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.

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.

Talking Transnational History – 4 Questions for…Jordan Girardin

Coming from Sciences Po, Jordan Girardin joined St Andrews in 2012 for an MLitt in

Jordan Girardin - presenting on The Alps and Alpine travel, Sep 2016

Jordan Girardin – presenting on The Alps and Alpine travel, Sep 2016

Modern History (including a good dash of transnational history exposure – since 2015 the ITHS  offers a free-standing postgraduate Master in Transnational History) and went on to stay for a PhD. He has recently, in just under three years, submitted his thesis entitled Travel in the Alps: the construction of a transnational space through digital and mental mapping (1750 – 1830). So, let us ask a few questions – and of course, warm congratulations on this great leap forward.

  • How did your project on the Alps around 1800 evolve and develop?

I started my PhD in 2013 and my main objective back then was to show how the Alps became a transnational space between the 1750s and 1830s. I was convinced that I would find enough sources to state that the Alps went from being a huge obstacle to a very interconnected space. The reality was of course not so clear, and more importantly I realised that the terms I used applied to the twenty-first century but were not always so adequate for the period I studied. It was very hard to argue that local Alpine populations saw themselves as ‘transnational actors’ interacting with different valleys across political borders, even though their action could be described as such. However, I was still fascinated by the creation of a consistent Alpine space across national territories and therefore decided to focus on travellers’ perception of that region. As they were not familiar with the Alps, their interpretation of space certainly was going to be more subjective – even ‘wrong’ or exaggerated at times – and therefore allowed me to focus on mental mapping and representations of space. Travel became the main aspect of my topic in the end and this is something I wish to continue doing in my future research!

  • What are the major trends and arguments of your work?

My thesis is an investigation of how the Alps rose as a clear concept in the minds of European elites from the 1750s to the 1830s. Up until the 1750s, the term ‘alps’

Eighteenth-century view of the Alps

Eighteenth-century view of the Alps

was hardly capitalised and mostly referred to the peaks themselves. The works of the Enlightenment and the growing number of travellers made the Alps more popular and more clearly defined in travel literature. My thesis attempts to break down that process between the facts – travel itineraries changing, scientific and socio-economic networks evolving – and their impact on mental representations of that space, using travel accounts, political discourse, and maps. My final chapter explained how the Alps even became a myth, a mountainous space par excellence. It addresses that not all the Alps were seen as quintessentially Alpine in the eyes of travellers: instead, the north-western region of the Alps (around Lake Geneva) featured all elements that eventually made up the Alpine myth and their reputation then applied on behalf of the entire Alpine space. The end of the period I studied (around the 1830s) sees the end of that transition: at that point, all conditions made it possible for the Alps to become a cultural object clearly defined in public representations, and for tourism to genuinely flourish in the shape of a proper economic market.

  • What did you learn about the practice of transnational and / or spatial history? 

I very much looked forward to apply transnational/spatial theories and practices in my PhD, after having chosen transnational history as my main specialisation at MLitt level. Over these three years I learned how to moderately use these theories and their terminology. Indeed, there is always a risk to over-conceptualise a rather empirical example; my first drafts did so, and at times I ended up losing track of my own narrative. Transnational history is a subtler mix of key concepts and terms (space, networks, hubs, interactions) in order to better serve a concrete example (through everyday life history, small scale analysis, or prosopographical approaches for instance). I believe my topic allowed me to find the right balance; through it I realised that spatial approaches can enhance anyone’s research and open doors to new research perspectives. Over the course of this PhD I spent some time building a database of travellers and trying to render their itineraries through digital mapping: this practice – which I believe is part of spatial and transnational history – also allowed me to find out results that words and concepts simply could not materialise. I am convinced transnational/spatial history still has a lot of potential and I look forward to exploring it even more in my future research.

  • Having finished a PhD thesis in three years, what secret would you share with other PhDs?

It may sound quite paradoxical, but I would say ‘keep busy!’. Having more projects to look forward to will force you to be organised, to structure your day, and to get your PhD work done once you have properly allocated some time for it. My least productive moments happened when my PhD was my only daily task. Once I started teaching, presenting conference papers, taking up small internships or taking part in the life of the School and Institute, I became better at planning my work and getting it done. Leave some free time for yourself, keep healthy, keep moving, and your thesis will become a pleasant part of your daily life. Although life can sometimes get in the way, I would also recommend that you establish early on an approximate date of submission, and try to stick to it. The run-up to submission may be exciting, but do not forget that it is not over until you have actually submitted it: I spent a few weeks believing I was done, but my Word document was sitting comfortably on my hard drive. If you and your supervisor have established that your thesis can be submitted, then do everything to actually submit it: the moment you bring your copies to Registry is the real finish line, and it will feel amazing!

Afterwords of “Thanks”: And lastly, on behalf of the ITSH, we would like to thank the University of St Andrews for generously funding Jordan’s work with a 600th Anniversary PhD Scholarship. We would also like to thank the Fritz Thyssen Foundation and the Forschungszentrum Gotha as well as our GRAINES friends and colleagues in Basel for hosting Jordan for a semester (a bit closer to the Alpine space than St Andrews). Thank you everyone.

 

 

 

Workshop: Spatial History and Its Sources

On 2 September, the Institute for Transnational and Spatial History will hold a workshop on “Spatial History and Its Sources.” You can find out more about the workshop and its schedule here.

The workshop will bring together historians with a selection of sources that can help us explore the new field of Spatial History. Spatial History can be understood in multiple ways: First, there is the historical exploration of physical-geographical realities, including cities, mountains, rivers, and oceans. Second, there is the historical exploration of spaces that are constituted by social relations and human interaction, including traveling, letter writing and any other form of social communication (acts of violence included). Third, there is the historical exploration of spaces that are imagined and discursively constructed, including mental maps and infrastructure plans. Needless to say, of course, that these three modes of historical exploration may all be employed in regard to a given subject: A mountain range, a landscape, or architectural site are as much a physical reality as they are an imagined space. The Alps are a physical reality – one that can be measured and gauged; as a lived and appropriated space, however, they can mean different things to different people: to local dwellers, travelers, painters, or mountaineers. Likewise, a ship is as much a physical space as it is a social space: a microcosm of social norms and codes of conduct, with a specific language attached to it as a vehicle of knowledge and means of communication. Considering these issues through the materials we work with, this workshop is the first step towards a new critical and engaging volume around “Spatial History and Its Sources.”

In Practice: Bernhard Struck

What is transnational history (to me)? The Q Factor OR Transnational History as a Hearing Aid

The following post is part of a series of postings in which our institute members ask themselves “What does transnational and global history mean for me and my research?”. Read the take by Kelsey Jackson Williams, a British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow based at St Andrews. The new post is by Bernhard Struck, currently co-director of the Institute for Transnational & Spatial History. 

Another semester has just come to a close. That makes four years of teaching and co-teaching transnational and global history on our two modules that feed into our general Modern History MLitt / Masters programme at St Andrews: Crossing Borders and Global Histories. End of semester is always a good to moment to step back (breathe, think what have we done and taught, how and why) and start thinking ahead. Next term will see the launch of a new undergraduate module Doing and Practicing Transnational History.

Next academic year, 2015-16, the Institute for Transnational & Spatial History will be launching its new Masters programme (MLitt) in Transnational and Spatial History – an exciting step for us as a team. So, time to breathe. Time to look back and ahead. And as we are at the end of term, my personal spin on the question “What is transnational history? (for me)” goes through the lens of teaching. In a nutshell: teaching – that comes with doing and practicing – transnational history for me is:

  • starting with & from curiosity
  • having exciting and unexpected conversations with a great mix of different people from various corners (and borders) of the world
  • seeing things differently and from different angles and perspectives
  • being pushed outside the comfort zone (including mine)
  • (re)mixing expertise & ignorance
  • being a better listener
  • give & take
  • finding flow & inspiration
  • thinking outside the box

These aspects and certainly others do not come in a particular order, though I have tried to put them in a order as I see them fit and interact. They correlate and reinforce one another. They may be more circular rather than linear or listed and ranked. But the circle has to start somewhere and, to me, transnational history starts with working with great, open-minded people in the first place. In 2011 we started teaching “Crossing Borders. European History in Transnational Perspectives”. Last year, in 2013, we added “Global Histories, Globalisation and its Histories”. Over the years we have taught groups of students that were small in size (which is part of the fun and quality, normally 4-6), but global in scale.

Discussing Spatial History and C. Withers "Placing the Enlightenment", Nov 2014

Discussing Spatial History and C. Withers “Placing the Enlightenment”, Nov 2014

In our little teaching and research village (that is St Andrews) on the east coast of Scotland we had students from the UK (perhaps obvious – but a minority), from the US, Canada, Switzerland, Germany, Poland, France, Austria, Greece doing and practicing transnational history. And I am sure this is incomplete.

In return the modules have been taught by a Scot working on France and colonial Algeria (Stephen Tyre), by a (well) Scott-Kiwi or Kiwi-Scott working on interwar Europe (Conan Fischer), a Brit working on the transfer of seeds and botanist networks (Sarah Easterly-Smith), a Norwegian-Scot-US breed with the (embarrassing – for me as I only know some European) capacity of speaking three Asian languages (and Norwegian, Spanish, English) (that is Konrad Lawson), a German with an interest in border regions and travel (myself), a Pole or should we say a “truly-speaking” Central-European who masters God knows how many languages and works on even more languages (Tomek Kamusella) and a colleague with an Indian and Empire background working on French imperial histories (Akhila Yechury).

With normally two of us in the room we try to teach and discuss aspects such as “comparative and transnational history”, “transnational and global history”, “the question of scales in global history”, “networks and ANTs” (Actor-Network-Theory), “border regions”, “transfers and circulation of knowledge”, the role of “global cities” or the relevance of space in transnational & global history. (Take a look: Handbook Global History 2014)

Back to the students: the national labels used above as shorthand are somewhat misleading. We have had social anthropologists joining in from the Californian-Mexican borderlands. We have had students from, historically speaking, places from the former Habsburg lands that cannot be easily labelled under one national banner. We have had takers from the Bavarian-Austrian border or the French Jura with a view of the Swiss Alps.

What do these people (students and tutors alike), put into a single room once a week, share? What do we have in common? Not much apparently. In particular not if one starts with the national label. The national label and background apart, however, this constantly varying group that comes from different institutions (yes, they matter and we discuss that in the modules as part of the role of institutions, places of science and the circulation of knowledge) shares a lot, despite or rather because of different (national) traditions of doing history.

What these groups share leads back to my list above: taking curiosity as a starting point (not the safe or assumed safer ground of starting from the nation as spatial entity), mixing different expertise, pushing one’s comfort zones – all these contribute to the joy of teaching in such an environment (transnational in itself). These are elements that, to me, tease out the extra edge in teaching history, often simply by bringing in an otherwise unexpected perspective, and feed back into my own research. I would not like to compare teaching transnational & global history to other ways of teaching and practicing histories. There are too many exiting ways of doing it. However, what I have enjoyed over the years teaching these modules and the type of student is that they come with a certain openness and curiosity to step onto new grounds and unexplored territory.

Morenish House, Loch Tay - Transnational Away Weekend, January 2014

Morenish House, Loch Tay – Transnational Away Weekend, January 2014

Students come prepared for methodological discussions and are receptive to the open (and puzzling) questions: Where is transnational history (when history is not set in a – national – container)? How to enter global history – from the global (daunting) or the local? They come prepared to run the extra mile – learning another language. (If I did not miscount: there were six different native languages around the table at the last reading and hiking away weekend.)

This leads to a level of openness, receptiveness and alertness. It brings together different and unexpected fields of expertise. It makes people talk to one another across time and space that otherwise may not sit around the same table. It opens up confessing ignorance. It is easy to listen to an expert in field X. But experts are not always the best listeners – or explainers, for that matter. The transnational mix in class makes for better explainers and speakers. If you do not share too much of the same common ground, expertise, historiographical background, you have to explain more carefully and nuanced. You share more, but take more. This is where the unashamedly selfish researcher inside me comes in: I take a lot of ideas away from our classes as I learn so much from students and colleagues. (Do not worry, I like experts and expertise. Achtung! If you click on this, be aware of unashamed self-advertising and something on experts.)

Perhaps in a nutshell: Doing and teaching transnational & global history feels a bit like the famous Q factor that helps explaining the success of Broadway musicals. The mix makes the music. And I find myself often being a better listener to the transnational or global music in class, when I am ignorant of something others can teach me. To sum up: transnational history for me is a hearing aid. Happy to put it back in next term and start from scratch – and curiosity.

Reflections: Where Is Austerlitz?

213307074_ba92925c22_z This is the first what will be many more substantive posts to come on the research and reflections of institute faculty and postgraduate students on matters related to transnational, global, and spatial history. Our first posting is by Dr. Tomasz Kamusella, our historian of central and east European history.

Who has not heard of the Battle of Austerlitz? In this ‘battle of the three emperors,’ in 1805, Napoleon humbled the Russian Tsar and the Austrian Emperor (who then also headed the still existing Holy Roman Empire). The victory was concluded by the Treaty of Pressburg, signed by France and the Austrian Empire, thus establishing ‘peace and amity’ between the two polities.

But where is Austerlitz or Pressburg?; the latter name also spelled ‘Presbourg’ in French and ‘Preβburg’ in German.

Many of my students and colleagues immediately associate the battle’s name with the Gare d’Austerlitz, or the eponymous railway station in Paris. But they are quick to add that this station, built in 1840, probably was only named after the famous battlefield. Good thinking. More rarely, someone would identify this battle with the Dutch town of Austerlitz, near Zeist in the Province of Utrecht. But going ad fonts quickly yields the information that this Dutch Austerlitz was founded only in 1806 by King Louis Napoleon Bonaparte of Holland, and named so in honor of his brother, Emperor Napoleon’s, victory at Austerlitz. Further settlements bearing the battle’s name you can visit in the US states of New York and Kentucky, founded there in 1818 and 1884, respectively.

The timeline of the Napoleonic Wars, dotted with epic stand-offs, is well known, down to the very positions of the troops in every major battle. Clerks following each army did a good job of recording the events for posterity in praise of the victor and to condemn the defeated. Propaganda and spin-doctoring, dubbed as ‘news,’ have been with us since the beginnings of the modern age.

After a moment of vacillation, a student or colleague tends to propose that Austerlitz must be a town somewhere in Austria, usually forgetting that today’s Austria is a mere tiny corner of the former Austrian Empire that used to extend from Milano (today in Italy) to Lemberg, now Lviv in western Ukraine. A quick check on the map falsifies this hunch in no time. Austerlitz as a town almost never features on maps in historical atlases, because it was and still is too small to be sensibly and legibly included on the political map of Europe.

When you drive across Moravia in the eastern half of the Czech Republic, on the highway D1, about 15 kilometers north of the Moravian capital of Brno (nowadays, the second largest Czech city and the seat of the Czech Supreme Court), you will not fail to notice the gigantic cannon that invites visitors to Slavkov u Brna, near which the Napoleonic battle took place when this town was officially known in German as Austerlitz. Its Slavic (Czech, Moravian) name was Slavkov, but this Slavic form resurfaced in official documents only after 1882, when Moravian (Slavic) became coofficial with German in Austria-Hungary’s Crownland of Moravia.

Rather small even today, with the population of 6,200, nevertheless Slavkov u Brna, as the original Austerlitz, continues to be the largest of all the Austerlitzes in the world.

What then about Pressburg? Following the Sixteenth-century partition of the Kingdom of Hungary, when the Ottomans seized most of this realm, including its historical capital of Buda, the Hungarian capital was moved northward to Pressburg. In Slavic, the city was known as Preszporek or Prešporok, while Hungarian-speakers dubbed it Pozsony. After the founding of Austria-Hungary in 1867, Pressburg was officially renamed Pozsony. It was already a provincial backwater again, because in 1783 the Hungarian capital had been moved back to Buda (that following the 1873 union with Pest became the well-known city of Budapest). Unfortunately, History with the capital ‘H’ caught up with Pozsony / Pressburg / Prešporok in 1919, when the Czech troops overran Upper Hungary, making it into Slovakia within the boundaries of Czechoslovakia. The city was renamed ‘Bratislava,’ and elevated to the status of the Slovak capital. It enjoys this distinction to this day.

What is a moral of this story? Perhaps it is that the researcher of the past should take care to avoid the pitfall of anachronism by remembering well that not only borders change but languages, too. Furthermore, both are less durable than actual towns and geographical features named and renamed in a variety of languages and encircled by the snakes of shifting frontiers.

The story is not over yet. Two years ago, after boarding an airplane at Endinburgh Airport, midair, I was surprised by the pilot’s announcement that the flight was bound for Rock-Law, a city of which I had never heard. I nervously checked my ticket; it said that we should be flying to Wrocław in Poland, not this Rock-Law. But soon it transpired that ‘Rock-Law’ was a free-style anglicization of the pronunciation of the city’s name, because the pilot failed to check up how it is really pronounced. Try saying /vroh-tswah-f/ to the delight of your Polish-speaking friends. They also make an effort not to pronounce Brighton in the Polish way that would result in /brick htohn/.

CC licensed image ‘Stones‘ commemorating the Battle of Austerlitz by Jesse.

Reading Group Meeting

The first meeting of the Transnational & Spatial History reading group will be held on 23 October. The theme for our reading group this year will be Spatial history and we will be looking at a number of texts from history and other disciplines that have helped shape emerging approaches in this area. Each meeting will open with a presentation on a text with a summary of the main arguments, additional comments and discussion questions raised by a second participant, followed by a discussion with all participants.

23 October, 2014
5-6:30pm in St Katharine’s Lodge 1.10

Text:
Moretti, Franco. Atlas of the European Novel, 1800-1900. Verso, 1999.

Presentation: Konrad M. Lawson
Comments and Questions: Bernhard Struck

We will have additional reading group meetings on the following dates:

November 20 – 5-6:30pm St Katharine’s 1.10
February 12 – TBD
March 5 – TBD
April 9 – TBD

Mapping and Visualising Transnational (Hi)Stories

Where is transnational history? What spaces are produced by transnational flows and cross-border connections? Can computer tools and Digital Humanities help us to achieve an Atlas of Transnational History? How to we implement digital tools into our curriculum as well as doing and practicing transnational history?

Tobias Englmeier introducing Three.js Layer

Tobias Englmeier introducing Three.js Layer

These were some of the questions discussed during our Mapping and Visualising Transnational (Hi)Stories workshop, held at St Andrews 8-10 June 2014 in collaboration with the GRAINES network. The material, further questions, maps, tools and key readings can be accessed through transnationalhistory.net/mvth and on twitter via #mvth.

Trying not to fall behind the tech elements

Trying not to fall behind the tech elements

At the Centre for Transnational History we will keep discussing the topic over the coming months. Jordan Girardin will be hosting a workshop on Mapping Flows and Visualising Data, 28 August 2014 and with a panel at the ENIUGH 2014 conference in Paris.

Uta Hinrichs on the Trading Consequences project

Uta Hinrichs on the Trading Consequences project

Spatial history along with technologies and tools to map and visualise will also be a central part of our new MLitt programme on Transnational, Global and Spatial History that we will start teaching in 2015-16. Further information on the programme will be published shortly.

 

Call for Papers: Mapping Flows & Visualising Data in the Era of Digital Humanities

Along with CAPOD and the School of History, the Centre is supporting and hosting a PhD-led workshop on Digital Humanities, taking place on Friday 29 August 2014 in St Andrews.

“Mapping Flows & Digital Visualising Data” will continue the discussions initiated by the event held in June, but will also introduce the new Digital Humanities agenda of St Andrews for 2014-2015. It will articulate academic presentations of DH projects and technical tutorials of how to acquires the necessary technological skills.

Applications are welcome until 19 May 2014 for Humanities projects that could or already do benefit from digital technology. We are also looking for people specialised in computer science, programming, mapping who would be willing to present some aspects of Digital Humanities through short workshops.

Click here to access the Call for Papers

Call for Proposals: Mapping and Visualising Transnational (Hi)Stories. Connecting History, Space and Digital Tools

We are delighted to announce a workshop to be held here at St Andrews in June, 2014. It will combine short presentations on papers,  collaborative writing groups to further develop submitted papers as well as a morning of sessions that introduce specific skills and approaches to spatial history. Please find more details below.

Centre for Transnational History in collaboration with GRAINES
Mapping and Visualising Transnational (Hi)Stories. Connecting History, Space and Digital Tools 

Venue: 8-10 June 2014, School of History, St Andrews
Convenors: Bernhard Struck, Konrad Lawson
Submission date for papers and workshop proposals: 10 January 2014

Download Call for Proposals

Continue reading