In September 2019, the Herder Institute Research Academy (HIRA) held its bi-annual conference, the focus of which was on the use of digital history in East European Studies. The conference aimed to consider digital tools and technologies appropriate to the historical research and to reflect critically on their applicability in the different fields of humanities, including history, art history, social and cultural anthropology.
The organisers’ goal was to provide a forum for discussion on East Central Europe, where digital history would be seen as a bridge, which connected different thematic as well as infrastructural research dimensions. The region, with its variety of different national cultures of knowledge, encourages scholars to question the oppositions of local and global, small and significant, cultural centre and peripheries, developing and developed. The main problem formulated as follows: how to use the methodological implications of Digital History sensibly and skillfully in order to track the global linkages of Eastern Europe in the various research fields e.g. in the studies of cultural exchange, political integration processes, migration and economic connections.
In his welcome word, Director of the Herder Institute PETER HASLINGER (Marburg) poke of the crucial role of Digital Humanities (DH) in East and Central European Studies. His answer to the question, whether or not to study Eastern Europe digitally was affirmative. However, one still needed to decide “how” precisely, Haslinger insisted. The HIRA1 members and conference organizers introduced the idea and the objectives of the conference. KSENIA STANICKA-BRZEZICKA (Marburg) reflected on the challenges of doing the history of Central and Eastern Europe in the digital age. TATSIANA ASTROUSKAYA (Marburg) presented the HIRA and the projects in digital history which launched within its frames. SVETLANA BOLTOVSKA (Marburg) introduced the Herder Institute’s department “Digital Research and Information Infrastructures”, which workes at the intersection of research and technology.2
Among the challenges of the rapid digitalization addressed in the introduction were the aggravation of power hierarchies, and (repeatedly) increasing inequality in access to the digital resources between different countries and institutions. Another challenge to be considered is the risk that digital methods might be misperceived as a way to provide beeter evidence and more precise results.
Panel 1 entitled “Knowledge as a Network, Approaches to Network Visualization” dealt with visualization as one of the dominant methods for data analysis in the data-driven research projects. FLORIAN KRÄUTLI (Berlin) presented a study of the dissemination and transformation of knowledge across Europe based on a corpus of, to date, 359 books related to the seminal medieval text on cosmology: the Tractatus de sphaera by Johannes de Sacrobosco. He discussed the role of visualization at the preparatory stage of data analysis. He also demonstrated how to use visualization throughout a workflow: to model the data, develop models, interrogate the data, evaluate its quality and verify the queries performed on the dataset. JULIAN JAROSCH, ANDREAS KUCZERA and HILKA WAGNER (Mainz) presented the digital edition embracing about 2000 letters exchanged by the Socinians, a trans-national and trans-confessional network of scholars centered in Poland-Lithuania, which functioned as a precursor movement of the Age of Enlightenment. The edition, authors claimed, would make available texts, digital copies of the documents, and a graph-based index. The indexing of the texts in graphs allows to model the intricate connectedness of the agents and the entities presented in the corpus. Furthermore, it will allow mapping the history of ideas, which unfolded in the letters.3 STEFAN TRAJKOVIĆ FILIPOVIĆ (Giessen) applied the Network Analysis to the Receptions of the Annals [Chronicle] of the Priest of Dioclea. His paper explored scholarly publications on the Annals starting from the nineteenth century considering them to be a part of cultural memory construction. Filipović focused on the interconnection between the contributing authors and institutions or, as he called it, the infrastructures of interpretation. The main concern of the paper was methodological; it sought to explain how network analysis could complement the research on cultural memory construction. INGO FRANK (Regensburg) argued that diagrams should be used to communicate research findings as well as to support historical understanding. He referred to the Conflict Early Warning Systems (CEWS) project as an excellent example of mapping conflict histories. The CEWS Explorer, Frank explained, is a web-based visualization tool for synchronistic juxtaposition of divergent conflict histories as seen from the different (conflicting) perspectives and for experimenting with counterfactual conflict trajectories.
Panel 2 dealt with the topic “Imagining the Past: Digital and Visual in History of Central Eastern Europe”. SILVIA and STEFAN BARUTCIEFF (Bucharest and Munich) evaluated the representations of Saint Christopher from eighteenth-nineteenth-century religious iconography in over 1500 Romanian churches. They presented the results of the research as an integrated concept that included such tools as digital maps, tagged image databases, 360° panoramas, dynamic diagrams and content plotted on historical timelines. BETTINA SCHRÖDER-BRONKAMPF (Munich) reported about the IT infrastructure of the GeldKunstNetz project – the Online Edition of the Ledgers of the sixteenth Century Merchant Banker Family Loitz from Szczecin-Gdansk.4 The online-edition consists of the relational database and a transcription tool called Squirrel based on HTLM5. A WordPress-based website was used as a platform to import the transcribed and annotated texts as well as to present the digital edition.
Panel 3 “From Methodology to Techniques: Data Collection and Analysis” comprised two projects, which used methods of ‘Natural Language Processing:’ “Regional business cycles and economic diversity in Germany, 1850-1913” (JOHANNES BRACHT, ERDAL AYAN, Marburg) and “Mapping Artistic Networks in Post-Socialist Biennials” (Erdal Ayan with IVO FURMAN, Instanbul). In the first case, the core methodical challenge was to find machine learning access to the texts. The proposed method required linguistic controlling of the regional and temporal differences of business "dialects". The second project aimed to collect data on biennials which took place in 19 post-socialist Eastern European countries and to use social network analysis to map the relationships of participants based on their educational backgrounds.
The highlight of the conference was the public keynote lecture “Can Digital History Finally Re-Invent Eastern Europe?” by JESSIE LABOV (Budapest). In her lecture, Labov considered the paradoxes that arose when thinking about the “region” understudy and the practices and institutions of digital history. Labov interrogated the question “Is there any way to use the tools of digital curation or computational analysis to present a corrective view, one that might re-narrate or re-define this region? To ‘unsee’ the old polygons and adjectives and layer the region with new ones?” She proposed “modeling together,” as she suggested, the most profitable way for research in the field of DH. In contrast to the languages, ideas, sources, or regulations, models appeared to be easier operable and effectively shareable. They allow broader and more efficient cooperation, which could take place on the various institutional, regional and individual levels, Labov argued.
On the second day, the specific products of digital history in and from different perspectives had been considered. At Panel 4, which focused on the Production of Digital History in and from the Transnational Perspective, SÁNDOR HORVÁTH (Budapest) presented the “Courage”5 project – a platform for the scattered and difficultly accessible collections representing the variety of dissent in Eastern and Central Europe. Horváth explained that the project’s main objective was to mediate the content of diverse collections to the broader public. Simultaneously it dwells extensively on the history of creating and maintaining such collections. An additional question was about the social and political use of the heritage of dissent. “Courage”, Horváth explained, pursues not pure scientific interest, but also educational and mobilizing purposes. Therefore, the coordinators put much effort into accompanying interactive teaching materials, online games, and a comprehensive handbook on cultural opposition. AGNES LABA (Wuppertal) and MATTHIAS BREMM (Wuppertal) spoke about the digital source editions as an instrument for developing an integrated history of Europe. With the conference participants, they shared the experience of working on the project entitled “Societies Under German Occupation – Everyday Life and experiences in World War II.” The project (under construction) should document the experiences and survival strategies of ordinary people under German occupation throughout Europe, compiling diverse and previously unknown sources and making them available for public use.
Panel 5 “Production of Digital History in and from Local Perspective” was represented by TAMÁS SZÉKELY (Marburg), who evaluated the database of Hungarian parliamentarians, created at the Eszterházy Károly University of Eger. Referring to the database, Székely asked how to utilize the technology simultaneously focusing on the social background of the parliamentary representatives and thus combining macro- and micro levels of research. In their presentation, MIROSLAV MICHELA and KAREL ŠIMA (Prague) showed how they collected data related to the Czech and Slovak fanzines and processed it tying together various informal networks, subcultures, and actors.
Panel 6 introduced two digital initiatives, which sought to answer the question “How to Link Different Data?” and dealt with mapping the objects, actors, and activities. TARAS NAZARUK (Lviv) addressed several issues from the “Lviv Interactive” project6 perspective. This public history initiative aims to visualize the history of Lviv in the 19th and 20th centuries. It encourages to explore the multiplicity of narratives and perspectives. Furthermore, as a public history initiative, it contributes to the public discussion on the Lviv’s multiethnic heritage by zooming into regional, local and personal perspectives. ELŻBIETA HERDEN and AGNIESZKA SEIDEL-GRZESIŃSKA (Wrocław) touched upon the issue of electronic processing of heterogeneous research data from the different university faculties while discussing “Leopoldina online.”7 The research data represented different types of objects: physical objects from and outside of the university collections; research results; digitized and born-digital data in the form of text, image or record; concepts (e.g., classifications, thesauri). Also, the structure of the metadata was based on the differing standards (MARC21, Dublin Core, Darwin Core, MIDAS, ISAD, ISDIAH and others).
The closing fishbowl discussion with Tatsiana Astrouskaya, Jessy Labov, Aleksandra Lipińska (Munich), CHRISTIAN LOTZ and ANNA VERONIKA WENDLAND (both Marburg) referred to many questions in one way or another discussed in the Digital Humanities area. Both researchers with greater confidence in computational technologies and those who possess certain skepticism and like to pose ‘inconvenient’ questions took part in the discussion. The questions concerned primarily the possibility of modeling scientific problems in the digital environment as well as translating the abstract concepts into the structured data. Simultaneously, the common denominator of the conversation and the point of reference has been the specificity of the region under study. Of course, the doubts and uncertainties remained, and some questions could not be answered yet. The panellists concluded that the interoperability, international cooperation, and experience in technical studies should be emphasized in the digital history of Eastern and Central Europe. Another thought-provoking observation concerned the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration. For, the panellists agreed, that it is not only the humanities that need technological know-how, but also IT prerequisites the expertise of humanities to support the tasks ultimately intended for, and addressed by, humans.
Conference overview:
Tatsiana Astrouskaya, Svetlana Boltovska, Ksenia Stanicka-Brzezicka (Herder Institute Research Academy, Marburg): Introduction: Digital Age and Challenges of Doing History of Central and Eastern Europe
Panel 1, Part 1 Knowledge as a Network, Approaches to Network Visualization
Florian Kräutli (Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin): Visualising Knowledge Evolution: Models and Methods
Julian Jarosch, Andreas Kuczera, Hilke Wagner (The Academy of Sciences and Literature, Mainz): Modellierung transnationaler Ideengeschichte – die Sozinianischen Briefwechsel
Panel 1, Part 2 Knowledge as a Network, Approaches to Network Visualization
Stefan Trajković Filipović (Justus Liebig University, Giessen): Infrastructures of Interpretation. Network Analysis of the Reception of the Annals of the Priest of Dioclea since the 19th Century
Ingo Frank (Leibniz Institute for East and Southeast European Studies, Regensburg): Mapping Post-Soviet Conflict Histories. Diagrammatic Representation for Historical Understanding and Knowledge Transfer
Panel 2 Imagining the Past: Digital and Visual in History of Central and Eastern Europe
Silvia Barutcieff, Ștefan Barutcieff (University of Bucharest, Bosch Innovation Hub): Transgressing Boundaries, Capturing the Past. Digitally Enhanced Historical Research in Eastern Europe
Bettina Schröder-Bronkampf (Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich): Die Online-Edition der Rechnungsbücher der Stettin-Danziger Kaufmannbankiersfamilie Loitz als Quelle für die Wirtschafts- und Kulturgeschichte in Nord- und Ostmitteleuropa des 16. Jahrhunderts
Panel 3 From Methodology to Techniques: Data Collection and Analysis
Johannes Bracht / Erdal Ayan (Herder Institute for Historical Research on East Central Europe, Marburg): Regional Business Cycles and Economic Diversity in Germany, 1850-1913. A Research Design Combining Methods of ‘Natural Language Processing’ and Time Series Analysis
Ivo Furman / Erdal Ayan (İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi, Istanbul): Mapping Artistic Networks in Post-Socialist Biennials
Keynote
Jessie Labov (Central European University, Budapest): Can Digital History Finally Re-Invent Eastern Europe?
Panel 4 Products of Digital History in and from Transnational Perspective
Sándor Horváth (Institute of History, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest): COURAGE: A Transnational Research on the Collections of Cultural Opposition in Eastern Europe
Agnes Laba / Matthias Bremm (University of Wuppertal): Digital Source Editions as a Tool for Developing an Integrated History of Europe. Data Modelling and the Development of a Digital System for the International Research and Editorial Project “Societies Under German Occupation – Everyday Life and experiences in World War II”
Panel 5 Products of Digital History in and from Local Perspective
Tamás Székely (Herder Institute for Historical Research on East Central Europe, Marburg): How to Utilize Technology in Research of 19th-Century Parliamentarism – A Hungarian Example
Miroslav Michela / Karel Šima (Charles University, Prague): Mapping and Digitalizing the Heritage of Czech and Slovak Subcultures
Panel 6 How to Link Different Data: Mapping the Objects, Actors, and Activities
Taras Nazaruk (Center for Urban History of East Central Europe, Lviv): Lviv Interactive: Digital Mapping of the City and Its History
Elżbieta Herden / Agnieszka Seidel-Grzesińska (University of Wroclaw): Wie kann man die Forschungsdaten einer Universität vernetzen. Eine Fallstudie
Notes:
1 “Herder Institute Research Academy (HIRA)” in Herder-Insitute, https://www.herder-institut.de/en/herder-institute-research-academy.html (19.12.2020).
2https://www.herder-institut.de/abteilungen/digitale-forschungs-und-informationsinfrastrukturen.html (19.02.2020).
3http://www.adwmainz.de/projekte/zwischen-theologie-fruehmoderner-naturwissenschaft-und-politischer-korrespondenz-die-sozinianischen-briefwechsel/informationen.html (20.02.2020).
4https://www.geldkunstnetz.gwi.uni-muenchen.de/ (20.02.2020).
5 “Cultural Opposition – Understanding the Cultural Heritage of Dissent in the Former Socialist Countries” - a Horizon2020 project of the European Commission http://cultural-opposition.eu/ (20.02.2020).
6https://lia.lvivcenter.org/ (20.02.2020).
7https://uni.wroc.pl/projekty-uwr/leopoldina-online/ (20.02.2020).