unibas.ch

 

Qing China – between walls and the maritime world

Professor Yang-wen Zheng (University of Manchester) 
Wind of the West Ocean [西洋风]: How the Maritime World Shaped Modern China 
ITSH and Modern History Seminar Series
Time and Venue:
Monday, 30 January 2017, room 1.10, School of History, St Andrews (St Katherine’s Lodge, The Scores)
Generations of Chinese scholars have made China’s frontiers synonymous with the Great Wall and presented its civilization as fundamentally land-bound. I have challenged this perspective, demonstrating that China was not a “Walled Kingdom”, certainly not since the Yongjia Disturbance in 311.  China reached out to the maritime world far more actively than historians have acknowledged, while the seas and what came from the seas-from Islam, fragrances and Jesuits to maize, opium and clocks—significantly changed the course of history, and have been of inestimable importance to China since the Ming. 
It is time we integrate the maritime history of China, a subject which has hitherto languished on the periphery of Chinese studies, into the mainstream of current historical narrative. This talk focuses on the Qing dynasty (1644-1911) when China’s maritime trade pattern changed as its imports shifted from luxuries catering to the court and elite, as they had done since the Han-Tang era, to mundane consumer items.  This change began in the latter half of the Ming and became obvious during the Qing.  What led to this change and what can we learn from it?  From what the Chinese wear to what they eat, chew, drink and smoke, from how they live to the ways in which they move themselves, and even to the manner in which they think and re-invent the country, foreign goods, inventions and ideas that came from the maritime world have fundamentally changed Chinese economy, culture, society and even politics. 

Working with Space

Over the past few years the ITSH and the EUI in Florence have been cooperating at different levels. In 2010, St Andrews hosted the workshop “The Individual and the Local in Transnational and Comparative History“, published as a special issue of the International

Working with Space - EUI Dec 2016

Working with Space – EUI Dec 2016

History Review as “Size Matters” in 2011. In December 2016, it was time again to meet – this time at the EUI discussing “Working with Space“. In between a number of PhD researchers have used the ERASMUS postgraduate link between both institutions for individual visits of up to a semester.

The “Working with Space” workshop was led by Pablo Hernández Sau, Martin Vailly and Nazli Songülen (all EUI) and co-convened by Regina Grafe, Stéphane van Damme, Pieter Judson (all EUI) and Bernhard Struck (ITSH). The meeting in the stunning Villa Salviati brought together 12 PhD researches from both institutions and a number of visitors. Set up deliberately as a workshop and discussion forum we explored the many and varied dimension of Spatial History.

The workshop discussed both analytical questions around space and spatial history as an object of enquiry, as a (heuristic) tool, and as the historian’s framework. Individual panels and presenters zoomed into specific fields including travel, economy, and knowledge / science. Around these fields a number of different approaches to space were discussed including mental mapping, networks of actors, epistemic communities, or spaces of opportunities.

Working with Space - EUI, Dec 2016

Working with Space – EUI, Dec 2016

The discussion around the workshop can be followed on Twitter via #workingwithspace.

The St Andrews pre-workshop writing can be found here.

Thank you very much for your kind and very generous hospitality – see you @ITSH.